Now that the dust has settled a bit and I’ve had a chance to think about what happened on Tuesday, I figured I would add my view. I have mixed emotions concerning the election, both pride and frustration. The pride comes from seeing Americans make what I feel really was the right choice. I watched the speeches by both candidates on Tuesday night. Both were eloquent, and both used imagery that suggested a better future for America which is a nice change after these 8 long years. But as I looked at the crowds watching those speeches in person, only one crowd looked like the America that I know and cherish. I’m glad that crowd won. I’ve been thinking about patriotism lately and I realized that I felt patriotic after this victory as I’m one for whom love of country means loving our country so much that we want to challenge injustice when we see it in order to help our country change into the place envisioned by our founding fathers. Unfortunately, in my personal view, others tend to see love of country as a duty to protect traditions and institutions that may no longer fit with our modern world. To each their own, but I felt patriotic after hearing/watching Obama speak.

And then there’s California, Arizona and Florida. All three states voted to ban gay marriage, and to me, this only fuels my belief that when it comes to civil rights (I continue to believe that gay marriage is a civil right), state’s have a poor track record of protecting those rights. I simply don’t think that the majority should be able to decide through referendum whether or not to deny a minority their civil rights. That’s how I read what happened on Tuesday in these states, but I know others will disagree. So be it, that’s why we’re here.

Bill E,
Actually no disagreement here. Both speeches were strong.
The majority has spoken and said NO. That is democracy.
In case you missed my earlier congrats because of the ranting.

Congratulations and I hope that this administration proves me wrong.

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
Thanks for your words earlier. I wondered if you knew it was me. So now that I’ve said my piece about the election, I have had a chance to more fully read your take and I have a few points to raise.

“And thank goodness we live in a country that makes attempts to take care of its own. There are occasional examples of the country falling short… but for the most part we strive to take care of our own.”

This seems to me to be one of the obvious differences between conservatives (generally speaking) and liberals (generally speaking)–arguments over the degree to which our country takes care of its own, and whether or not the examples you refer to are occasional or systemic. I think that Mike hit on some of this in his first post when he talked about social responsibility. Personally, I lean left on this issue–we have come a long way, but we have a hell of a long way to go.

“There is another demographic. Separate from the true needy. That demographic is angry and unfulfilled. They need help too. Life is hard man. They’re owed something and gosh darn it… they want theirs.”

And to me, what they are owed (and what many of them I think are asking for if we were to talk with them) is the chance to work at a job that pays a living wage, affordable preventative healthcare and good schools for their kids. I think if those were more widely available than they are now, we would find the Puritan work ethic that we all cherish so much in full bloom.

“The left have those people who go to Renaissance Fairs, watch 30 Rock and have a discarded DVD of “The Secret” laying next to their Lil’Wayne CD. They’ve got crappy credit too.”

I’m honestly less scared of this group and the damage they can do to what I believe America stands for than the rednecks you reference.

Ultimately of course we don’t know what is going to happen here now that Obama has won. People within our borders are already challenging him on a number of critical issues that he will face once in office, and from overseas, Russia and Afghanistan have already publicly challenged him and his foreign policy. There is a tremendous amount of resentment, both nationally and globally, that has developed under Bush II, and Obama is going to have to navigate that. He is going to have to enact policies that have both immediate, short-term results while also working towards greater long-term security and stability. A daunting task for sure, but here’s where I think his selections of people to surround and advise him is going to be crucial. Only time will tell how this will play out, but I for one am glad that the center has moved a hair back to the left. Now if we could only get it left of center….

Eloquently put Bill.

And while I can see your point on the States record of supporting what you believe to be civil rights, what’s important to me personally is that the people actually get to make those calls.

Right or wrong.

And for the record… I would’ve been completely fine if the decisions in those states went the other way as well. Just as long as the people decide… not the Feds.

California in particular was interesting purely as a case study. It’s a pretty powerful statement that even in THAT state… it’s a hard hurdle for people to get over. Speaking of case studies… in Tennessee we saw the state House & Senate go to Republican control for the first time since the Reconstruction. Still wrapping my head around what THAT means. State politics here have a slightly different dynamic than things on a national level. And that is proof. I bet most people would shallowly stereotype Tennessee as historically being a very Republican-controlled state. Not the case.

Until 2 days ago. Very interesting.

But people on both sides will continue to rally for what they believe… and that in-and-of-itself is a healthy thing.

So is the season over… or is it just beginning!?!?

(hehe!)

Why must a majority of people decide what a minority can decide for themselves? If you really want to let the “people” decide, then don’t make it illegal and let the individuals make their own choice.

I guess that’s the essence of democracy. People vote… that’s how things are decided. Everyone can’t always get what they want. How else would you propose we do it? (not being a smartass Mike… just curious)

I think an even purer essence of democracy is not having to be told something can or can’t be done. Let the individuals decide for themselves. Don’t let even the states tell them they can’t make their own decision. Personal, individual decision is true democracy. Having everyone around you tell you you’re wrong and can’t make a personal decision is not democracy. That’s authoritarianism.

So how would the system work? Are you saying that you’d prefer there be no authority whatsoever? Everyone just exists on the honor system?

Just trying to get a feel for how you see things working.

When the issue is who you spend your life with, it’s not an issue of the honor system. The government has no place to say they can or can’t do this. That is NOT limited government. Allowing gays to marry does not affect you if you’re not gay. If you believe it will blight the values of your community, double up your efforts as a parent if you think that’s the right thing. Conservatives don’t want big government to take away people’s money, only their choice—especially if it’s not THEIR choice.

Mike,
I’ve been down this road here before. I took the Civil Rights/equality angle, but I too am mostly interested in understanding why some Christians (and I’m speaking generally here, not singling anyone out) oppose gay marriage so strongly. To me, it is religion being used to mask intolerance. But that’s just my opinion. As I’ve been trying to say, I don’t think that states should have the right to curtail anybody’s civil rights. My belief is only strengthened, when I read this about the anti-gay marriage campaign leading up to the recent election in California:

“That news came around the same time the pro-amendment forces were running a devastating ad showing a self-satisfied San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom shouting wild-eyed at a rally that same-sex marriage was inevitable “whether you like it or not.” The announcer then said darkly, “It’s no longer about tolerance. Acceptance of gay marriage is now mandatory.” Many fence sitters were turned off by Newsom’s arrogance; blogger Andrew Sullivan attributed mid-October polls against the gay side to the “Newsom effect.”"

Here’s the ad:
http://us.rd.yahoo.com/dailynews/time/us_time/storytext/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia/29778007/SIG=11cfd69m0;_ylt=AqDSB6_jil88O0yhDbMnGoHBF4l4/*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5LNhNto
Here’s the article:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20081106/us_time/whygaymarriagewasdefeatedincalifornia;_ylt=AqyNwWYoIqAIn.BdDHM3W7MazJV4

So, for the states rights people here, yes, the people of California voted, and the majority spoke. But why would I feel comfortable about accepting the will of a majority that has been fed with crap like this? Some will probably argue that the pro-gay marriage side could have, or did, manipulate the story to their own advantage. But until I see an attack ad by that camp against those who want to take away peoples’ civil rights, I am left wondering again about the intolerance that I see behind that ad against Newsom.

Secretly (ok, not that secretly) I think Newsom is exactly right. I just hope people recognize this sooner rather than later. Unfortunately, though, our national history suggests that I have a long time to wait.

Conservatives want government to remain as small and unobtrusive as possible. In all cases. And if government is GIVEN the power… Conservatives would prefer that power come via a vote of the people.

Power exists Mike. You’ll have to accept that at some point.

People of a state voting on an issue (regardless of the issue) is the essence of how things are done.
Can you give me an example of a specific Conservative, living or dead, in the last 20 years – who had a track record of advocating taking away people’s choices. And please be specific. I’d like their name and an example of the specific initiative they championed along with the right they took away.

Because I really want to figure out how you arrived at these conclusions.
.

AND SO IT BEGINS…

http://www.wthr.com/global/story.asp?s=9299280

The king is wearing no clothes.
This is in humor folks … not malicious.
My we are just animals theory is confirmed to me daily.

Enjoy.
Carry On.
T

Gusty,
I agree with your general description of conservatives, and I think you and I have settled this already so I don’t want to beat a dead horse, but,

“People of a state voting on an issue (regardless of the issue) is the essence of how things are done.”

I just can’t agree with you on the “regardless of the issue” bit. I think there are some issues–Civil Rights and basic equality–that should not be put to a vote.

Bill,

Fair enough. But on those issues that you feel should not be put to a vote… where does the authority come from to decide one way or another?

You’re setting a new standard. Anti-gay rights is certainly the broad conservative posture. I’m not here to identify individuals or substantiate your corollary. What if the right to own a dog was put to vote and you lost? What if a referendum passed in your state banning music? You would grudgingly abide? or would you not at all question the place of government to even interfere?

So if that’s so ridiculous, why is it NOT ridiculous to deny civil rights to a group of people you don’t happen to be a part of?

I think a greater majority is needed to keep the smaller majorities in check, vis a vis desegregation/Jim Crow or Roe v Wade. I contend that the majority in the south didn’t know better then, and are still struggling to assimilate.

What are the motives behind denying this to people? If it’s not sheer ignorance or fear of the different, I’d say it’s a lack of faith in one’s ability to make their own decisions. Perhaps fathers, fearing no amount of parenting could prevent the awful possibility of their child growing up different, chose to leap on this chance to inocculate society from another strange option that isn’t Plan A.

Gusty,
The Federal Government would have to step in just as they do in all Civil Rights cases and ensure the protection of those rights. So, in my opinion, it would take a president standing up in front of the Congress and the people of this nation and proposing in as convincing a way as possible a Constitutional Amendment that listed gay marriage as a Civil Right and that protected that right. Then Congress would vote. So yes, there would be voting, but it would be left to our elected representatives who would hopefully be less swayed than the masses by arguments like the ad I linked here. Again, this might be the idealist in me speaking, but I don’t think that scenario is beyond the realm of possibility. I really think this is only a matter of time, so the real question is how long will it take.

Bill, again… fair enough.

But I’m curious as to why you think that elected officials are above being “swayed” any differently than the public is?

Bill E,
I agree it is a matter of time and I am all good with that.
But I would love to see both sides make a concession for it to happen in stead of an eventual one sided dancing in the streets victory… (That is as far as I can be an Idealist.)

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
I definitely don’t think that. I think elected officials can be swayed, especially if they are paying close attention to their constituents. But I think that in cases like this, the precedent set by a president who is willing to take a stand that might be politically unsavory can go a long way in convincing elected officials to ignore the garbage thrown at us the electorate by the media. I’m thinking in particular here of LBJ appropriating and using the “we shall overcome” phrase of the Civil Rights Movement when proposing the Voting Rights Act. That was a powerful moment by a brave leader. I honestly don’t know this for a fact, but I would guess that some who voted for the act might not have if LBJ hadn’t led the way he did. He predicted that the Democrats had just lost the South (he was right), and yet he took a stand for what truly was the right thing to do. I’m gettin’ all teary eyed just writing this….

Tony,
That’s an interesting idea. I personally don’t know how it would work, but then I’m sometimes locked in the past so who knows….

Bill E
LBJ was a great leader and was classy enough to keep his word on issues that were left in his lap that he did not 100% subscribe to.
That is an Ideal that I could get behind…

Carry On.
T

Mike,
You just posted:
“What are the motives behind denying this to people? If it’s not sheer ignorance or fear of the different, I’d say it’s a lack of faith in one’s ability to make their own decisions.?

Earlier you posted:
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.

Read your own words.

Carry On.
T

What will we learn?
I believe America is about to learn the most painful lesson of all – those who do not heed the lessons of history are destined to repeat its failures. The underlying belief system of our president-elect is socialism. He believes that more government is the answer to most, if not all of our problems. And yet, socialism is a failed system – millions of people have suffered and died under its false ideologies.
Thanks to an unethical, agenda-driven media, the most ill-informed electorate of modern political history has allowed emotion, hype and false hope to triumph over logic and rational thought. Obama has some of the most disturbing associations imaginable and yet the mainstream-propaganda-machine has given him a free pass in order to satisfy and avenge their irrational hatred for President Bush. A mere seven years after Islamic radicals brutally murdered 3,000 Americans on U.S. soil, Americans have elected a very questionable man who would not pass a background check if applying to be his own bodyguard. I think Martin Luther King would be appalled at the pass that Americans have given Obama on his character. His race and ethnicity were clearly more important to the majority of voters and this betrays the very principles MLK stood for. It’s truly a sad day in America when charisma and soaring rhetoric trump character and experience. This isn’t to say that African Americans shouldn’t be proud and excited at the historical nature of this election – but the reality is that there is much more at stake here than the apparent advancement of African Americans.
Americans may very well have just signed the death warrant of this great nation by surrendering their faith in a constitutional republic based on capitalism and the free market system. Consequently, they have surrendered their judgement to a far-left, out of touch radical who, along with liberals in Congress, will seek to fundamentally change this country into their warped vision of a socialist America.
I have no doubt that while millions of Americans and people around the world are celebrating this event – there are also millions of Americans who greatly fear for our future. I have no doubt that we’ve made a grave mistake and time will reveal the many ways that Americans will pay for it. Our freedom, liberty and cherished way of life are in grave danger of slipping away. I fear we may have passed the point of no return as evidenced by a majority of Americans voting for someone who has promised to give them everything. A government that can give you everything can also take away everything. History has proven the deadly consequence of such a mentality.
Despite the frustration and disappointment of many of us, we must continue the fight to restore our American heritage of conservative principles. I firmly believe they are the answer to the challenges we face, but it will no doubt be a monumental task convincing those who don’t understand our history and the foundations that have made us the greatest nation on earth. We must have faith and continue fighting for what we believe to be right, good and true. 


I guess so Matt.
But won’t it nice to drop the cowboy diplomacy, get out of the pockets of big oil and secret energy policy meetings, and politicians profiting off the blood of other peoples children sent to war? Saying that you are going to protect America but then diming out one of your own spys for political revenge? A $750 BILLION dollar medicare drug plan that lines the pockets of CEO’s at the biggest baddest drug makers?!
I mean come on! This administration that we are about to get out from is going to be a tough act to follow when it comes to screwing the country.

The real party is coming up on January 20th. You call this a day that this country will regret. Obama makes me nervous but the administration that he’s about to replace has done it’s fair amount of fu*%ing this country too. I’m not trying to say “we deserve a liberal ass kicking to make up for the conservative one we are still dealing with”.

Is there a moderate in the house?

Sorry JGusty. I know that you weren’t intending this forum to be a bitch session about Bush and I’m trying to contain myself. But damn! I KNOW how you feel Matt. It’s EXACTLY how I felt four years ago!

Matt,

I applaud you for making your points in a responsible and non-antagonistic way. It’s through this type of conversation that we can start breaking down some of these stereotypes that frankly got us into this polarizing playing field we ALL find ourselves in.

As conservatives, what needs to be done first & foremost is SHOW people what the core principals are all about. Because there are some pretty fucked-up impressions out there. (to be fair… on BOTH sides)

Something that has been sticking with me all day is John G’s earlier post where he said that the Bush Administration is thought of as a “conservative” administration. Trust me when I tell you that John G is hands-down one of the coolest, most kind and friendly neighbor a guy could ask for. I absolutely love that dude. (no worries Tony… you’ll always be the one for me)

And I give John G TONS of credit for the experience, knowledge and ability to put into words his feelings and share them with those around him.

He’s also got some of the deepest stereotypes and impressions about conservatives so deeply engraved in his being… that it confuses me on one hand, yet inspires me on the other. Because I KNOW that he & I agree on a shit-ton more than we disagree on.

It kills me (as a conservative) that he even for a minute equates much of ANYTHING about conservatism to The Bush Administration. I mean… how many more pillars of a core belief system could an administration go against. I mean I truly TRIED to give the guy the benefit of the doubt on any number of situations. But time & time again that administration just continued to act in that same old eliteist-liberal Washington style that is so incredibly out-of-touch with regular Americans that it’s truly laughable.

NOTHING they did even APPROACHED what conservatives wanted or would do.

Yet we are branded as if we are one in the same.

What we ALL need to do is get control back into the hands of the people.

I’d like to see a day where the same-sex marriage argument is the high point of our worries. One of the reasons why I could seriously care less about that particular issue is because I think it’s a by-product of a much larger worry in my opinion. We’ve got a VERY apathetic, mis-led and propogandized majority as a people. And it’s getting worse as the “entitlement” mentality is continually enabled… much like a drug dealer sets the hook.

Perhaps one day we’ll settle on a system where everyone has what they need and are basically content. But until they build the USS Voyager and we all get those cool stretchy suits and tricorders… we just need to keep talking.

So we can all figure this out in a mutually appropriate way.

Practical application:
The 8-0 Titans are now 4-4. Spreading the wealth is good for everyone, right? The Lions, The Bengals and The Chefs (yes, CHEF’s) might happily agree.We can all be winners and live at Disney World for the rest of our lives with “free” health care and free housing – and if we need more money for liquor and/or our delinquent blockbuster account, we’ll just have more kids! And no more football, either! It’s too competitive.
The mental giants that ascribe to entitlement have confused a tenant of the Constitution with their asinine bastardization of it: “Equal opportunity” does not mean equal results.
And now we hear of a woman whom – within two days after Hussein gets elected – realizes she still has to buy food and pay her mortgage with .. wait for it … her own money? And now she “allegedly” wants to sue Obama for the time she spent volunteering on his behalf. She wants to get PAID for VOLUNTEERING.
And the sour news continues: When’s it ever gonna stop? Survey says: NOT VERY SOON.(Farley)
Focus in, darlin’. I volunteered to vote for McCain, and I volunteered to sign my name on the Selective Service form that was sent to me when I turned 18. I didn’t have to sign it; could have moved to Canada or dodged it like so many other traitors.But, although I am old, I’m locked-in as a potential draftee and I’m fiercely proud of it. I want my number to be called up. (God knows no one operating a poll has ever called me.)
Ba-zing. (Also known as, “Oh Snap” if one hails from the hoody.)
Since I’m one of the little guys that BO would like to have seduced, I want some of that gubment money too.And when I get my check, I’m taking all my Conservative friends out for drinks and food. We’re going to stimulate our belly’s and the bartender’s pocket. And although the axiom says not to do so … we are going to spend it all in one place.

Skeeter,

Thanks for chiming in and Welcome to the party!

I love the Titans/spread-the-wealth analogy. And I sense the light-heartedness it was intended and the general picture you were trying to paint. You are the second person I know that has mentioned the woman-suing-Obama thing. I’d love to see a link to some coverage on that. If you have one… please pass it on.

As for that drink… make mine a vodka/Red Bull!

hell make it two! JGusty thanks for the kind words

I think that a very large part of the problem is when there are a select few people that somehow become the mouthpiece for a VERY large group.

Another HUGE problem is that breaking down the population into two distinct “sides” is ridiculous. I wouldn’t lump you into the same group as Jerry Falwell. But if you’re either conservative or liberal I guess that puts you both in the same “conservative group”??? And I guess that puts me with Jesse Jackson??? Both statements would be ridiculous.

For example, if someone mentioned “Focus on the Family” the words that immediately come to my mind are “intolerance, Bush, holier than thou, hypocrytical”. If someone mentioned ACLU I can imagine that the words that would come to your mind would be “intolerance, welfare state, ridiculous litigation, un-holy”. BOTH of those organizations actually do ALOT of things that are commendable, heart-felt and productive and BOTH do things to purposely antagonize the “other side”.

The broad strokes that these labels paint have even made for some mis-understandings within this forum. I would consider myself more of a liberal then a conservative. Tony came off at the birth of this site as a conservative. But we’ve both found that our broad views are pretty much the same and that we differ on some of the little stuff. But we both jumped to conclusions that go with the labels that we applied to each other which of course led to mis-communication.

Gusty, I agree with you that you and I (and probably most of the population) can find way more common ground then we can differences. I think that the conservative movement has an uphill battle to climb because of the Bush Connection. It may have NOTHING to do with fact. But perception is HUGE!

If I hadn’t started having these discussions with you and Tony I would be one of the people that would link Conservatism = Bush. Right or wrong. Like I said before Karl Rove seems to have fu%*ed us all. He ingeniously USED the conservatives to get his boy in office.

I also believe that Obama may very well do the same exact thing to the left side. If his administration is a disaster then liberals are going to be screwed. Again I saw this election as an EXACT mirror image of the ‘04 election (minus the primaries). Pie in the sky visions of their candidates as if they were some kind of diety instead of seeing either for what they really are. Freakin’ politicians.

Wondering how everyone feels about the Rahm Emanuel choice for Chief of Staff?
Reported as being, forceful and pushy, but forthright with his views and intentions.
He was paid $231,000 for being director of Freddie Mac in 2001.
Votes almost exclusively along party lines.

Carry On.
T

Gusty,
If the Enlightened Academic Hipsters are expected to accept the so-called lame into their fold, then shouldn’t the Punk Rock Conservatives reciprocate and accept the Bush Administration as conservative? Even if conservative in name only, they certainly aren’t liberal in any meaningful sense of the word.

Matt,
Since you brought up history, socialism has not proven to be a failed system, communism has. The two are different. There are plenty of nations today, many of them in Western Europe, that are doing just fine, or as fine as can be expected given the current global financial crisis, that are run by governments and policies that are far more socialist than anything Obama has proposed.

Bill E,
Your post to Matt is my take on history also, I believe capitalism is the best system. But too many people confuse communism and socialism.

As for the Bush Administration…
The optimal word that was used is “Meaningful” … I don’t think that administration was meaningful in either direction.

They were completely self-serving, as conservatives have been accused of here.
I believe that you can be self-serving and fair, which I consider myself, or you can be as the administration, without a bit of awareness.

Keep in mind, I believe everyone one is self-serving, and the honest will admit to that.
(Before I get a barrage of I care, I care, from everyone … what I am saying is… you care because you think it is the right thing to do… self serving…. you GIVE because it makes you feel good to help…self serving… you pontificate here and else where because it makes your view known…. self-serving.)

Carry On.
T

Tony,
I’m with you except that I think when it comes to certain social concerns–e.g. requiring public schools to teach abstinence only if they want federal funding for their sex “ed” classes, requiring foreign nations to support abstinence only if they want U.S. aid dollars for their health programs and the insertion of a conservative social agenda into the field of science in this country–I do think the label conservative has some use in describing the Bush Admin. None of those would have been done by anyone with a liberal social agenda. In terms of economics, though, other than accelerating deregulation, I know most fiscal conservatives would agree with Gusty’s point.

Tony,

I care, I care, I care, I care, I care, I care, I care, I care, I care, I care

I agree. Self-serving and fair can co-exist.

I was actually going to do a little research on Rahm Emanuel for my own self serving purposes this evening anyways. I’ll have to get back to you on what else I know besides the fact that he’s VERY Jewish (wonder if the people accusing Barack of being muslim think about that) along with what you had already sited in your post.

Bill E,
In your post:
“the insertion of a conservative social agenda into the field of science in this country”

Are you speaking of creationism in school…. or bigger issues…
Please educate me.

Carry On.
T

No, creationism is too fringe in my opinion to worry much about. I was thinking more about the Bush appointment to the EPA, whose name escapes me at the moment, for example, who apparently went against the advice of a majority of EPA scientists to argue that decreasing carbon emissions wouldn’t really help global warming (or something to that effect. I don’t have time to do the research right now.) But also, in 2006, Bush appointed as head of the federal office that oversees family planning in this nation a man who argues that abstinence only is the only healthy choice for women, and who draws connections between pre-marital sex and breast cancer.
http://george.loper.org/~george/repchoice/2006/Nov/999.html

In general, it is my understanding that there has been uproar within the scientific community because of what they see as Bush and his cronies inserting politics into what is ideally an objective inquiry. Here’s a site that should have info. about all of this.
http://www.ucsusa.org/

Of course there are times when separating politics from scientific inquiry is difficult, not all projects can be funded after all, but as I understand it, the manipulation of scientific inquiry and discoveries by the Bush Administration has occurred on an unprecedented scale.

Skeeter,
I’ll have a shot or 10 of Jim Beam … be warned I may exhibit various body parts (in public) that some deem offensive… my wife will not be pleased.

Welcome…

Carry On.
T

Comments are moderated now?

Huh, that one got through. I posted a reply to Tony’s inquiry about Bush vs. science, but there is a little message below my post saying that it is awaiting moderation and thanking me for my patience. Weird.

Bill E,
Huh?
Moderated? John say it ain’t so…

When you get the chance … Bill E.
“Social agenda into the field of science in this country”
…wondering what you meant…

Carry On.
T

Tony, I’ll cut and paste from my delayed message. Apologies to all if this ends up posting twice….
I said,
No, creationism is too fringe in my opinion to worry much about. I was thinking more about the Bush appointment to the EPA, whose name escapes me at the moment, for example, who apparently went against the advice of a majority of EPA scientists to argue that decreasing carbon emissions wouldn’t really help global warming (or something to that effect. I don’t have time to do the research right now.) But also, in 2006, Bush appointed as head of the federal office that oversees family planning in this nation a man who argues that abstinence only is the only healthy choice for women, and who draws connections between pre-marital sex and breast cancer.
http://george.loper.org/~george/repchoice/2006/Nov/999.html

In general, it is my understanding that there has been uproar within the scientific community because of what they see as Bush and his cronies inserting politics into what is ideally an objective inquiry. Here’s a site that should have info. about all of this.
http://www.ucsusa.org/

Of course there are times when separating politics from scientific inquiry is difficult, not all projects can be funded after all, but as I understand it, the manipulation of scientific inquiry and discoveries by the Bush Administration has occurred on an unprecedented scale.

I tried cutting, pasting and posting again, but once again I’m being told that the post is awaiting moderation. Maybe it’s because I have hyperlinks to references in it????I’ll stop for now and see what happens….

Since I am finished with my day and seeing Mike’s band tonight. I thought that I would point something out after doing more research on Obama’s states rights views.
Liberals that voted Obama, do you realize that the stance both Gusty and I have are close to the Obama stance.

According to Franklin Graham, who spoke with him about this issue:
Obama … does not support a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. He supports civil unions and believes states should decide their own laws about marriage.

Interesting… I may agree with the Pres-elect on something other than the BCS.
Carry On.
T

Tony,
Yes, I was aware of that. In all of my speechifying about a strong leader who will one day settle this issue, a subtext of my comments about waiting for that day to come was that I don’t think Obama is that leader, not on this issue anyway. Actually, I think a while back I accused Gusty of agreeing with Obama on this….

Bill E,
Must have missed that exchange between you and Gusty.

While I await your post on social agenda/science … strange it won’t paste…

Are you going to bring global warming into it as well … because as an counterpoint I will go with manmade causes vs, natural.
Nature will do what it does… an we just being animals are a natural cause, with my POV, which has been stated ad nauseum …

Carry On.
T

Tony,
I’ll try again without the links, and yes, I’m bringing the environment into it, but only in the sense that a Bush-appointed head of the EPA ignored his own scientists’ findings…
So,
No, creationism is too fringe in my opinion to worry much about. I was thinking more about the Bush appointment to the EPA, whose name escapes me at the moment, for example, who apparently went against the advice of a majority of EPA scientists to argue that decreasing carbon emissions wouldn’t really help global warming (or something to that effect. I don’t have time to do the research right now.) But also, in 2006, Bush appointed as head of the federal office that oversees family planning in this nation a man who argues that abstinence only is the only healthy choice for women, and who draws connections between pre-marital sex and breast cancer.

In general, it is my understanding that there has been uproar within the scientific community because of what they see as Bush and his cronies inserting politics into what is ideally an objective inquiry. Here’s a site that should have info. about all of this.

Of course there are times when separating politics from scientific inquiry is difficult, not all projects can be funded after all, but as I understand it, the manipulation of scientific inquiry and discoveries by the Bush Administration has occurred on an unprecedented scale.

[maybe the links will show up later?]

Bill E,
Thanks… the links will help me get more informed.
Was it only “healthy” way or only SAFE way … ie disease etc?

One of the reasons I make clear my belief that we are animals is issues such as emissions and global warming… you get my angle… we are making the emissions due to our evolution thus making them natural.

Your point is on a different line of thinking which I’ll check into.

Funding … a new issue…. hhhmmm… there is a reason for taxes .. if I get to choose where my research dollars go.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
I believe “healthy” because he also argued that condoms offered virtually no protection against Herpes or HIV.

Bill E,
Wow…
Hey anyone else find it funny that Yahoo now publishes an article on Obama’s states’ rights/civil union stance AFTER the election?

Carry On.
T

Tony,
I guess I didn’t realize that people didn’t already know this since he said it in one of the debates. (Or maybe I’m misremembering. I know he said that he didn’t support gay marriage, but maybe I threw in the part about states’ rights and civil unions because I assumed that would be his position since I couldn’t imagine him saying that he was against samesex couples period.) By the way, I’m writing my lecture for Monday and I’m doing a little research on Sweatt v. Painter (1950). I already knew the basics of the case, but I hadn’t realized that the Texas Constitution at that point actually prohibited integrated education. THIS is exactly why I think the states shouldn’t be involved on issues of equality. To my mind, the victorious amendment campaigns in California, Arizona and Florida are hopefully just a last ditch effort to push and solidify as much as possible a particular conservative agenda that will eventually go down in flames (at least that’s my predication).

that last word should be “prediction”….

Bill E,
I don’t remember states rights, he did say civil unions… I am fairly sure that I would have picked up on states rights,,, but I, like you, post here as I work, (edits require time & effort but little mind power or creativity) so I may have missed that.

As for your view of:
To my mind, the victorious amendment campaigns in California, Arizona and Florida are hopefully just a last ditch effort to push and solidify as much as possible a particular conservative agenda …

I STRONGLY (in Tuesday’s incidents) believe the Liberal Agenda of getting out the poor and uneducated, mostly Catholic hispanic and the black contingency that doesn’t vote ,cut their own throats. Look at the higher minority percentage in those 3 states, all of which are very hispanic and thus Catholic… the black population as whole are less accepting of homosexuality in sub-culture context …
It seems obvious that the large umbrella of liberal collapsed on itself in this particular case. They got their Presidential vote but also got the Non-gay rights voting liberals also.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
I think you are probably right, but we need further studies to be certain. Regardless, the sad truth (sad to me at least) is that gay marriage isn’t yet universally accepted as part of the liberal agenda. That was part of my point when I talked about the 1986 DSM–it’s only been a short period of time that people in this country have even thought about gay rights as an issue.

Bill E,
Can’t wait for this elections stats to come out.
Like I said “Strongly believe” .. not know.
Off to a show tonight and Nash-Vegas in the morning.

Carry On
T

Some points to clear up:
1. I never said that Liberals had to accept the lame. I said they were better at chasing them and marketing to them.

2. I’ve never voiced ANY opinion on Obama. Only on the landscape of which he was elected. So it’s a bit presumptuous Bill, to think that that it would surprise me to find something that I agreed with him on. Again… I’ve never voiced any sort of opinion on the man. Why would it be so odd to think that I might actually agree with him on something? At least give me a chance to weigh in on him before assuming that I’m against him.

3. Bill: Some examples of Socialist countries whose systems you admire would be helpful

4. I’m not aware of any other Punk Rock Conservatives other than myself and the late Johnny Ramone. We are an elite group. (I might let Tony in the club someday… but he’d have to lose the eyeliner)

5. NOTHING here is moderated. I’ll check the back end and see if something got snagged for some reason. It may very well have to do with the email addy you are using, if different from the usual one you used. I had a similar issue when posting from a friends laptop.

Gusty,
That comparison to Obama was a joke, nothing more. I certainly didn’t mean to offend you. As for countries that lean much more socialist than anything Obama has mentioned: Canada, France, England come to mind. And before anyone starts telling me how bad life is in those country, my point in raising that issue was to say that historically speaking socialism hasn’t been proven to be an unworkable system, communism has. I was pointing out a historical inaccuracy in Matt’s comment. On a more fundamental level, I still have yet to see any evidence that Obama is a socialist. I would label his healthcare and tax policies, at least as described in the campaign, as progressive rather than socialist. And progressives aren’t socialists either. Yeah, I don’t know why those posts got blocked, but as soon as I removed the hyperlinks they went through. I’m sure it was just a temporary glitch.

Gusty,
Forgot to respond to your point #1 above.

“1. I never said that Liberals had to accept the lame. I said they were better at chasing them and marketing to them.”

I guess I was confused when you said, “*Note to the enlightened academic hipster: Like it or not … you share an ideology with the not-so-brights and their close cousins the not-so-motivated.” To me, your words sound similar to some of Mike’s comments about greedy conservatives that people here reacted to so strongly, though from the opposite end of the spectrum. I stayed out of that argument, but for what it’s worth, Mike raised some valid issues. Here’s an op-ed from the New York Times that I think reflects some of what Mike was saying, and what I have been saying here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/opinion/07krugman.html?em
Any thoughts on Krugman’s ideas people?

But my basic point in raising your EAH argument was that I don’t think anyone can legitimately deny that the Bush Administration is conservative.

JG: When you call centrists “lame,” do you suggest that people who are judicious or perhaps undecided are “poor, weak, unconvincing and ineffectual” because they’re in the middle? because they aren’t extreme? Also, by your ideological chart, the “lame” (the center) are those with tolerance and respect for Christianity? Are these the lukewarm lame to be spewn from God’s mouth?

Which returns to an unanswered question. What is it about voting Republican or Democrat that the public views as being Christian or anti-Christian? Why do voters believe Republican = Christian? What are the key policies? And I am generalizing, but this is exactly the sense I get from the megachurch crowd my family attends, and it is not far off.

Good thread. A departure from the political – I have a dream of compiling a set of songs labled “Soundtrack to a butt-whooping” (edited for the kids) & Manson’s “Beautiful People” is on it. I like that & a few other Manson songs, as long as I don’t have to see him sing!

Republicans lost in 2006 becaue too many had abandoned the conservative principles of smaller (limited) government & spending restraint. There was no leadership that picked up that mantle for 2008, so nationally Repubicans lost again – though the Democrat led congress has proved feckless, inept, & corrupt. Republicans won in Tennessee, took over the State House & increased in the Senate because the Republicans here have kept the small government/spending restraint “leg of the stool,” to use another analogy. In 2006 especially, Republicans lost the seats that gave Democrats control because Dems ran candidates talking more conservative than the Republicans they beat.

For Republicans to come out of the wilderness, leadership will have to emerge that fixes the stool so it has 3 legs – Strong national security, conservative social policy, & limited government. I’m not sure if Palin is the leader, or Jindal, someone else, or a group of people who will lead this restoration. I’m also not sure if it will happen for 2010 or 2012. There has been talk of Newt Gingrich or Fred Thompson heading the RNC. I love Fred, however he may be a better spokesperson for the Sunday shows. Newt, even if people don’t like him, would be a good pick. He cannot, however, lead the restoration – there will need to be someone like a Palin or Jindal, or perhaps a Blackburn to emerge & be the face of the conservative restoration.

Robin R,
Great points.
If republicans use Palin as a rallying source however they are going to send plenty of non religious conservatives my way… (3rd party) so by all means let her talk.

“Darn shootin! Jesus can” should be her slogan…
Waiting for republicans to be conservative again is becoming a hobby of mine.

Great post!

Carry On.
T
Nice to meet you & your family…John G!
Now I am back in the ATL and I have it all under control, I hope that pizza didn’t clog your arteries.

Nice to meet you as well T. Interesting conversations for sure! The only problem was that the time was way too short.

I would invite non-religious conservatives into a party they actually belong in as well. You and I have discussed the Libertarian Party frequently Tony and I submit that, by yours and JGustys definition of conservative, that’s where they belonged in the first place from a philisophical standpoint.

The problem that they, and any others that see a third party as an option to run on, would first have the enormous task of even ENTERING the playing field without carrying the Republicrat banner.

Here in Tennessee any other party besides the Republicrats aren’t even allowed to be mentioned on the ballot. Bob Barr was listed as an independent along with Cynthia McKinney (Green), Chuck Baldwin (Constitution), Charles Jay (Boston Tea Party), Brian Moore (Socialist Party) and Nader who was the ONLY independent.

The Republicrats have created such an unconstitutionally uneven playing field that the first hurdle to ACTUALLY becoming a player will be the biggest!

John G,
We are in a period of unrest politically. the Dems now have the ball and I hope that they reach across the isle of partisanship and include all in between also. Only time will tell.
According to the dreamers here the Dems are “inclusive” so let’s see if they allow a measure to place more competition on the ballots… hhhmmm…
I can tell you this, no miracle is going to happen, so Indies and 3rd parties need to stay focused on making the public aware of alternate choices.

Carry On.
T

Robin
Interesting ideas. As someone who considers himself left of center, I think you’re onto something. To my mind, if Republicans could come up with a plan for limited government that wasn’t simply a re-working of trickle down economics, then they would be a lot more formidable. I can’t imagine ever supporting the majority of the social views championed by conservatives (and I’m not including you Libertarians here), and I think national security is a bi-partisan issue. But a new, progressive Republicanism that combined limited government and spending in a way that truly helped the poor and the middle class would be a nice change of pace. But that’s just my opinion.

Mike,

When did I call centrists “lame?”

The “lame” I was speaking of wouldn’t even know what the definition of “centrist” means! They are the completely unengaged who only know what they know by drive-by sound-biting.

Bill E ,
this just in,,,, Voting against Gay Marriage in Cali:

70 % Black voters
53 % Hispanic

Now I will state my opinions as FACTS…

The white suburban vote would have allowed gay marriage. Mike?

Carry On.
T

Maybe I misread this line:
“For what it’s worth Mike Duncan, what your party has done wrong (among other things) is insisting upon chasing the lame. The center….”
To suggest people in the center are there because they are lukewarm in their belief or stance.

Tony,
Interesting, and, not to generalize too much, it does make sense. What were the numbers for whites in California? I wonder what the regional breakdowns looks like. Also, do you know the breakdown in Florida?

Race and urban/suburban are two different sets of filters. Do your percentages represent the percent of that race that voted a certain way? So what percent of white people votes for/against the measure?

First of all, race and sexual preference are two separate issues. My contention is that conservatives are homogenous, not liberals.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/politics/cal/la-2008election-california-results,0,1293859.htmlstory
Set available races drop-down to “Proposition 8″

This looks like a marked urban/suburban division. I won’t pretend to know much about the county-by-county politics of California, but it seems most north to central coastal urbanized areas voted against the measure. I assume the southern counties (including Los Angeles County?) are more affluent and conservative, or more sprawling?

Bill E,
I was not able to get the white numbers, but the measure only passed by a few % points so the math says the white vote was the one that made it even close … it was a report on minorities and religion.
I am searching for other breakdowns now…

Carry On.
T

Mike,
Do your percentages represent the percent of that race that voted a certain way?

YES

If you look at the chart on your link it clearly shows everywhere except, San Francisco County and the nearby voted to ban Gay Marriage.
BTW Obama took every southern CA. county with the exception of Orange Co.

You inclusionary liberals voted to be exclusive because of religion. It is just that simple. Argue all that you want.

Carry On.
T

Tony & Mike,
According to this ABC report, it looks like 51% of whites in California voted for prop. 8. Interesting indeed….

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=10601036&ch=4226713&src=news

Bill E,
To clarify… 49% whites voted for prop 8.
Prop 8 was to ban Gay Marriage, thus meaning 51% was for keeping Gay Marriage…

Carry On.
T

I hardly consider the entire swath of oceanfront from Humblodt to Santa Barbara Counties simply “nearby” San Francisco. Again, I don’t understand that difference in demographics between north and south California, but I presume the coast is more settled than the interior (speaking to your suburban issue), so saying “suburban” whites would have voted for gay marriage appears very clearly wrong here. It doesn’t help to make that assertion without having the percentages of whites voting (as you do for blacks and Hispanics).

Also, the physical size of a county means nothing. Looking at the closeness of the vote percentage and the lopsided ratio of orange to green, that simply confirms my opinion that the coast is more settled (urban) than the interior (suburban).

So if Dems are not so inclusive, what are the many different attributes that typify the Republican voting bloc? Break down the great diversity for me.

Again: “What is it about voting Republican or Democrat that the public views as being Christian or anti-Christian? Why do voters believe Republican = Christian?” If Californians, through their religious belief, can reject a referendum on gay marriage, why do they still support the Democrat for president? What are the issues that southern evangelicals believe make Republicans the chosen party of God?

What is it that makes religious Californians more open and judicious to their politics than the masses of religious from Georgia, Tennessee, or Kentucky?

Mike
“I hardly consider the entire swath of oceanfront from Humblodt to Santa Barbara Counties simply “nearby” San Francisco.”

I do, it is a big state.

You posted:
“Also, the physical size of a county means nothing.”

Their size was not brought up their location was.

You Posted:
“So if Dems are not so inclusive, what are the many different attributes that typify the Republican voting bloc? Break down the great diversity for me.”

My point was your blanket statements are of poor judgement. I am not here to defend Repubs… but you are clearly here to espouse your love of Dems. I am NEITHER. Both parties have blacks whites Christian and Jew, Muslim, Atheist and jerks.

You post:
Again: “What is it about voting Republican or Democrat that the public views as being Christian or anti-Christian? Why do voters believe Republican = Christian?” If Californians, through their religious belief, can reject a referendum on gay marriage, why do they still support the Democrat for president? What are the issues that southern evangelicals believe make Republicans the chosen party of God?

Are you reading or just waiting to attack? My point was that the large Democratic voter turn out voted for Obama and against GAY MARRIAGE, so if you want to believe that religion has no role in that , go ahead. You would be wrong however.
Did everyone else get the point that I was making? Please chime in.
Mike you are arguing just to argue. How tedious. Do you not see the difference?

Carry On.
T

Mike… you are making the fundamental mistake of thinking that there is much of a difference in Republicans & Democrats. The significant difference is “team spirit.”

Let me make a simple analogy: The Steelers and the Raiders both have EVANGELICAL fans. Fans who would take it to the streets over what team is more dominant. But they are STILL both football teams in the same sport.

Tony… you beat me to the “religion” part in re: to Gay Marriage and the votes.

The votes played out the way that they did BECAUSE of religion. And in this example, no white Republicans to absorb the fault.

Interesting indeed. But not surprising AT ALL.

Tony,
I could have sworn that the ABC story I linked said that 49% of whites said no to Prop 8….

Okay so if it’s all about team spirit, then what makes the people in Iowa, Missouri, Ohio, and New Hampshire so deliberate? How come these people can be counted on to make a decision, and people in true red or blue states have knee-jerk reactions at the voting booth?

I am not “arguing just to argue;” I am hoping against hope that someone can answer my question. And you did call my name asking for my input.

But since I cannot put anything to pen without antagonizing you, I’ll just plan to take the offensive posture.

:: “My point was your blanket statements are of poor judgement. I am not here to defend Repubs… but you are clearly here to espouse your love of Dems. I am NEITHER.”

I am not a partisan, and I’m not clearly here to espouse my love of Dems. I’m sorry you are unclear or confused. I would love for you to clarify why I should be here and why you keep asking me to stay, because it doesn’t seem to be for the purpose of having my questions answered.

Your original bait is “The white suburban vote would have allowed gay marriage.”

First of all, “white” and “suburban” are two separate things. When you look at the map, with the exception of Los Angeles County and other affluent areas, votes in favor of the proposition come from the urbanized coast; votes against come from the interior.

Size is relevant. You say the places voting against the proposition are “San Francisco County and the nearby,” inferring the huge sections of green greatly outweigh the orange. Population density has everything to do with it though. You know this. Just like the Electoral College.

Conservatives are by nature withheld, private creatures. Therefore, they are clearly the more exclusive brand. You yourself don’t like dealing with people.

Democrats are the party that minorities tend to. In this election, it is clearer than ever that Hispanics, despite McCain’s best hopes, trend blue. Perhaps within these inclusions there are certain issues that people vote against based on religious or other differences, but they still trend blue.

California is the best example of this. It shows that people can vote against a single issue for religious reasons without succumbing to the knee-jerk delusion that a Republican vote is a vote for Jesus. And if you’re reading and not waiting to attack, you may notice I acknowledge religion may have a role in people’s decisions.

So this is all I’ve been trying to get answered. Why do the religious in the SOUTH believe Republican = Christian? Not looking for an argument, but an answer. Why is the religious vote in Georgia, Tennessee, and Kentucky red, when in California it seems to be blue? Apparently religion doesn’t affect their partisan vote out west.

Maybe in the south, it’s just a matter that they believe what their minister tells them? Maybe they’re less ecumenical because they’re less adjusted to different opinions? Maybe there’s less capacity to evaluate things beyond blind faith? I don’t know. Looking for some input.

Tony,
I went back and watched again. ABC reported 70% of blacks voted yes while 49% of whites voted no. Maybe ABC got it wrong?

I definitely agree that religion played a part in the California vote, but I also think it’s too simplistic to point only to religion (and I don’t mean to suggest that anyone here is doing that). In addition to the gay Christians I have referenced before, I believe that there is a general intolerance to samesex marriage in this country, especially in suburban (or rural) areas where it is much easier to surround oneself with people who look and think the same. I don’t know if this is true or not, but I would imagine that for some people who don’t live in cities where they would be more likely to encounter gays and anyone else who is different from them, they might feel safe thinking that their vote to ban gay marriage was the right thing to do. Why go out on a limb to protect the rights of someone who is more or less foreign? And lets not underestimate the power of the media to stir up intolerance and even hate. That commercial I posted earlier about Gov. Newsom was particularly offensive in my opinion. So, yes, I’m sure religion was a part of the equation, but I think this vote revealed a deeper intolerance….

Bill E,
No I got it wrong… my bad.

Mike,
I do not bait.
If you would have asked THAT question clearly on your last post I would have tried to answer it. Which I will in a moment.
Your recent posts do not antagonize me, I think that they are not clear or concise instead they read like you are stating an opinion as a condescending command that is all. I despise the way you post, not your thoughts that I deem quite valuable.

White / Suburban was the way earlier posts from you read so I used that term ….a poor set of words.

OK to give a view of southern voters REPUBS=CHRISTIAN. I see it in reverse, the Christians that VOTE in the south are repubs…. if you have the data on this election more Christians in the south will have voted Obama, these are Blacks, Hispanics and the young that do not vote regularly.
When the stats are available I am pretty sure that it will confirm the same way it did in CA.

As a disclaimer:
Christian is just a self made label for many people.
I think that we are animals and I think that several voted for the 1st time simply for their own kind. I expected that. But when race wasn’t an issue (to the voter) religion became the factor. Simple.

Carry On
T

Bill E,
Trust me they you encounter gay people in the mountains, cities and in between. They are just more guarded.
For the record I am that guy that thinks it that simple.

Mike I am unapologetic about not liking people, I don’t push that way of thinking on anyone else. You constantly railing for community and inclusivity is.

I think the intolerance is traceable directly to religion. But not all people that are religious.

Carry On.
T

Bill E,
I do not know where everyone grew up, but let’s assume unless proven otherwise that I grew up in the most rural area.
I am shocked that the liberal contingency here seems to think that the naivety is in the location and not the upbringing. I am not anti-gay at all. I was raised in the hills, by a Southern Baptist minister….

PS. The thought that gay is less prevalent in rural communities is confusing.
Carry On.
T

Maybe there’re some compelling empirical numbers out there to convince me the trend of Christians is toward the Democrats. However, when I think of “Christian Coalitions” and the impact of several-thousand strong megachurches and Jerry Falwell etc. etc., I think of a conservative base. (This excludes Catholics.) I would welcome more numbers waved in my face, but there is a very real perception of Christian = Republican (maybe I should clarify Protestant or Evangelical Christian).

Tony – I don’t ask you to apologize for disliking people, nor do I foist my opinion on people to change. But, it substantiates my opinion that disliking others is a foundation of some people’s conservative politics. It asserts my posture that those who don’t care for others have a home on the right wing. That’s exactly what I’ve asserted in blogs preaching to my own choir, and here. And for conservatives who actually DO like or care for others, I want to know what drives THEIR politics. That’s why I keep asking questions about the ties of religion to conservatism.

Because the “heedless self-interest” of some conservatives puts others in bad positions, I support liberal politics. I support it because I believe it is the moral high ground against the unapologetic and unabashed. I do not ask anyone to change, but I can compel them to if they believe what I say. Posting here has been good to shape my platform.

I’m trying to spend my time here fact-finding. I’ll state again that I’m open to understanding what drives people’s politics.

I would like to ask a general theoretical question if nobody cares. Join me in dream world for a moment if you would ………….

What is something big that you would do if you were president? Something that would be a gamechanger. Let’s pretend that you could actually get it done in Washington without a bunch of stonewalling from Congress. I would be interested in anybody or everybody’s answer. ONE gamechanger. What would it be?

Hope that you don’t mind me opening a new topic without a new topic JGusty. This actually came to mind when I was pondering a question that you asked about a million posts ago but you never got an answer to

Tony,
I truly was speaking in generalizations. I fully acknowledge that there are anomalies to the scenario I was trying to describe. I still think, that generally speaking, people who live in places (cities) where they encounter people different from themselves on a more regular basis are often more tolerant to differences. But again, that is just a gross generalization to support my belief that religion alone can’t explain the groupthink on this one–in my humble opinion.

Hard to pick only one.

- Move forward with two-state solution in Middle East, seeking multilateral recognition of State of Palestine. This is contingent on Hamas renouncing terror and recognizing Israel, or the election of a new party to power.

- Push for an amendment to the U.N. Charter that abolished the veto power of permanent Security Council members.

Bill E,
I follow you…. just making a point.

Mike.
You post:
“Maybe there’re some compelling empirical numbers out there to convince me the trend of Christians is toward the Democrats.”
Once again did you read my post? I said more Christians that were Dems voted this time NOT Christians BECAME Dems.

Mike,
There is a vast difference between not liking and not caring.
I don’t like the Oakland Raiders, but if their plane crashes I care that their families are devastated.

You post:
“But, it substantiates my opinion that disliking others is a foundation of some people’s conservative politics. ”

Your post substantiates my opinion that you can not separate private and social issues, a weakness of some liberals and especially of yours. ie jabs at people’s jobs etc…

You post:
“… I believe it is the moral high ground against the unapologetic and unabashed.”

Moral high ground… huh? Isn’t that stunningly close to the reason you bash repubs -Christian?

John G,
Choice of where a percentage of your tax dollar goes.

Goodnight.

Carry On
T

I’ve figured out that 90% of our dialogue is shallow semantics and 10% is topical conversation.

Maybe the word “trend” confused you. You said :: “if you have the data on this election more Christians in the south will have voted Obama, these are Blacks, Hispanics and the young that do not vote regularly.” — hence I said I was open to data convincing me otherwise. But I still believe the tendency for evangelical Christians is to vote Republican, and God blast it if someone can’t tell me why.

Not intending to offend you. I’m only saying I feel justified in suggesting there is a natural home in conservatism for the miserly and withdrawn. These people are going to exist, so for those who don’t like people different than them, there’s a natural ideology that denies others the same rights and opportunities they enjoy.

A lot of groups claim “moral high ground.” Perhaps “ethical” would have been a better word. It’s not Republicans I bash just for the sake of their party; it’s the ones who vote that way without any understanding of the issues. There are educated voters and ill-informed voters, and I assert that religion allows some voters to stay ill-informed.

That all leads me to ask why people believe Republican = Christian. This is still my question, not my bashing point. I regret no one has taken a stab at this.

Bill – I believe location has everything to do with how someone is raised. If you are saturated by an environment of one-track thinking, then you will likely be raised that way. Being raised in a rural area isn’t an issue of whether you’ve heard of gays or think you believe they deserve certain rights; if you’re not around diverse people, you don’t TRULY know how you will deal with them. So I do believe in out of sight, out of mind; and in out of touch places, people keep others out of consideration.

Mike,
I agree with you, with the various caveats I mentioned to Tony. I actually grew up in a fairly homogeneous environment but learned to be more tolerant over time. We’re all different, but I think your (and my) general point holds.

Mike,

I look at the issues, weigh them against my faith in God, the Almighty, and determine which candidate I can vote for without selling my soul to the devil. I also look to my pastor for guidance. That’s how I chose my candidate. My ex-wife chose Obama simply because of the stimulus check he promised. I spoke with a coworker who said he voted for Obama simply because he is black. Everybody has their own process for chosing, that is their right, and I can’t fault them for that, no matter how much I may disagree with their choice and their logic.

My beliefs, what I’ve learned from my preachers and Sunday School teachers, and those that have learned from in my 40+ years on this earth, put me solidly in the “Conservative” camp. Since McCain’s stand on the issues most closely matched my beliefs, I voted Republican.

Rob – I completely respect the deliberation you take to weigh your candidate. The conclusion you came to is exactly what I want to understand. Help me understand the majority of people around me—in my state, some circles of friends, and family: WHAT are the issues of one side or the other that align with religion? What about one side equates to your understanding of God, and the other selling your soul to the devil?

This is not a rhetorical question or a lure as some want to believe. I honestly want to understand how to approach the people closest to me when discussing issues.

Mike,
My dislike of people in general stems from my perception of the lack of nobility.
Why must you lump in the different there?
Surely you are not trying to, in an indirect manner, say that I or anyone with my political and social slant dislikes people due to skin color, religion or location raised?
Because if so … I will ask for facts that can prove so… since I know myself, I know that no fact will be able to be stated.

Your question of..
“Republican = Christian …… I regret no one has taken a stab at this.”

I can not answer what I do not believe to be true. Christians? ROB, John G, GUSTY?

Mike you posted:
” …gays or think you believe they deserve certain rights; if you’re not around diverse people, you don’t TRULY know how you will deal with them”

Or think you believe??? So condescending … why do you have to be so passive aggressive? Do you presume to know what we really believe better than we do or was that slipped in thinking no one would see the semantics of it.

TRULY know how to deal with them? How about the same as I do everyone else. Are you saying the different should be teated in a special manner? I will treat them equally.

I have been raised in the homogenous hills, lived in West Hollywood for 5 years that is the most gay area in Los Angeles (never had any problems getting along with anyone,)
I have toured the entire country, I am not 100% caucasian, I am never withdrawn and in order to be miserly I would need a bigger bank account. Conservative. Please everyone enough of the blanket statements, myself included.

Michael will you bravely account for where you were raised and have lived and what you have done to garner such worldly savvy?

Carry On.
T

Mike
We obviously do not agree, I am fine with that. But I ask about your background to have a point not to be intrusive, if you do not want to share that is your choice.

Carry On.
T

Tony,

The most significant thing we don’t agree on is my tone. I’m not being passive-aggressive. I am not being passive-aggressive when I opine one must interact with diverse people to have an informed opinion of them. I don’t know how you read that as personal sleight. I am not defensive about you asking about my background because I don’t feel defensive tonight at all. And can we just assume whatever I say is my opinion? I’m not going to preface every sentence “In my opinion…,” “In my opinion.” Last, feel free to counter anything I say with a link, reference, or other datum, but please do not expect me to add a works-cited page to everything I say.

I never said you dislike people for race, religion, or location. However, I believe many who vote Republican (I know this isn’t you) believe in the exclusiveness of their religion, the exclusive viability of their income range, the exclusiveness of families with kids, the exclusiveness of heritage, and the exclusiveness of their view of marriage.

As for income viability, why would any one hard off want to identify with the party of social Darwinism? As for non-Christians, how can they become part of a collective whose religious fringe believe Christianity and Republicanism are intertwined? As for gays, why would they want to identify with a party whose president tried to pass a Constitutional amendment forbidding their marriage?

First of all, you misunderstand when I generalize. I never said that everything is black and white, or that everything follows the exact formula I opine. I would hardly call you case and point for anything typical. I never said all conservatives are exclusive people, only that conservatism offers exclusive policy.

For my background:

I was born and lived in Myrtle Beach for 3 months; I was an Air Force brat. My parents learned at a very young age to save money and work whatever jobs were necessary to fund their new responsibility. We later returned to Paulding County. I was raised one mile from where you currently live, Tony. What today is exurbia was once true rural.

My father is biracial: his mother Filipino, his father an Irish airman. After he was stationed in Manila during Korea, my grandfather came home with a souvenir—a wife. At that time in Georgia, interracial marriage was illegal, and my Filipino grandmother was considered a “black.” My grandfather was arrested 20 times and had lost his citizenship for 15 years due to the arcane civil rights laws of this still-backwards place. He was a white man who faced down this ignorance all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Through this experience, I will never believe that the state (the majority of the ill-informed) have any place to dictate the civil rights of other individuals. I’d like to have a little more faith in the people of the south and hope for something better than the ignorance they’ve shown.

I also suppose it’s in my blood. I’m a distant cousin of William Jennings Bryan.

I was raised by the most conservative woman you could imagine, but I was a very gifted young child and did very well through school. I was always averse to the “country” environment and yearned for something bigger like I’d see on television. As for places I lived, in high school I moved to Cobb County, GA (Newt Gingrich’s district), then to Atlanta for college. In 2005, I moved to suburban Philadelphia for 3 years, and this February I moved back to Atlanta.

I can’t chime in on the Republican = Christian thing either as I, like Tony, could not find it further from the truth.

First of all you are comparing apples & oranges. A religious belief to a political party seems like a bit of a stretch.

If Republicans = Christians… how do you explain the absolute ease that the ACLU operates without hardly ANY resistance or battle from the GOP?

And John G: To answer your question, if there would be “game-changers” for me towards a Prez it would be across-the-board term limits and the dismantling of the lobbyist landscape.

Mike,
Thank you. I know that it is not towards me personally but they are culturally. With my questions I was pointing out, that I am the conservative stereotype being discussed and I do not follow the path of the blanket statements being made here.

Bill E and Mike,
My reason for asking your background is for another point. You are both quite liberal.
Mike through all of your description of life experience it is other people’s in your family not yours. You have lived in 2 places the suburbs of Atlanta/ Atlanta and Suburban Philly, which is New Jersey in your case (correct?). Hardly the mecca of enlightenment in either case. You turned out a liberal.
You have taken the lives of others/family to form your political opinions, which is what you accuse the Christians and in your words uninformed republicans of doing.
So aren’t you really just proving Human Nature?
You point out that academically you were “gifted” (hate that term) and you have little life experience (not an insult) so I am going to assume that you have informed yourself through books. Isn’t that what Christians do with a certain book? Human Nature again, you read what appeals to you, and they did the same.

Bill E you were raised in your words a homogenous environment and LEARNED to be more accepting.
Bill E, so it seems to me that you adapted to your surroundings and experiences.
Adaptation and learned behavior, derived from environment… isn’t that what you were saying about some in a negative fashion?
Human Nature.

Our 3 scenarios are not following the line of thinking that you both espouse.
It took me a long time to get to this point but I hope you see that it is an arrogant thing to assume politics have a much deeper meaning than animal instinct = the best survival scenario for self.

IN MY OPINION.

Carry On.
T

Fair enough, although I propose we are exceptions to the rule. When I say “location is everything,” it is not the only thing. If you grow up in a mostly conservative area, you have a great chance of being mostly conservative. When I moved to Gloucester County, NJ, it was clear that most people there were liberal. This belies an earlier assertion that people become more conservative in their age. I certainly did not see that there.

So it was major culture shock to return home and see young people pressing conservatism and(/or) John McCain so fervently. For three years, the whole idea of Republicans was out of the question. There was a definite geographic division, although I’d hardly call New Jersey or Georgia very judicious at choosing their candidates.

And perhaps I zoomed in too much on the term “background” to assume the story I gave was what you wanted, although it weighs heavily on what shaped me. My ideology is not BECAUSE of my family. Most of my family (my entire mom’s side) are conservative. I don’t blame or credit others for making me a certain way. And I don’t apologize for the word “gifted.” I struggled to find a better word, but anyone who knows me would say so. I don’t know if that shaped my distaste for the environment I was in from kindergarten, but it definitely drove me to study and be interested in other ideas.

Lastly, there’s always someone somewhere with more “life experience,” meaning more years on this earth. I feel I’ve had my share of the spectrum in the time I’ve been here, and won’t be made to feel less because of it. Being invited to participate here speaks enough to my competency.

Also, the Christian approach to the Bible is more than just literature. For some, it is a paradigm of exclusivity and infallability.

Mike,
were you not shocked at the fervent liberal views when you moved to the NE or are you only shocked when someone doesn’t agree with you? (Real question, not meant with mean spirit)

you post:
“I don’t apologize for the word “gifted.” I struggled to find a better word, but anyone who knows me would say so. ”
I guess that I don’t know you then. Gifted implies far too much … how exactly are you gifted? You were smarter than the average kid? What academic scholarships were you offered… Mensa member?
Telling a kid she/he is gifted opens up a world of hurt.

“Lastly, there’s always someone somewhere with more “life experience,” meaning more years on this earth.”

I know much younger than both of us that has more. That doesn’t make me insecure. Age doesn’t matter.

Carry on.
T

Tony,
“You are both quite liberal.”

That conclusion is certainly relative to our surroundings. I’m actually somewhat conservative compared with some of my friends and colleagues.

“Our 3 scenarios are not following the line of thinking that you both espouse.
It took me a long time to get to this point but I hope you see that it is an arrogant thing to assume politics have a much deeper meaning than animal instinct = the best survival scenario for self.”

I don’t quite see the arrogance you point to, but I’m not sure about your animal instinct conclusion because of the mediating factor of society. Taking your words literally, very few of the things that I have been speaking on here at this site have any direct relationship to my own personal survival. In fact, when I posted way back when about abortion I was trying to make the point that even though I wouldn’t be here today to write these words if my birth mother had chosen abortion, I still think that abortion should be a choice made by women and not the state. We all are on our own personal journeys, but we are also connected to each other through society. I guess, if we are thinking about this in terms of human nature, I wonder why more people don’t seem to recognize our common connections.

As for my journey, I was born in Texas and raised in Philadelphia, PA and Cleveland, OH (my parents both grew up in Kansas). I went to college in Maine, taught high school and started graduate school in Connecticut, and have been living in Austin for the past 6 years finishing my Ph.D. I have also traveled a fair amount (Europe, Asia, South America, Israel), and I have lived in Ecuador three different times since 1995. All of those experiences with different peoples from around the United States and the world have made me the person that I am today. While I don’t think we can easily separate nature and nurture, I feel that my life reflects the overwhelming influence of nurture–who knows where I would be if my 16-year old birth mother from Tyler, Texas hadn’t given me up for adoption. Anyway, that’s my story.

Bill E.
Thanks for sharing. While your abortion scenario is compelling, keep in mind that it is being written from you as a surviving animal. I am sure that if the fetus that you once were was being encroached by a large metal object it would tell you it was, at that moment anyway, against abortion.(Ridiculous thought I know but you see my point.)(Not interested in making this a topic about when life begins it was a fantasy scenario everyone.)
I guess one place we differ is the nature / nurture … I think that it is natural to nurture.
I was lucky enough to have been nurtured and so it is impossible for me to comment on a life that wasn’t.
I can’t tell you why the recognition factor is not there if you look at it your way, but as an example, from a rare TV show that I find amusing, if there are 2 tribes of meerkats they never see the connection only the different factions… instinct.

On a side note I am working with an Ecuadorian/Latin band and find their cultural tendencies interesting. What makes it even more pronounced is some were raised there and some here.
The biggest difference that I have noticed is the public school influence from here. So education locality I can see may be a difference between countries NOT states so much.

Carry On.
T

Bill E,
Arrogant … wrong word perhaps…. let’s go with unquestioning assurance/confidence?
Carry On.
T

Tony, I don’t want to belabor the “gifted” tag. Perhaps “precocious” suits you better? I said I was a gifted child, and as such did not qualify for Mensa at age 5. After a fight with the school board, I was the first child in the county to be admitted to Venture (the gifted program) in Kindergarten, when previously it was limited to first-graders and higher. In 5th grade, I ranked in the 80th percentile of 10th graders taking the PSAT. I got all As for my first seven years of school. As a matter of talent, I won state-level awards for songwriting 6 years starting in 7th grade, and once national. In high school, I also earned state and national awards in literature, parli pro, and journalism. In addition to the HOPE Scholarship, I won a full grant for my civil engineering studies at Georgia Tech.

The best combination of circumstances for my life is:
1) good early education, and
2) having to face failure as a young adult.

So many people have to try to find their skills in their 20s. I’m fortunate to have done well in my early years to have a foundation upon which to work hard.

I contend that conservatives believe a path in life is only viable if you never slip up. If at some point you make a mistake, the only thing to save you is the off-chance you have cash socked away, or some private entity is feeling benevolent.

I prefer to put my faith in second-chance institutions, such as FAFSA, community colleges, adult vocational training, criminal diversion programs, etc. I don’t believe options to succeed should be foreclosed upon those who seek a second chance. In this world where unregulated markets make it more and more difficult to pick up the pieces and simply “get to work,” there have to be programs that enable hard-workers to earn parity with others who’ve never slipped up.

I’ll make another blanket statement (please bear in mind this is a sweeping generalization): Conservatism is the ideology of no second chances.

“Conservatism is the ideology of no second chances.”

Unless of course they’re born again….

Mike,
I am sure that all here have a list of impressive credits also ( my favorite is my ability to have won Most likely to succeed one time and Most mischievous another) . I am not questioning your intellect at all. I am just saying, everyone here seems to be of above average intelligence … education and IQ aside, social skills are a valuable part of this discussion also.
You winning a civil engineering free-ride and not completing says volumes as to genetic traits also. My brother chose the same path and he tests at a very high level. It is just not the “gift” but how it is unwrapped and utilized. Not saying your choice is wrong for you at all but I watched the same scenario as yours play out in my own family.

As a conservative and voting Libertarian I am clearly saying that I want a second chance for anyone going to prison for say… drug charges. So once again please remove the blanket from me and several other conservatives.

As for the constant references to REPUBS and finance:
People with very high incomes ($200K+) were more Democratic this year … young voters (under 30) were a lot more Democratic this year than in the previous two elections.
Young voters are the future old voters, and with a majority of those with $200K+ incomes voting Democratic, Democrats will continue to receive more donations and to outspend Republicans.
So enough already, unless you are being at least this specific.

By the way all, I stumbled across the stats for IQ level for the parties. The argument made was Democrats seem more intelligent than Repubs (don’t make me go back and get it, own up to it Mike)… The stats also included Indies…
Independents have the higher IQ’s as of right now, Dems are in 2nd only since the Clinton years. That is reassuring to me who was once Repub and changed to Indie in the Clinton years …. instinct baby.

Thanks for your input and I think we have finally found our way to post as friends with very opposing views.

Carry On.
T

Bill E,
Touche`
I don’t know you well enough to know if it was sarcasm or a defense of stereotypes but it was damned funny either way!

Gotta record…

Carry On.
T

Mike,

You said 2 things I want to comment on. And this is not the first time you’ve heard this from me, and it’s looking like it’s not going to be the last.

“Conservatism is the ideology of no second chances.”

“The best combination of circumstances for my life is:
1) good early education, and
2) having to face failure as a young adult.

So many people have to try to find their skills in their 20s. I’m fortunate to have done well in my early years to have a foundation upon which to work hard.

I contend that conservatives believe a path in life is only viable if you never slip up. If at some point you make a mistake, the only thing to save you is the off-chance you have cash socked away, or some private entity is feeling benevolent.”

Ok, first of all, my God is a God of second chances. With Him, it’s not one-strike-you’re-out. And conservatives are much the same way. Conservatives do not believe “you screwed up, too bad”. This is me talking here, but EVERYBODY is going to slip up on occasion, and yes, they may need somebody to help them get back on their feet. BUT, here is where I think we differ. A conservative will walk up to you and extend their hand to help you up, only to let go once you are on your feet, where a liberal will sit their with their hand outstretched wanting somebody to pick them up, doing little to help themselves. Generalizations, I know, but I think you see where I’m going. Conservatives feel, if you do the work, you get the rewards. Liberals feel, if you do the work, the rewards go to those who are too damn lazy to even wipe their own ass. As I stated last time we had this discussion, I am totally against welfare being a way of life. If you want food on your table, get a job. Can’t fine one that pays enough? Get two. But first, you have to show me you are willing to put forth the effort. Need training? No problem, go to school. Here’s a student loan / grant / whatever you need to get you started. Unexpectedly un-employed / laid-off? Here’s TEMPORARY assistance / job training / job search assistance. Mike, you said it yourself, “Teach a man to fish……”. Liberals tend to have the mindset, “Why learn to fish, we’ll give you what you need.”

I’m just curious as to why you think Republicans/Conservatives have this “screw you, we’re god” mentality.

Rob,
I just have to ask this, do you really believe these things (even if only as generalizations)?

“A conservative will walk up to you and extend their hand to help you up, only to let go once you are on your feet, where a liberal will sit their with their hand outstretched wanting somebody to pick them up, doing little to help themselves”

and

“Conservatives feel, if you do the work, you get the rewards. Liberals feel, if you do the work, the rewards go to those who are too damn lazy to even wipe their own ass.”

Do you really believe that Liberals on any meaningful scale support the lazy as described by you, or that they do little to help themselves? Or are you just pushing buttons here in response to Mike’s posts? I don’t necessarily have a dog in this particular fight, I’m just curious.

Tony, I accept that sweeping generalizations don’t apply to everyone. I also think we’ve found some equilibrium here, and am happy to post.

Rob, where I differ from your view of liberals is that I do believe you must work and make strides in life. I agree that you should cut the strings once someone is on their feet. I think your view of liberals as apathetic and lazy is extreme, as perhaps is my view of conservatives as classist and uncaring.

I believe most people are moderates and meet somewhere in the middle.

I support social programs only for those making these efforts. My view of some conservatives is that they are wrapped up in disinvestment and don’t support these programs.

For example, you say conservatives are there to pick you up when you fall. I believe “not always.” Fiscal conservatives would say charity is the responsibility of the private sector and individuals. On the other side of the coin, I know plenty of conservatives who think “Why should I help you? Look what you’ve done to get here,” or need the government incentive tax write-off for it to be worth their self-interest.

I will never support unconditional, indefinite welfare for able people that refuse to work. I support, as you do, temporary assistance for the unemployed seeking work, victims of natural disaster, and anyone seeking continuing education. I extend that to vocational and retrofit training for new industry.

My take on what fringe fiscal reactionaries think: The answer for victims of natural disasters? Should have had better insurance. For homeless people? They need to go get a job. For those who can’t get better-paying jobs? They should have studied harder. For those who can’t get into school because it’s too expensive? They better start working. — It’s an endless cycle with nowhere to start.

This is why I say conservatism is the party of no second chances. I know this doesn’t apply across the board. I am happy that you and I seem to be pragmatic about this. But many others are not so much.

This posture is what I don’t agree with. Strict constitutionalists (Libertarians) say it isn’t the government’s place to involve itself in these matters, but I say it’s something government CAN offer as part of a viable, civilized society.

I don’t think conservatives think “screw you, we’re god.” I believe that the “common” conservative is simply comfortable, and has no need or self-interest to recognize their shared stake in their fellow man.

And for those conservatives who are NOT well off, I contend religion is the only issue left that holds any sway over their beliefs. Their dogma over when life begins and how it affects a woman’s right to choose and investments in medical research override any other critical choice they could be making about the economy, international affairs, the environment, or investment in keeping jobs in America.

Tony, you might also consider that the main reasons I did not complete my studies because I was 1) distracted by religion, and 2) distracted by my then-”career.” I regret letting myself be distracted by both.

Mike,
Sort of was my point, my brother partied and was distracted by uuummmm shall I say, female strategizing.
He, genetically, has a pre-disposition to party alot (aka being distracted), Didn’t want to expose any more about your private life. That is for you to choose. Being the younger brother I saw that pursuing something that I felt was confining to my personality was pointless … I walked away from all offers.

Carry On.
T

Mike,
You say:
For example, you say conservatives are there to pick you up when you fall. I believe “not always.” Fiscal conservatives would say charity is the responsibility of the private sector and individuals.

I say it is “NOT ALWAYS” deserved.
… and I would be one of those conservatives. I loan to friends that have circumstances not in their control that cause money issues. Not the ones that were up 3 days doing blow and lost their job.
Carry On.
T

Tony,
I think you might have read more into that than was intended. When I said “career,” I meant actual job. I was distracted by the pressure of my church at the time, and the lure of certifying and managing a martial arts studio. What I find ironic about this is that at the time, when I was more conservative, I felt that either was far more important than wasting my time earning a Bachelor’s. Now I regret not finishing.

Conservatives put a lot of stock in personal value because of their religion or job. It too often defines them as a person. I let opportunities of the present distract me from investments for the future. I let what I thought was the enterprising thing to do tear me away from what I always knew was the right thing to do. I also let the false comfort of dogma override my practical sense, thinking everything would be taken care of as long as I kept the faith.

I think for those that grow more conservative as they grow older, this false comfort only amplifies. It calls people to inaction and leaves them content to stay static. When your reward awaits you after death, the status quo on earth starts to feel quite cozy. Not blowing smoke, people—I say this because I lived it.

Hey all please read this screen shot posted at Obamas website, change.gov …. follow the link to the screen shot (originally posted) and then go to the website and see the revised version, wow make it a more subtle, slow change comrade. But even the actual site is disturbing to me. I am not an alarmist I don’t think there will be tanks in the streets but c’mon…

SCREEN SHOT:
http://img206.imageshack.us/my.php?image=picture1it1.png

website
http://change.gov/americaserves/

This should send Matt into a frenzy …

Carry On.
T

Mike,
That’s funny I DID read more into it….

Carry On
T

The Office of The President-Elect????

I saw on the ABC news this morning where he was giving a speech and that was plastered on the front of the podium. I don’t remember ever seeing that in prior elections.

Tony,
I’ve been reading all day, so maybe that’s the problem here, but I’m having trouble seeing what’s wrong with those screen shots and the program as described. Is it the mention of $4,000 which doesn’t seem to be in the first screen shot?

Bill,

Yes, they were generalizations, but used to make my points, but do come from the belief systems of Libs/Conservatives. Obama’s “spread the wealth” plan does go directly to my point. And it was mainly to drive the point home to Mike that his assertion about Conservative ideology is, to put it bluntly, a load of cow cookies. Scanning through all my previous posts, we’ve had this discussion no less than 4 times, where I have made it perfectly clear where I stand, and the last time, I even told Mike that we agreed on the subject, but then it comes back up for discussion again.

Bill E,
Requiring community service bothers me. If it doesn’t bother you then I guess we see the world much differently than I thought before.
$4,000 for college for serving the Gov’t I am fine with but if my tax dollar pays for the education can I determine what service it is?
If he thinks what he is doing is on the level then why change the post after bloggers went nuts?

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Got it. Requiring community service doesn’t bother me. I used to work for a company as a trip leader for high-school students who needed a defined number of community service hours in order to graduate. I led three different trail repair groups on the Appalachian Trail and worked with one group on a working ranch outside of Colorado Springs. I can’t even begin to describe all of the positive changes I saw in these kids as they were taken out of their comfort zones and forced to work on projects for which they weren’t getting paid. I actually think more kids should do community service.

Tony,
“$4,000 for college for serving the Gov’t I am fine with but if my tax dollar pays for the education can I determine what service it is?”

Nope, you don’t get to determine that. You just have to have faith that with the high cost of education today it is better to offer a deal like this than to simply offer more loans. $4,000 is barely going to scratch the surface, but at least the students are giving back once they are done.

Bill E,
There lies a fundamental difference in our approach and positions politically and I’m guessing socially.
The word REQUIRING… you want it fine… but REQUIRING? Time to give my 1st middle finger to Obama and his platform. Relax all, I will give thumbs ups also when deserved, I am fair.

Bill E
If 1 little incident makes such a huge impact on these kids just think how quickly their spirit can be broken also.
Cumby-Yah, and pass the Birkenstocks.

“work on projects for which they weren’t getting paid.”
Are kidding me, is that a value that you enjoy re-enforcing?
Positive changes to you MAY, be forced acceptance to me. Depends on the kid.

“You just have to have faith that with the high cost of education today it is better to offer a deal like this than to simply offer more loans.”

I have NO FAITH, so there is a point that I cannot/will not accept. Nor should I be forced to have “faith”, religiously or politically.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
On this you and I should probably agree to disagree. I simply can’t see any negative in forcing kids to give back to the community. I think some of the crap that I deal with on a daily basis with my college students would largely be alleviated if they didn’t feel so selfish and entitled. I’m not saying that community service alone would necessarily fix this situation, but it couldn’t hurt.

Tony,
OK, I can’t let this one go.

“If 1 little incident makes such a huge impact on these kids just think how quickly their spirit can be broken also.”

and

“Are kidding me, is that a value that you enjoy re-enforcing?
Positive changes to you MAY, be forced acceptance to me. Depends on the kid.”

Maybe I didn’t make this clear. The kids in my program were from well to do public schools. Asking them to actually do manual labor, live in tents, cook their own food and work with each other on difficult projects brought out a side of these sheltered kids that even they didn’t know they had. I wish I could fully capture and describe for you the looks on their parents faces when they walked down the trail that their children had just completed. Few of those parents, or the kids, thought they could do such a good job, and all were impressed. So yes, working on volunteer projects is a value that I enjoy reinforcing. If community service requirements attached to graduation are one way of achieving this, I’m all for it. Actually, for the fiscally conservative here, if we can’t have the government paying for services, and we can’t accept enforced community service, how will any of these things get done? Are we just supposed to sit back and wait for people to donate their time, money and energy? Talk about “Cumby-Yah, and pass the Birkenstocks…”

Rob,
Thanks for satisfying my curiosity.

Bill E,
I knew that you couldn’t let it go. I am fine with that.
I did picture under-privileged youth in your scenario.
But I will not strike from the record, requirement of anything other than curriculum, is CUMBY-YAH and dirty toes. How about we make the computer nerds play rugby, why stop there, special ed students must play chess against the computer and win… ridiculous? YES IT IS!

If few of the parents or children thought that they couldn’t do a good job, then that is pretty sad to me. It is not like this wasn’t set up by the same people that tell them that little Billy/Jane is so special.

Working on volunteer projects I have no problem with, I have done so myself. What I am saying is that if it is REQUIRED and the kids are forced to work for free, THEN you are re-enforcing a doctrine that gets into the child’s psyche. (Different circumstance than what you have done.)

How about you are forced to become a sharp shooter for the Gun Corps in order to reach your doctorate? Are you going to be OK with that?
I think not nor should you.

Carry On.
T

OK, OK, I have to got to bed, an important session awaits my morning gaze. But I can’t stop laughing about my last post and others’ reactions. Web captures, scandal, computer geeks playing rugby and Birkenstocks.
I do enjoy this place GUSTY.
Thanks all!

Carry On.
T

Tony,
“If few of the parents or children thought that they couldn’t do a good job, then that is pretty sad to me. It is not like this wasn’t set up by the same people that tell them that little Billy/Jane is so special.”

It wasn’t simply a matter of doing a good job. In one job, we took a section of trail that was prone to flooding and, using rocks that we crushed and moved on our own, we created a section that will likely stay dry forever and that looked completely natural. When the kids walked their parents down the trail, you could tell that all were impressed. Parents were used to seeing their children succeed–at least some of them–in school and sports, but they had no idea that they could accomplish something like this.

“Working on volunteer projects I have no problem with, I have done so myself. What I am saying is that if it is REQUIRED and the kids are forced to work for free, THEN you are re-enforcing a doctrine that gets into the child’s psyche. (Different circumstance than what you have done.)”

Let’s face it, many of the kids I worked with would not have done the work if it hadn’t been a requirement. When you say, “How about you are forced to become a sharp shooter for the Gun Corps in order to reach your doctorate? Are you going to be OK with that?”, that is just so far beyond what we are talking about here that I’m wondering if you’re letting your ideology overwhelm your common sense (with all due respect of course).

Also, the high school I mentioned where I worked for a while was a boarding school where all students–including computer geeks and musicians–had to play 3 sports a year. We didn’t have rugby, but we had the rest. I honestly don’t think that any psyches were damaged by this requirement (although Paris Hilton didn’t seem to be that comfortable in her hockey gear), but some students were clearly more eager to participate than others.

Bill E,
You were at a PRIVATE SCHOOL?
I have to know before I go further with this.
…and no the Gov’t REQUIRING 1 ridiculous action to complete another is not so far beyond this…
IT IS THIS.
You cannot see the forrest because you are one of the trees… (educational system) Not an insult I respect what you do, but sometimes an untrained, unseasoned musician plays the phrase that makes the song work.

Carry On.
T

Tony,
Yes, I taught at a Catholic boarding school–I myself attended a public high school. The school where I taught was somewhat unique in that less than 10% of the students paid full tuition. The rest received significant financial aid from a variety of sources, including the Catholic church. So it wasn’t just filled with the offspring of the ultra-rich which is what I think many people in this country picture when they think of Eastern boarding schools. But maybe that’s not what you were trying to get at?

I still think getting from trail repair, or any of the other projects this company directed or that the Obama site mentioned, to a Gun Corps requires a giant leap in logic. But that’s just me, if that’s the forest you see, I’m glad to be looking only at the trees….

Bill E,
That isn’t what I am getting at ….
If it was a Private School, and the parents CHOSE to send the child there, financial aid or not, then the requirement was accepted as a part of enrollment so I have no issue. I am fair Bill E, so try to see this next point as impartially as possible, please. The issue that I see is of REQUIREMENT to all people in a certain group to work for the Gov’t.. PERIOD.
You are working for a Catholic School and feel there is no indoctrination going on? Who is using no logic here Bill E ?

Why was the post altered if the Obama camp didn’t see that it was going to be trouble? Bueller? Bueller?

Fundamentally, we just see things differently.
The Appalachian Trail was specifically built for hiking, it is not “dangerous terrain” or you would not have taken them there. Those kids and you see a huge accomplishment in building a rock damn? (Not a sleight, just different view.)
Meanwhile just a few miles away on the Appalachian Plateau kids are given an excused absence for crop gathering time. Their fathers break coal from mountains sides and caves risking life and limb everyday. A different view of life.

OK Gun Corps was an obvious metaphorical choice (to me), I used it as an example which I guess your logic can’t use.
My bad, I am going to go buy an axe before I have to empty the post office trash as a REQUIREMENT to get one. (sarcasm)

Carry On.
T

Tony,
“The issue that I see is of REQUIREMENT to all people in a certain group to work for the Gov’t.. PERIOD.”

I think my reading of the situation differs from yours in terms of the “work for the government” phrase. I believe that even if the government required students to do community service, the work they did would be FOR THE COMMUNITY, not for the government. In other words, their labor would benefit the community, not the government in general or a political party in particular. I guess I’m just surprised that there would be any resistance to programs that tried to instill in students a sense of community spirit, and that got them out of the mall, off the streets or off the couch.

“You are working for a Catholic School and feel there is no indoctrination going on? Who is using no logic here Bill E ?”

With all due respect, you don’t understand the school where I worked. I completely understand that. Personally I didn’t understand that world either until I worked in it. I can explain more if you want, but the bottom line is that there was very little indoctrination–and next to no religious indoctrination–that went on there.

“Why was the post altered if the Obama camp didn’t see that it was going to be trouble? Bueller? Bueller?”

Here, I only noticed the “$4,000″ change on the two pages you linked. I tried looking for the blogger uproar that you mentioned, but I honestly couldn’t find it. So to me, common sense suggested that it was a typo. I’d be happy to read the angry blogger comments though if you can remind me where they are. But even if there was an uproar, I would probably contextualize it within this broader series of attacks that people have been making against Obama since he was elected. I’d rather give him some time to settle into the job–or at least wait until after the inauguration–before I start criticizing policy and staffing decisions and announcements.

“The Appalachian Trail was specifically built for hiking, it is not “dangerous terrain” or you would not have taken them there. Those kids and you see a huge accomplishment in building a rock damn? (Not a sleight, just different view.)”

As with my reaction to your comments about the school above, with all due respect you don’t know what I’m talking about here. It wasn’t a rock damn, it was a 1/10 of a mile section of uphill terrain. It took 2 weeks of 6-hour days of manual labor (one day off) to complete. Yes they weren’t hiking Everest, but the students were tested both mentally and physically and they all succeeded beyond anybody’s imagination.

Anyway, all those things are nit picky to me. How could you really know and understand my experiences if I don’t fully explain them? (I hope you know that I’m not at all trying to slight you here). The real issue that remains, for me at least, is my fascination with anybody (or at least any adult) who is resistant to community service requirements for our nations’ teenagers. Sure some of the kids are resistant, but the adults? Maybe it’s a regional thing as some of the top public schools in the Northeast already have community service requirements for graduation. Maybe I have just had longer to get used to the idea. In any case, I’m all for it….

Bill E,
I have a session so I didn’t have much time to search for blogger outrage… but it was easy to find for me…
I guess it is who you know, huh?

http://www.halfsigma.com/2008/11/obama-to-bring-back-slavery.html

We can just disagree here plain and simple. The explanation of the school would have been helpful …
but I understand posting and working so no slight taken. The term “very little indoctrination” was used by you and I am willing to bet we have different measures of “very little”.

Still don’t see a great accomplishment and I think society is wrought with less that desirable traits, so don’t be shocked when I would not want a child being influenced by it any more than it already is.

Thanks for the discussion ( seriously) , I’ll bet you wear Birkenstocks… (humor)

Carry On.
T

Birks no, Chacos yes.

Hey all, I thought of something that goes completely against my black-and-white world paradigm and wanted to share an issue where I am definitely conservative. I am completely opposed to labor unions. I am opposed to collective bargaining, the coercive and often violent bullying of scabs and non-labor projects, and the unrealistic high-end salaries union-folk expect for their jobs. These people are what have made America uncompetitive. We talk about revitalizing the manufacturing sector, but I contend that the growing expenses and demands of big labor have driven industry out of the country.

This is where I strongly agree the hard work of individuals is undermined by the collective pity party. I am liberal on most things, but my stance on labor is one reason I can never be a partisan Democrat.

Blue-collar workers also go against my generalization of people who don’t like people. Labor unions give people a haven to think about no one but themselves and expect more and more for less and less. Although they were originally instituted as a “counter” to big businesses who fit that “heedless self-interest” mold I previously described, time has shown, you can’t fight fire with fire.

Tony, to answer an earlier question, YES I was surprised at how liberal people were up north, especially their take on frivolous lawsuits. Those people were always looking for ways to pull one over on their employers, squeaking by with a few extra hours.

I don’t support unrestricted corporate globalization or a return to the Carnegie years, but neither can I support what labor has become.

Mike,

AMEN, BROTHER! When I look at what the Boeing machinists got, it makes me want to puke. Free health care when the retire, free pensions, guaranteed raises. And, they can’t be fired. I understand why they were created, but greed and corruption took over and they went on a power-trip. A strike is just a “legal” form of extortion.

I worked as a temp at a power plant. The regular workers were union, but I wasn’t. It’s unbelievable the rules they had. I was fork lift certified by them, I could move stuff, but only if a union member was present. If I had to go to one of the remote warehouses, I had to take another person. The person who drove the van could not drive the forklift at the warehouse. I was certified on all equipment, but whoever drove the truck there could not drive the forklift. If I had somebody come to check out a tool of get a part, I could either sign the paperwork or pull the part off the shelf, but not both. Quite a waste of time and money.

Mike,
I am with you on frivolous lawsuits. Sometimes locked in a room together would be a better recourse.
We all have our gray areas. I don’t like the Libertarian view on immigration or internet censorship.
Recording Rob today, (Lonestar) gave him a copy of your CD… he said he liked it.
Going to be a long night …
Carry On.
T

Bill E,
Any comments on the angry posts? I chuckled just thinking of you reading them.
Carry On.
T

Can I change topics? Or are you guys just going to hog the whole forum?

What do you guys think of this?

“According to government agencies that track energy imports, the U.S. spent $246 billion in 2007 for all imported crude oil; a majority came from friendly nations, including neighboring Canada and Mexico. An additional $82 billion was spent on imported refined petroleum products such as gasoline, diesel and fuel oil. A majority of the refined products came from refineries in such friendly countries as the Netherlands, Canada, the United Kingdom, Trinidad and Tobago and the Virgin Islands.”

and

“According to the federal Energy Information Administration, last year the U.S. imported nearly 4.9 billion barrels of oil and refined products, 16 percent of it from the Persian Gulf and 10 percent from Venezuela, whose president has been hostile to the United States. Neighbors Canada and Mexico, by comparison, accounted for 30 percent of all such imports with Canada at the top”

Here’s the source http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/2008275760_apfactcheckimportedoil.html

According to those stats only 16% of our oil is imported from the Persian Gulf and 10% from Venezuela. I know tht oil is a commodity and one supplier effects the market as a whole. Even with that being said I don’t understand why the US doesn’t take the approach of the top notch consumer that we are and leverage that consumption (meaning the dollars spent). Home Depot and Wall Mart are the kings of leveraging their buying power and they absolutely dictate the terms that they have with their vendors.

Do you think that Americans would be willing to pay a higher price at the pump to get out of the middle east? If we got into an exclusive purchasing agreement with Canada, Mexico, etc …….. couldn’t we just tell Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc ………that we’ll be customers of theirs as well as soon as they have enacted civil liberties within their societies? I would think that Venezuela could easily be transformed into a democratic society if Noriega er, I mean Chavez were to “have an accident” CIA style. At that point the mid east countries are missing out on the biggest purchaser of the only commodity that drives their propped up economies.

obviously this is all hypothetical but this would be the “game changer” for me if I could make something happen with gov policy

Also I’m just kidding about the subject matter that you have all been discussing. It’s been an interesting read. I’m from Detroit and have seen first hand both the benefits and the ridiculous burdens that Unions have on industry. I agree with Rob when he said “I understand why they were created, but greed and corruption took over and they went on a power-trip”

John G,
“Do you think that Americans would be willing to pay a higher price at the pump to get out of the middle east? ”

No.
I would agree to it if the rest of the country would. But just as scabs in strikes… people will not keep their word.

Carry On.
T

Good point Tony and that’s true except we wouldn’t actually have to “ask”

People wouldn’t actually have a choice. People were paying over $4 a gallon just a couple of months ago whetherb they were willing to or not. I meant more willing “politically”. Would they forgive a politician who’s policies cost them more at the pump but eleviated the burden of staying in the middle east militarilly and politically.

JGusty had asked earlier (paraphrasing) “is it vital to US interest to keep Kuwait and the region stable” and I think that it was a great question. I’ve actually given it some thought over period of time. Obviously the answer right now is “yes”. Because the market dictates to US and not the other way around.I just think that as the consumers we should be dictating to them.

John G,
I think our market is a factor but do not overlook the religious and political positions of Palestine, Israel, Iran and Syria… in several expert opinions Iraq is the least of the issues when looking at the future of the middle-east

Carry On.
T

I won’t make the supposition the NY Times story behind this graphic seems to, but can anyone tell me why they think the confined swatch of red counties is the only concentrated parts of the country that voted MORE Republican than in years past?

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/11/05/us/politics/20081104_ELECTION_RECAP.html

Mike,
I read the article and it is full of holes. It’s supposition is racism.
Well, I guess that we can all agree that Arizona and Alaska is all about “home cooking” for the nominees.
I do find it strange that Southern LA voted more Republican, but after consideration…. a guess… the minority population went elsewhere and never returned to this region after Katrina. I will also venture to say that the region in red is primarily a sector of the population that holds strong (psychologically) to tradition and sees change as a threat to their beliefs. Another problem with the map is, Wyoming for instance, can’t be much more Republican so it is not going to grow “more” red.
This map to me says less about voters and more about the NY Times which is a very liberal based publication that has not stopped gloating over the Obama victory a week later, (this is a point made by several pages that I read, not a personal opinion only).
The Northeast is going to lose a number of House seats and electoral college votes in the next census while the West and South are going to gain. People are moving south, that is a fact, and an obvious contributing factor.(Maybe to get away from REQUIRED public service in the regions “top schools” Bill E)
Immigrants move mainly to the coast thus increasing democratic votes with citizenship.
The map could be used by those that do not see the bigger picture as a rallying cry against “racism” in the south and midwest but those areas had a bigger turn out so more voted what they always would have if they bothered to cast a ballot. Mississippi voted for Bush over Kerry by 85% to 14%, and for McCain vs. Obama this only changed to 88% vs. 11%. This is hardly proof of racist voting.
Arkansas has returned to it’s pre-Clinton habits. (See adoption without marriage… made illegal. BTW gay marriage also illegal.)
Religion.
I am now prepared to listen to liberals call it racism just because a group of people disagree with them.

On a side note: I find it amusing that liberals mention the notion of Republican greed while this red stripe on the map is from one of the poorest regions in our nation.

The NY Times claims it was racism…here is a stat that the NY Times will not place in their paper.
Blacks voting 95% for a black candidate — if whites voted in that percentage with a black candidate in the running it would be the headline as racism.

Dear NY Times,
How about a color coded map showing 1st time black voters in the states that banned gay marriage yet voted Obama. I find it interesting that after 200 years of oppression a group of people get their 1st President but choose 70% to 30%, to oppress another group from reaching their dreams….unless voting liberal is as self serving as any other vote… which it IS!
HHHHmmmm … Religion, prejudice….

Carry On.
T

Aside from the slant of the media outlet that produced the graphic, my interest was in your take on the data itself.

I agree Arizona and Alaska can be explained for the obvious reason. Not sure how Katrina explains the trend in Louisiana; I think the Rep posture on offshore drilling makes more sense and explains the trend across the whole Gulf coast.

That also speaks to the Wyoming opinion. Not sure that Texas could get “more red” either, but in places it did. Conversely, places like New York, Massachussetts, and California COULD have gone more red but didn’t.

As for blacks coming out in numbers, it doesn’t explain the geographic trend. It’s introducing a whole other data set that is sort of evasive. In response, did Southern whites feel they also had to come out in numbers? Was there a campaign or urgent feeling to turn conservative or get more of them to the polls? Why the disparity across the nation? Why didn’t this happen in Iowa, Pennsylvania, or Ohio?

I agree with your answer that the geographic stretch of counties swinging MORE red than usual may indicate people reluctant to change. Could we equate “change” to “different” things? Would the trend have been so dramatic (either way) if John Edwards or Chris Dodd had instead been the candidate?

What is the MOST different thing about Obama that is only so dramatically apparent to the people of the Bible Belt? Do only southerners have a reactionary paranoia of looming Marxism?

Also, I think this answers some of my questions:
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/shared-gen/ap/National/Obama_Catholics.html?cxntlid=homepage_tab_newstab

Mike,
“I think the Rep posture on offshore drilling makes more sense”
I think you give voters too much credit… on both sides.

” In response, did Southern whites feel they also had to come out in numbers?”
It looks that way, because they did.

“Was there a campaign or urgent feeling to turn conservative or get more of them to the polls? ”
More to the polls of course they didn’t like Obama’s politics … if you are going to call it racism do it, if not then it was politics.

“Would the trend have been so dramatic (either way) if John Edwards or Chris Dodd had instead been the candidate?”
If this scenario were true would there have been so many liberal voters? This IS a 2 way street you are going down. Actually if Edwards would have been the nominee I think more areas would have been “red” on the map in question, due to marital issues and less voters going democrat.

“What is the MOST different thing about Obama that is only so dramatically apparent to the people of the Bible Belt?”
A slogan … “CHANGE”

Carry On.
T

:: I think you give voters too much credit… on both sides.

Speaking on Louisiana, I can’t understand how a devastated area becomes more attractive to any demographic that trends strongly Republican, be it conservative whites, evangelical Christians, or the upper-middle class. I don’t think factoring the perception of Rep energy policy as favoring Big Oil into the equation is too farfetched or giving one side too much credence.

:: More to the polls of course they didn’t like Obama’s politics … if you are going to call it racism do it, if not then it was politics.

I just am trying to better understand why the difference is so disproportionate across the country. There are plenty of people in plenty of states who didn’t agree with the politics. I won’t say race isn’t a contending issue (on either side), but I also have to consider the impact of religion.

:::: “What is the MOST different thing about Obama….”
:: A slogan … “CHANGE”

Which, the question was (not deferring to the original story but the graphic data), why does this resonate with such a narrow band of people.

I think you gave your answer—that some of us are resistant to change. That does little to convince me Southern conservatives aren’t apathetic about anything outside the walls of their homes. That gives me little hope we aren’t still just backwoods and backwards decades later (just with bigger cars and strip malls).

Which drills back to the core contention—concern for (or even belief in) a greater good. Can we really survive as a country by being stagnant?

Look again at the music model. As much as they fight it, can old-world industry survive in a new-world market? Why will we never see the multi-platinum superstars again? And is it good sense, morals, OR politics to stay stubborn and fight inevitable change?

Is there such thing as good change?

Mike,
Good change yes, it will occur under the Obama administration and so will bad change.
Can you explain to me why you think it is a bad thing to like things the way they are in life?
Sometimes change seems to usher in de-evolution to me.

Religion is by nature a mindset that says perfection was created and as we evolve we get further and further from an “all is one” consciousness, so in a strange way ,to me, they are trying to reach the same collective happiness that you seem to believe in. Which I have to deny both views because I don’t want to drink the grape kool-aid.

Carry On.
T

Interesting conversation going on here. Conservatism is the philosophy where people have 2nd, 3rd, & almost unlimited chances. If you fail, get back up & try again or try something different.

“Trickle Down” economics is a term that’s been villified & bandied about without being defined. If by trickle down one means giving the super-rich money & hoping some crumbs fall to the floor for the poor, that’s not workable. When I think trickle down economics, I think of the business owner expanding his or her business, creating jobs & opportunity for others. My definition of trickle down is that – an expanding economy creating jobs, opportunity for advancement & to start other businesses. Most people heard Obama say he was going to cut taxes for 95% of people – Joe the Plumber put some kink in that meme. If Obama gets his way & tax rates are raised on those who make $XXXX (because the # kept changing) & especially on businesses that make over whatever amount, that will punish them for succeeding & expanding. We need an expanding economy, creating new jobs & opportunity as businesses succeed & expand.