THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU.
This is why I am really here. More than 2 parties… please, if you are going vote no confidence or not at all because it is a choice between the grape kool-aid and a firing squad pick a 3rd party. This way attention is drawn to alternatives for the voters that still think the DEMS & PUBS are diverse.

CARRY ON.

T

All you need is Barney Frank. Da da dadada……….
I want to wuv him and squeeze him…

What really pisses me off is this. I had a discussion the other day with a person who is voting for Obama simply because he a Democrat, stating that they would never vote for a Republican. I proceeded to ask them about some of the big issues McCain and Obama talk about, the this person did not have a clue what Obama’s stand was, had no clue what he was proposing, and said that they loved the fact that Obama always tells the truth. They had never heard of Bill Ayers, or ACORN, and said that Obama’s belief in evolution was a lie coming from the McCain camp.

What ever happened to voting for the person who matched YOUR values? What ever happened to knowing SOMETHING about the person you are voting for? We read about Obama supporters picking up hundreds of thousands of homeless people, taking them to get them to offices where they can register to vote and vote on the same day. These people know NOTHING about the candidates, only what these radical groups tell them when they load them in the vans to go vote.

And speaking of radicals, everyday, we read about Obama’s ties to ACORN, listen to his denials about being associated to Bill Ayers, yet the only person whose character is questioned is Palin? And why is she the only one whose experience is being questioned? Obama hasn’t exactly been around that long, either.

Is it just me or does “Obama and Biden” have the same ring to it as “Osama Bin Laden”. Please, I’m not calling insinuating that he is on the same level as Osama, it’s just funny how it almost rhymes.

Amen Brotha Rob.

And don’t you find it interesting that there is little to no rebuttal, pushback or calling them out on ANY of these issues from McCain?

I’m so NOT a conspiracy guy… but McCain is so passive on, and in agreement with so many liberal/left/progressive/socialist/Coldplay causes that I’m begining to wonder if he was tapped to throw the fight in the first place.

I mean he was nominated with barely 20% of the vote.

I’m just sayin’….

here is the NEW party…
http://www.tsgnet.com/pres.php?id=357563&altf=Ibolj&altl=Njsptmbw1-1Uif1Fmfdusjd

Rob,
Sadly, I think people ARE voting their “Values”. We now have replaced our worthless money with celebrity as currency. Obama is a celebrity, so the vote goes there. Palin is a celebrity in the Kathy Griffin “My Life on the D List” sorta way. That is why she is overshadowing McCain in the media.

“CELEBRITY IS THE NEW CURRENCY.”

CARRY ON.

T

John, How do I start another thread for discusion ?
There doesn’t seem to be a cat. for new subjects.
I want to talk about the MEDIA. js

No, no, no…. NO PARTIES. There is no reason to polarize the American population any more than we already are. We need a no party system. We need Americans to go back (if they ever have) and vote on what matters most to them. Make voters take the time to actually LEARN about their candidate and what they stand for. I believe in policy, not party line.

Jane,
In a perfect world you are right, but that will NEVER happen, so that is why I hope for several parties. Your reasoning may work, if everybody had the same intelligence level and commitment to issue education …
but that just is not the way it is. As soon as someone strikes out on his/her own two people that just want to make sure the individual fails will band together … that process is not going away as long as religious issues are around, and the big eye in the sky theory is here for a few lifetimes at least …
Do you have any suggestions with that scenario in play, that are realistic, if so I am all ears. You may even garner my vote if you could make that a reality.

CARRY ON.

T

Jim,

Look under the CHEATHAM COUNTY category. At the bottom you will find a post titled “This One’s For Jim”

As you are one of my favorite people… I created your own littel space. Rule with an iron fist my friend.

And have fun!!!

Interesting discussion & site! Being a student of political science, I’m not fond of multi-party parlimentary systems. Instead of giving the individual voter more power, in practice it’s less because of the deals that have to be made to form a winning/ruling coalition. It gets to a point where the party leaders have more power, as they parlay the votes from their bloc.

Our 2 party system is not perfect. Some say that there is no difference between the two – I beg to differ. The Republican party of today is generally for lower taxes, streamlined regulation & strong national defense. The Democrat party of today is generally for higher & more comples taxes, increased regulation, & minimal national defense. Generally, the Republicans are more conservative – as we define conservative in the US – while the Democrats are more liberal (as defined in the US). The differences between the parties are more pronounced the further one gets to the grassroots.

When I was younger, I fancied myself as an independent. As I grew more mature, I noticed that I was voting a Republican ticket with scant few exceptions. In 1993 I decided to “write out” what I believed & why I believed it. After doing that, I saw that I was a Republican.

I am not, however, a “yellow dog” Republican. When there are issues I disagree with, I voice that disagreement. I find that Republicans are not a lock-step group. We’ve seen that recently with the illegal alien amnesty bill & the bailout. I am a Republican because of my conservative/libertarian/federalist beliefs, not the other way around. What I have done is become active in my local Republican party in order to work from the grassroots to influence the Republican party to remain the home for conservatives. It’s a small part, however I invite others to do the same & if we all do each our own small part, we will accomplish much.

Welly-well,
1st of all welcome, RobinR.
Your opinions are always welcome here.
Now… I am not “FOND” of someone insinuating “maturity” through self definition, I know several people that define themselves much astray from the general consensus. Quoting the text book definition of DEM or PUB is not what we are doing here.
Wait…. my apologies , I can only speak for myself. It is not what ..I.. am doing here.
In 1993, the world was not the same as it is today, Write ‘em out again, please.

I would guess that we would agree on a large percentage of issues … but… defining an independent view as an “immature” places you in the “Republican” stereotype not conservative.

Please explain your post more clearly if I have taken it in an improper way.

CARRY ON.

T

Subtract ‘an’ … typos happen….

RobinR,

Thanks so much for chiming in. Your involvement in the discussion is crucial. The more people we get talking… perhaps (if only on a small scale) things will begin to change. A few points on what you wrote:

1. As I try to beat the drum of the “No difference between Dems & Reps” topic, understand where it’s coming from. I’ve grown up HEARING that Republicans are for lower taxes/smaller government/less spending… but frankly (with very few exceptions) I’ve yet to see it. It’s one thing for them to talk the talk. It’s the “walking” part that I have issues with. So I’m pointing out a higher-level ideological point here. They SAY it… they just don’t DO it. It’s the same as the Dems constantly talking about being for the little guy/the minorities/the poor… but then doing everything in their power to enable their plight. All for votes. It’s ALL lip-service if it’s not acted upon.

2. Let me personally applaud you for not being a lemming and speaking up against the GOP when they get out of step with what you believe they should be about. Your throat is probably pretty tired at this point from all the opportunities to “speak up” that the GOP is giving us all these days!

3. And let me DOUBLE applaud you for getting involved and trying to change things on a local level. That is what this is all about.

Again… very glad you are here my friend. (A little McCain humor for ya there!)

At Tony’s behest, here I am in the wolves’ den.

The two parties are the balance of big government. One is the party of big government in your wallet and bureaucracy. The other is the party of big government in military deficit spending, interfering with personal decisions, invading privacy, and torturing a pile of naked foreigners at gunpoint. One is the party of letting others in; the other, the party of keeping others out.

We need the dichotomy between the two. If a third party is ever elected to high office, we would look for something to balance that out in the end, as well. For example, a Libertarian would likely sustain the same non-regulatory policies that have allowed these Wall Street investment firms to tank the world economy. Bailout is out of the question, and so the fate of untold numbers of people’s jobs worldwide is simply in the hands of Darwin.

Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support the bailout. I lean left, and the last people I trust to know what to do with money are capitalist executives—profiteers who’ve screwed us to begin with. Note what AIG did weeks after getting their cash.

No, I’ll take it a step further. The only time it seems Republicans sound interested in “jobs” is when they try to substantiate “trickle-down”—corporations hire people, so they should have more and more of the money. Then, when the fractional-reserve paradigm implodes, the best we can explain to those at the bottom is that they should have studied harder in school.

We don’t police ourselves. We say the market can handle these things because it’s in our nature not to be told what to do. But then, when it’s obvious we CAN’T take care of ourselves, how can we still defend laissez-faire?

So while I understand there is a whole spectrum of issues within which parties define their platforms, it seems we’ve determined class warfare is still the best way to divide ourselves. Therefore, the two parties NEED each other. America needs the two parties.

Hey Mike welcome!
I think you will find 90% of the debate here quite cordial …
(Aside from you MATT!)
… and for my 2 cents, even when I disagree with the point of view it is well worded and sometimes even thought provoking.
No wolves here Mike!
ENJOY!!!

Just to make a point … The bailouts were not Capitalism in action. Actually you wanting to see them fail is both Capitalist and Conservative. Just a thought …

Welcome Mike. And since this why we are here… let’s get to it:

1. YOU WROTE: “The two parties are the balance of big government. One is the party of big government in your wallet and bureaucracy. The other is the party of big government in military deficit spending, interfering with personal decisions, invading privacy, and torturing a pile of naked foreigners at gunpoint. One is the party of letting others in; the other, the party of keeping others out.”

Aside from the juvenile, naive (and worn out) talking-point/stab about Gitmo… wouldn’t Washington in general be responsible for each and every “attribute” you stated in the above comment?

And what party is exactly “letting others” in? Is “letting others in” specifically a good quality? I suppose that depends on WHO you are letting in. But “letting others in” in-and-of-itself is not necessarily & automatically a good thing. I would think that adhering to your manifesto might be a better, more consistent quality.

I’m assuming that was a nod to the liberal stereotype of being the open-minded, progressive and tolerant ones. (Boy could we get going on THAT ONE alone!)

2. YOU WROTE: “We need the dichotomy between the two.”

As an independent-thinking traditionalist w/conservative leanings.. I just like some (ANY!) representation in Washington. Because unless I’ve missed something… those like myself have very little (if any) representation. Any that you could possible cite have little or no significant influence over much.

3. YOU WROTE: “The only time it seems Republicans sound interested in “jobs” is when they try to substantiate “trickle-down”—corporations hire people, so they should have more and more of the money. Then, when the fractional-reserve paradigm implodes, the best we can explain to those at the bottom is that they should have studied harder in school.”

The problem with Republicans/Democrats/Washington is that they need to stay the hell away from the market. It’s not their “job” to create jobs. (But they THINK it IS) The market decides what jobs exist. Always has. Always will.

4. YOU WROTE: “We don’t police ourselves. We say the market can handle these things because it’s in our nature not to be told what to do. But then, when it’s obvious we CAN’T take care of ourselves, how can we still defend laissez-faire?”

We CAN police and handle most anything. “We” being The People. It’s “Them” that can’t handle it. “Them” being Washington. That is why this whole discussion is so important. The vast majority of the PEOPLE have gotten laissez-fare (remember that only about 16% of the eligible public elect the Prez) We need to get “Nugent” on-their-asses and either hold them accountable by the frickin’ nut sacks or get them the hell out. (The importance of “Term Limits” anyone?!?!?!)

So glad you jumped in the discussion. You always have a home here as this site is proving to be a great playground for the passionately engaged. Never feel that you have to hold back.

All we ask is that you be open-minded, tolerant and cool to each other. If not… Tony’s “wheel of torture” in his S&M dungeon would be a likely consequence.

My inappropriate Gitmo jab was me trying to be light-hearted too soon. Forgive me, I’ll mind myself.

I do believe, however, mainstream white-bread Republicans (I’ll be sensitive to the difference between Republicans and conservatives) tend to be indifferent and sometimes disparaging toward foreigners. I see this in my own family, and it upsets me. I see the ignorance of people aligned one way who delighted at those photos.

1. “Letting in” vs “keeping out.” Republicans are exclusive, Democrats inclusive, sometimes both to a fault. The Republican sieve is too narrow. The Democratic “base” is spread too thin.

As for a stereotype that one major party is more homogenous than the other, do a cursory glance of McCain rallies or YouTube this year’s RNC. You’ll see more white flesh than a Mormon wedding.

I don’t support subsidized living or welfare programs for the able. Biden paraphrases my stance on this: “People don’t want you to give them a hand-out; they want you to give them a chance.” I am not a proponent of Affirmative Action or any such “diversity socialism.” I believe people deserve the jobs or a place in school they get because of their own merit. But there is something in the core values of the two major parties that TENDS to polarize in this way. (This is where third parties and independents come in.)

2. It seems having conservatives at the federal level would allow you to have more representation at the local level. But what I don’t understand is, if a federal Republican doesn’t believe it’s federal business to deal with an issue and passes it off to the state, who in turn doesn’t believe it’s state business and passes it off to the county, etc., how will you get ANY of the services you need?

Surely, not privatization? Can the Libertarians honestly tell me that completely privatizing utilities, infrastructure, and education—making them available only to those who haven’t made any mistakes in life and can afford it—is the best solution? It seems like with all the fiscal conservatives all the way down the ladder—all the way through Cobb County to Newt’s backyard—nothing would be available to any one because no one wants to spend any money on anything but canned goods for the fallout shelter.

What happened to investing in programs and improving education systems that create the capable individuals of tomorrow? Completely privatizing the education system is a step toward total class division. People will be locked into their lot in life because of some single, inescapable error, and nothing can be done for their children.

Whether you feel an obligation toward investing in children because you do or don’t have your own, they will have an effect on your lives. When we’re 70, will we regret that we’ve created an environment that fostered a bunch of imbeciles—simply because we wanted more for only ourselves?

3. I think the tycoons of tired, antiquated, non-sustainable markets should not dictate the direction of the country. It’s a shame that the market will always decide what jobs exist, because someone needs to take the initiative toward developing places to live/work/play worth caring about (i.e., not the suburbs), and developing sustainable energy. God knows the oil executives are probably satisfied with their hegemony.

There is one quasi-governmental agency that needs to withdraw from the market, and that’s the Federal Reserve. A dollar today buys what a few cents used to because we’ve enslaved ourselves to a currency system contrived out of thin air—our money is based on debt to our central bank, who decides at their whim the interest rate on that money.

4. I also hope this proves true.

To clarify my position, I’m a left-leaning independent. I dabbled in Libertarianism until I lost my faith in the market and white-bread America. I know the difference between Republicans and conservatives—I’m familiar with the Grid. I do not believe government has the answer to everything, but that they could compete as a player in a free market. I believe in making health care or education available to all, who always have the option to go elsewhere. I believe in fiscal responsibility but also in investment. I believe in social freedom so long as it does not interfere with others—right to religion, abortion, same-sex benefits, etc. I STRONGLY disapprove of the imposition of Christian standards onto an “inclusive” nation. I consider every decision on every issue we make as whether we are tolerant or empathic toward other people—from our stance on tax policy to how we tackle the globe.

Mike,

I agree with ya on the Federal Reserve point. I’ll add to it… The Department of Education. The Federal government should not be in the education/indoctrination business. If one was to step back and think about government-run education… doesn’t that concept just sound a LITTLE scary?

I don’t get the “health care for all” thing. Can anyone honestly name one program or instance where the Federal government has run something effective & efficiently? One? And there are those who want to turn the healthcare system over to them! Wow. To me that is MORE than a little scary.

We all currently have the right to religion. (Although some see it as a right to be free FROM any mention of religion)

Abortion is a right. I don’t know of any reasonable-thinking person who wants to take it away. There are those such as myself that would like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned so that the right can go back into the hands of THE PEOPLE… since what Roe vs. Wade did was essentially allow the Federal government to come in and say “Screw you people. We don’t care what you voted on. We’re overturning it and doing what a small handful of Supreme Court judges want.”

They just did it under the guise of abortion and tugged on people’s heartstrings. It was a power play. The exact same thing is happening with the Gay Marriage issue. Grab the power away from the people (the States) and jack it from them and put it into the hands of the Feds. Once again… under the guise of a heartstring issue.

And as far as tolerance or empathy towards other people is concerned… neither of those are divine rights. They are earned. And just like with children (which I have two) behavior and attitude pushed too far can forfeit any empathy or tolerance that you had coming.

I am curious about one thing though… could you give me an example of a “Christian” standard that would be imposed on an “inclusive” nation that would bother you. I’m being serious and not a smart-ass. Promise.

My bet is that whatever your response will be will actually be a man-made “interpretation” of God’s word and not ACTUALLY God’s word. This will be an interesting experiment.

Mike,
Glad to get your opinions on these subjects and now to take them to task.

You say:
“Whether you feel an obligation toward investing in children because you do or don’t have your own, they will have an effect on your lives. When we’re 70, will we regret that we’ve created an environment that fostered a bunch of imbeciles—simply because we wanted more for only ourselves?”

I say:
Honestly, at the risk of sounding callous… why wait until I’m 70? I think we have fostered a bunch of imbeciles now. With liberal agendas in public school taking a strong hold , kids are taught “we are all special, there are no losers we’re all winners here… and, you tried your best that’s all that matters” …
and that my friend is bullshit.

You say:
“People don’t want you to give them a hand-out; they want you to give them a chance.” Biden quote.
Nice sound bite JOE!

I say:
I can give you 1st hand accounts of time and time again where opportunity is given and not taken by the able. My wife works as a staffing consultant, and the graduates of those same public schools that are teaching “no losers all winners” are shocked when they have to take orders and are chastised for poor work performance, several quit and return to welfare, crime and railing against the man. (Why don’t you allot some of MY tax dollars there to?
Biden’s quote that echoes your sentiment is an EXCUSE, and allows people to blame the establishment for all of their problems…a very liberal characteristic.
I am anti-establishment as far as social lines go but I still make a good living while navigating well off of the main grid.

You say:
It’s a shame that the market will always decide what jobs exist, because someone needs to take the initiative toward developing places to live/work/play worth caring about (i.e., not the suburbs)…

I say:
Well then why are YOU not developing these places … waiting for someone else to do it?
What better than the Market to decide what jobs exist? That is the people making their spending decisions.
So are you saying …. those in control should decide what we all should aspire to as far as work, play, and domicile? isn’t that called communism?

I’m confused by this part that you said:
worth caring about (i.e. not the suburbs)
I live in the ‘burbs, so therefore it is worth caring about to me.
Make up your mind are for EVERYONE or not … because many live in and like the suburbs.
Why so much disdain for the ‘burbs … that is where most of the “WHITEBREAD” people live. It seems to me, if you have so much disdain for them, you would want them far away and in a place you obviously dislike and will not frequent.

You rock Mike, some of your points were great food for my thought!

CARRY ON.

T

This discussion is great and it’s good to know I’m in civil company. But now you people are cutting into my sleep:

What I ask Republicans is why they care so intently about the life of a person up until the moment they are born, after which their “right to life” doesn’t apply to a right to health care. People should have a CHOICE. Right now, those who can’t afford insurance premiums don’t have a choice. Those living on fixed incomes when a dollar buys less and less can’t be expected to keep up or learn a new trade.

I don’t believe a bureaucrat should stand between people and a BETTER health care system than the government will offer if they can afford it. This is one of McCain’s favorite sound bites. What he doesn’t acknowledge is that the market stands in the way of many people, even those WITH insurance, and their doctor. Profits drive insurance companies to deny claims or declare preexisting conditions, including pregnancy. People working part-time jobs are often uninsured, or those working new jobs must wait until their benefits kick in.

My mother, who raised me by herself, works two part-time jobs and has no health care. Not a soul in the world can tell or convince me that social Darwinism has handed her what she deserves. She should absolutely have the option to see a doctor without a job or insurance agent telling her she can. Insurance agents are the market bureaucrats we’ve grown used to. We’ve let the pursuit of the almighty dollar drive us as Americans.

One thing the state and county governments of New Jersey, where I lived the last 3 years, do effectively is substance abuse diversion. Many non-criminals are sentenced to recovery programs, halving the cost of what would be spent on incarcerating them to begin with. (I’m aware this sets off a whole other topic of what should and shouldn’t be a crime.) Cobb County, GA only offers this to those who can afford to come out of pocket, which isn’t often too many. This does not alleviate the tax burden because most of these people have no option but to go to jail, which is subsidized living.

I myself went to public school and believe in the diminution (but not abolition) of the Education Department. I believe there have to be standards. There was an uproar in my county when a short-sighted local board removed most extracurricular arts courses. Tony, as a former teacher of many crafts, I completely agree that kids should not be coddled and lied to about their successes. I think this is often a symptom of overprotective parents who have not had to face failures themselves.

What I’m seeing in some of these conversations is “libertarianism light.” The state government is called “the people” and really what it seems you espouse is anti-federalism. The problem with this, for example in the Roe v. Wade case, is that I disagree with what would probably happen in Georgia. This is an example of one of those Christian impositions I cannot accept—I do not want the government telling me what decisions I can or can’t make in my personal life. I’m sure many women in Georgia feel the same. In this sense, I feel the greater FEDERAL law of the land protects me from what I perceive to be religious-fueled oldthink. The Roe v. Wade decision protects our rights that state authorities would probably take away.

Another inappropriate Christian standard is the display of the Ten Commandments in civic places, or the invocation of a chaplain prior to official government business. But mostly, I refer to the “right to life” that others want to impose on those who want to make the choice for themselves.

I don’t understand why the state level is the demarcation line for acceptable government. Why not deconstruct it further?—to the county or municipal level?

Lastly, as to my aversion to suburbia. Tony, you have to know that I was an aspiring-but-failed city planner at Georgia Tech. I have a bias against suburban sprawl. I might suggest that what you love about the suburbs is your home and not the traffic light in front of the K-Mart. The reason I hate the suburbs, especially in Georgia, is because they create an artificial environment that encourages separation. You are forced to drive everywhere, enroute to which you fly into a pathological rage at the guy in the other lane, and scurry indoors as soon as you arrive. They have raped the landscape and have been an unsustainable, gross misallocation of post-WWII resources that can never be recovered.

I support cities as well as well-defined towns, such as downtown Kennesaw or Marietta. I don’t support tract developments with name like “Riversbane Chase” that empties onto a six-lane out in some ravaged forestland. This kind of environment causes us to consume, spend energy, spend time getting place to place, and dehumanize and detach ourselves. It is the petri-dish for the white-bread yeast.

A couple of quick things… I’ll take a deeper dive later:

1. I think it short-changes rational-thinking non-Christians when you label the opposition to the killing of babies as strictly a “Christian” thing. I’m hoping that most people would have a problem with that procedure.

2. “Right-to-choose” seems to be a passionate thing for you Mike. Two things on that in the abortion arena:

A: In just about every case (rape aside) it was poor “choice” that got the individual into the position of having to consider aborting (killing) their child.
B: Who gets the “right to choose”… the child or the mother?

You mention that you don’t want government telling you what choices you can make in your personal life, yet in an earlier post you stated that you were for turning the healthcare system over to the Federal government. That’s about as personal as it gets.

I’m confused.

It also sounds as though you want government telling us where we can and can’t live. (The whole suburbs discussion)

One other thing… I’ve noticed that you’ve used the term “white” in several places. I should point out here something that irks me to the core with liberal thinking… liberals almost ALWAYS have to inject race into every subject. We could be talking about South Australian Tree Sloths and somehow a liberal will bring race into the conversation.

Let me be clear: I’m not insinuating that you are intending to do so… it’s just an observation that I made.

As central part of conservative thinking is to see beyond such barriers as race and focus on individual accomplishments, thought processes and responsibilities.

You have no idea how much I appreciate you contributing to the conversation Mike. You do indeed rock!

PS: Click here and you’ll see what I’m talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sssqBjaTzOU

Thanks again for having me. It’s nice to be appreciated. Let me try to squeeze this into a Tom Brokaw minute before I run off to work:

Other than the Mormon wedding simile, I try to use the term “white-bread,” to imply plain, run-of-the-mill, and probably not good for you. It’s a simile for the WASPy Republican base that has no space for something different than themselves. It doesn’t apply to every white person or conservative, but definitely to a few people I know.

As for the right to choose anything, it is passionate for me. It’s important to me that people can correct course and make responsible decisions to reverse a stupid one. The Republican path seems to be one of “no second chances.” I don’t see how an imposing law outlawing abortion is government staying out of our way.

For health care, what I don’t want is for government to idly disallow people who need health care to get it. You can opt out of it. You can remain with your employer’s plan if you have one. You can buy your own with your personal capital. But most importantly, you should have access to it. Absolutely. If anything, this FURTHERS my right to choose. A part-time single-parent can actually CHOOSE to attend a private doctor paid by the government, instead of being FORCED to accept no health care.

I don’t want the government to tell us where to live, but I want them to resume the sound planning policies that brought us the country’s memorable places like Annapolis, Key West, and Philadelphia. When a lack of planning policy lets developers build anywhere there’s space to squeeze a few more cookie cutters into, you have an environmental and transportation disaster.

“Place vs. space” is not an argument I expect to win with conservatives. Conservatives value private lives; liberals value public life. I would rather have half the space but access to all the amenities I want or need by foot or transit. That’s just me. Conservatives tend to not want to be around the public as much, and that’s why God invented gated communities.

But being raised in the suburbs, you have no choice but to drive everywhere and avert your eyes from people different than you because you have stunted interaction with them. The state and municipal governments should develop sound planning policies to retrofit our town centers to livable, viable communities.

Mike..

1st of all have you ever spent time in Philadelphia? You arguing personal taste and that is impossible to do… I’ll just say I’d rather live in the sprawl of LA. (Which I have.)

You said:
Many non-criminals are sentenced to recovery programs, halving the cost of what would be spent on incarcerating them to begin with.

I say:
As far as I know the drugs of which you refer (reefer, get it? ) to are still illegal here, so there for, these “NON CRIMINALS” that you speak of actually committed crimes. How can you be a NON CRIMINAL when you committed a crime? Once again liberals not taking responsibility for their actions. I do think we should de-criminalize drugs, but right now they ARE against the law. My point is about liberal whining, not over whether I think it should be a crime … I don’t …

You said:
What I ask Republicans is why they care so intently about the life of a person up until the moment they are born, after which their “right to life” doesn’t apply to a right to health care.

I say:
Liberal slogan as usual. How about I do the same and reverse it? Why do you NOT care about the life of a person until it is out of the womb, and then demand that I help take care of it? This is a ridiculous stance.
Mom shouldn’t have spread her legs and Dad should have thought about baseball. C’mon…..
… and just for the record, I am morally against abortion and politically don’t care what happens…
I’ll never get pregnant … (IUD you know.)

You Said:
… being raised in the suburbs, you have no choice but to drive everywhere and avert your eyes from people different than you because you have stunted interaction with them.

I say:
Are you kidding? I AM the person different than the suburbanites … and if they CHOOSE not to deal with me … that is fine with me. But it is their CHOICE… there is your favorite word.

You say:
The problem with this, for example in the Roe v. Wade case, is that I disagree with what would probably happen in Georgia.

I say:
If this worries you then what you are really saying is, “If my state votes and I am out voted then I will piss and moan”. That is called DEMOCRACY , if you get out voted DEAL with it! I am surely gonna be out voted statewide and nationally for the Presidential candidate, and I will DEAL with it. What you want is having your way all of the time. Not gonna happen. (Bush senior humor.)

I agree that health care is a huge problem. I don’t think anyone thinks all is well…

But where do you suppose all of the money is going to come from to pay for your: Health care, “substance abuse diversion”, recovery programs, plans to make this world more viable to Mike and his way of thinking, new transit, etc. etc. etc…
My tax dollars? Shouldn’t I get a CHOICE if I want that or not, since choice is your top priority?
You can’t have it both ways….

CARRY ON.

T

I haven’t read this whole thing but a quick comment on Mike’s paragraph on the private sector above……Possibly out of context as I have not read the entire string…

Mike – How many people do you know that do NOT own a cell phone? Probably none.

The private sector has actually done a pretty good job of providing a product (whether it is a need or a want) to the consumer at a price they can afford. It’s called competition. A business owner or corporation is a bit smarter than your average dumb ass and will find a way to sell a product to EVERY consumer. Trust me, capitalists are not snobs.

Regarding Education – There already is class division. A great percentage of those who can afford it, send their kids to private school.

To further the Mighty Hanki’s point… but applying it to health care:

Use the same cell-phone analogy. Just apply it to health care. If health care was truly free-market (which it is not) it would rise, fall and generally thrive like cell phones, video games, Taco Bell or anything else.

The problem is today… people are not used to paying for their health care. They are only used to co-pays. And that is (unfortunately) due to “group” (or socialist if you must) healthcare plans.

So let’s make the problem worse and let the government pay for ALL of it.

Some very, very intelligent people STILL, TODAY don’t understand that the Federal Government does NOT HAVE incoming revenue streams OTHER THAN taxes.

So when you hear the likes of Obama telling you how all this shit is going to be covered and payed for… where do you suppose that cash is going to come from? This is sooooooooooooooooooo basic. Yet so many fail to comprehend it.

Who exactly, is going to pay for the medical services, when a needy (legit or otherwise) individual walks in off the street and needs something? Where is that money going to come from?

Understand this: We live in the MOST GIVING country on this planet. Hands down. You need look no further than Katrina for that proof. Private giving frickin’ DWARFED ANYTHING the Feds provided.

We take care of our own.

Always have. Always will. (And MUCH better than the Government EVER will)

Have faith in people.

After reading some of the comments here, I figured I would chime in. Admittedly I don’t have time to really follow this discussion to see where it leads, but since my personal experiences touch on many of the issues covered I figured I would add my two cents.

First, the opening discussion of how there is no discernible difference between the Republicans and the Democrats seems to me to be a bit dated. I think you could have said something similar–and many did–during the 2000 and 2004 elections, but not this year. I simply cannot understand how somebody can follow all that both candidates (and their running mates) have been saying and not notice clear and meaningful differences between the two tickets. Sure we can paint caricatures of Democrats and Republicans that rely on stereotypes and argue that all politicians and leaders are corrupt, but where does that get us? Why would a third party leader be fundamentally different? As someone who has lived in Ecuador and witnessed firsthand the political instability that can come from a multiparty system with low party discipline, I’ve come to believe that the moderate approach of the two-party system in the United States is ultimately a good thing. From what I’ve read of the political science literature, neither a two-party system nor a parliamentary system is inherently superior, but attempting to change an established system can result in chaos. Governing requires coalitions, and coalitions can be hard to form when people don’t know where you or your party stands on the issues.

Second, being the product of an accidental pregnancy (my birth mom was only sixteen at the time), as well as the father of an unplanned child, there is no way that anybody is going to convince me that the government has the right to tell an adult woman what she can or cannot do with her body. I have had many years to think about this, and even though I fully understand that I wouldn’t be here to write this had my birth mom terminated, I stand by my position. Mistakes happen and choices are made, but the key word for me is CHOICE. I am thankful that my birth mom chose the way she did, and that my partner and I were able to make our own choice. But “pro-choice” doesn’t mean “pro abortion,” and women should have the right to choose. PERIOD

Third, having grown up in Philadelphia and having spent some time in L.A., Philly is way better than L.A…

Bill E.,
Welcome thanks for sharing.
I meant no offense to your hometown .. I was using it for a point. (poor taste, my bad)
To make my point again, I was giving an OPINION, not making an emphatic statement about LA / PHILLY … Kind of a baseball play-off reference, that went “over some heads” … (that was a joke, see MLB headlines)

I said:
You’re arguing personal taste and that is impossible to do… I’ll just say I’d rather live in the sprawl of LA..

My point being .. I worded it as “Rather” meaning opinion. Mike said his statement as fact meaning we all should agree that Philly is great. You followed by doing the same as Mike, saying “Philly is way better than L.A…” as if it is not an opinion. That is all I meant … no insult intended.

Now on to the important things.

When you said…”I’ve come to believe that the moderate approach of the two-party system in the United States is ultimately a good thing. ”

I guess, from my point of view being moderate in this political climate makes you a 3rd party participant naturally. DEMS and PUBS in office toe* the line for the party. I am seeing… thanks to this website… that the voters are finding gray areas, but ultimately you choose 1 side and the office holder stays the party course. Not true representation for several of us.

I am always interested in those that 1st hand experience from other countries and their political nuances.
But honestly, and I mean no disrespect, this isn’t Ecuador. Letting the fear of a 3rd party shake-up keep someone from considering it, is as alarmist running every time you hear the word Allah.

As far as abortion … for me (this is opinion) it is morally wrong … politically I don’t care, whatever the state says I’ll abide … but if it is the woman’s choice and her choice only … then why should the man have to pay for the child if his choice was to abort and he wasn’t given a say in the matter……CHOICE… that is the main word used by both you and Mike. I always wondered what people felt about the man’s role, I’m interested in your thoughts after reading your history.

Thanks Bill E…
Your post was worth far more than 2 cents!!!

CARRY ON.

T
* it is toe not tow you guys … I researched the origins…

What I meant by moderate was that in our system both parties are usually forced to meet somewhere in the middle to get things done. This slows things down, but tends to prevent the sharp swings experienced in countries such as Ecuador. I am not “afraid” of a third party, I just fail to see how it, or its candidate, would be able to do things once in power that are so revolutionary. They will still have to work with people from the traditional parties. To me the third party argument is a cop out that avoids tackling the many specific problems this country faces that is used by people who don’t feel that either party speaks for them and their concerns anymore. While I understand that feeling, I’m just not convinced that altering the system will automatically change things. Why would a 3rd party candidate be any different?(And yes, as a resident of Texas I have followed Ron Paul’s campaign.) As for abortion, I also believe in the separation of church and state. I respectfully wish that everyone would keep their moral views to themselves when it comes to something that is a very difficult and personal decision. So for the man in your scenario, that situation should be between him and the mother–the state shouldn’t have a role.

Bill E.
Thanks for the response.

Cop Out (idiomatic) To avoid or shirk, either by failing to perform, or by performing in a grossly insufficient, negligent, or superficial manner.
To me that better describes sticking to the current system.

I don’t have a party so of course no one speaks for me. (That is why I pontificate here I guess.)

Respectfully, I gave my moral stance for 2 reasons.

1. To show that I think that you can have an aversion to abortion without it being a stance to force on anyone.
2. To also show that on the flip side… for me and me alone… it would not be a difficult decision at all.
( For you it is and I respect that, I hope that you can respect my view.)

My scenario is still out there…

The guy wanted an abortion. His choice. The female chose to carry the child, it is her body. Does the guy then not have to pay for the child? Unfortunately for your view, the state IS involved because the mother can enforce child support payments. (I am watching this very scenario happen to an acquaintance.)
In a perfect world they would work it out, I agree, but this is not a perfect world, because that too, is subjective.

CARRY ON.

T

Sorry so long.

In Jersey, I hung out in Philly all the time, often thankful for the trolleys and trains available to escort my drunk ass back over the river. Even though I’d be hard-pressed to find anything in Gloucester County to write home about, my stance against the suburbs isn’t one of taste; it’s against a far-flung living arrangement largely responsible for this country consuming half the world’s oil, far more than it produces. If we could only itemize our tax allocations as suggested, I would pull all my money out of infrastructure maintenance on those monolithic Interstates that enable us to run and hide.

“Non-criminals” is my term for “victimless criminals,” a tag of libertarianism. I find it odd that libertarians rail against the government except for the laws it passes. And by offering a program that costs you, the uninvolved taxpayer, HALF what incarceration would otherwise, I fail to see why you aren’t thankful for such programs. I imagine you would prefer private prisons? Such institutions would be beholden to profits first, justice second. That’s corruption waiting to happen.

I THINK I’m personally and morally against abortion. I can only assume because I’ve so far been responsible enough not to have to face it. But I simply cannot accept imposing that belief on others. There are obviously terms of pregnancy within which the procedure can be done. Forgive me for being crass, but I cannot see early-term abortion as much worse than masturbation. Just imagine how many thousands of possible lives are thrown away!

I’m aware that I emphasize the Christian-Republican correlation too much and that it doesn’t always apply, but I fail to see how total refusal to be one’s “brother’s keeper” and to love others as themselves in any way jives with living a Christlike life. In the lives of too many Evangelicals I know, I see cosmetic Christianity, showing absolutely NO hint of Christ in their lives as evidenced by their works. Faith without works is dead. It puzzles me doubly when a cosmetic Christian is not well-to-do and STILL Republican. I can’t imagine how he benefits.

As for “pissing and moaning” about a state decision, this is no different than the gist I get of your stance toward a national decision. I still don’t understand why Sonny Perdue is the extent of government we’re able to accept.

We in the South are still backwards in so many ways. The spectre of George Wallace and Strom Thurmond are not soon enough forgotten. I appreciate having a decent balance of civilization in a federal system. We in the South seem still confused by those different than us. Every time I leave this little blue island and drive ten parsecs out to Cobb or Paulding, I see it in people. I’m familiar with it because I grew up there, turned off by it when I was very young. Something about separation still appeals to people.

It’s not “me” that I imagine the world should be viable to, it’s to the different people out there other than just those somehow keeping up with rising median incomes.

I stand by my assertion that our decisions live and die by whether we like, dislike, or even care about other people. It’s not a matter of whining or tired talking points; it’s simply a matter of what’s in us as people. We are either hardened by mistrust and some sense of classist Manifest Destiny, or we make space. So yes, maybe I look past the idea of imposing a tax burden on those who have it to give because I cannot align with that foul nature in people.

Of course I understand tax revenue would pay for a nationalized health care system. Why is it better to take tax to kill foreigners rather than cure Americans? When they say the purpose of government is to protect us, do they only mean from foreign bullets? Is deficit-spending ourselves into a two-front war the only purpose of a federal government?

The private sector has done a good job providing cell phones to people. Making commercial products for consumption is the market’s job. By extension, the health and “right to life” of people already walking this earth should NOT be a commodity. The idea of cutting expenses by denying benefits to those with preexisting conditions for profit reasons is beyond human. This doesn’t compare to aborting a non-sentient embryo; the money market is literally killing people.

As for the federal response to Katrina, what then of the state response? You ask for faith in “people.” Some define people as the “states.” If the states are capable in and of themselves to deal with major crises, why do we still appeal to the federal government for help? And why is appealing to them for this kind of help any different than doing the same for health care or pet projects? Shouldn’t every citizen of New Orleans have just been more responsible for their own decisions and worked hard enough to afford a second house in Topeka, or that insurance premium that would have covered everything they owned, or to load everything up in a giant Ryder van and high-tail it out of town?

I think it’s because those who have are used to having. Because the have-nots are always asking for things, it’s easy for us to get comfortable and complacent and imagine ourselves above the fray. And when it’s our turn to ask for things, it’s always justified. Perhaps AIG is justified in asking for our money because they promised their top sales executives to a lavish banquet? This is not the best of the market. Those are not the “people” in whom I think you want me to invest my faith.

C’mon Mike,

I am voting libertarian … I am not a member of the party.

Your paragraph:
“Non-criminals” is my term for “victimless criminals,” a tag of libertarianism. I find it odd that libertarians rail against the government except for the laws it passes. And by offering a program that costs you, the uninvolved taxpayer, HALF what incarceration would otherwise, I fail to see why you aren’t thankful for such programs. I imagine you would prefer private prisons? Such institutions would be beholden to profits first, justice second. That’s corruption waiting to happen.

You are letting your passion, cloud what I am trying to say. I am totally for the legalization of drugs , so why would I “be thankful” for any program that I have to pay for that need not exist. That is where I rail against the Federal gov..
Victimless crime makes much more sense to me. Because it is the truth!
The thought of private prisons had never crossed my mind until you brought it up in this fantasy. But it is a pretty funny thought.

The next quote towards me was:
As for “pissing and moaning” about a state decision, this is no different than the gist I get of your stance toward a national decision.

I accept getting out voted … that was my point … I don’t get a vote in a Federal decision. C’mon man, everybody knows that if you get out voted the majority has spoken. If the Fed. Gov. makes a decision, you got no vote. It is a simple concept.

SOME STATS FOR YOU:
The 2 counties that you complained about DRIVING through.

1st
COBB COUNTY RACE BREAKDOWN: Minorites HIGHER than the National Average.
(Less WHITEBREAD … I am betting less stares here…)

White Non-Hispanic (68.8%) NATIONAL 75%
Black (18.8%) National 12.3% and it goes on…..
Hispanic (7.7%)
Other race (3.6%)
Two or more races (1.9%)
Asian Indian (0.9%)
American Indian (0.7%)
Chinese (0.6%)
Korean (0.6%)
(Total can be greater than 100% because Hispanics could be counted in other races)

NEXT UP

PAULDING COUNTY: AVERAGE WAGE…
these suburbanites are the poor people that you are championing.
Maybe they are staring at you because you OWN a car!

Males: 40,873 (50.0%)
Females: 40,805 (50.0%)
Average wage per job in 2003: $27,337 AVERAGE NATIONAL WAGE IN 2002: $36,764
County population in 2003: 100,037

These are facts. No twisting these … just straight facts…

I enjoy your input…

CARRY ON.

T

Toni,
Thanks for the definition. To me, just saying that a third party candidate will fix the problems this country faces simply because he/she isn’t a Democrat or a Republican is a cop out because it is avoiding an honest discussion of just what those problems are and how we can fix them. Sure there are parts of the bailout, for example, that are hard to swallow, but what exactly is our alternative at this point? How would a third party candidate approach this problem differently? I simply haven’t heard from anyone how a third party candidate would get things done. The “discussion” around here sometimes seems to be more about people talking past each other rather than with each other. There also seems to be an assumption by some that being an independent voter automatically makes one a more thoughtful and informed citizen; that all Democrats and Republicans are simple sheep who couldn’t possibly think for themselves or find fault with some of their candidate’s position. I find this condescending and cynical. Finally, to return one more time to your friend, yes that situation sucks, but surely we can agree that his is an unusual case that doesn’t represent the norm. Ultimately I’m not clear how his story relates to my overall point–the government shouldn’t have the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. So when you say, “whatever the state says I’ll abide” when talking about abortions, I hear you agreeing that the state has the right to ban abortions. I strongly and respectfully disagree.

Here’s my opinion on abortion. Granted, i’m a guy, but I think it’s really kind of basic. To me, I believe abortion is the killing of a baby, but I understand, for cases of rape and serious medical reasons, it does have a valid use. For the pro-choice group, since it’s typically really bad choices that got the woman there in the first place, can you really trust them to make the right choice about having an abortion? How about let’s treat the disease and not debate the cure. Give me a candidtate who will stand up and say that abortion isn’t the problem, SEX IS THE PROBLEM!!! Teach kids that abstinance in the only proven 100% effective method of birth control. And since parents don’t seem to be getting that message across, our education system needs to re-institute sex-ed. Parents simply aren’t doing a good enough job of expaining where babies come from. Either that, or the kids know there is a simple way out, should they get pregnant.

See, it’s very simple, if you fix the root cause of the problem, the pro-life/pro-choice argument would take the backseat to issues like the economy, national defense, voter fraud, candidates who cavort with terrorists, etc.

“Granted I’m a guy.” I’m glad you pointed that out since to me it always seems somehow wrong that men spend so much time deciding what women can do with their bodies. Anyway, sex is a fundamental and natural part of being a human. And while it is true that abstinence is the only sure way to prevent pregnancy, you can’t stop people from having sex. As for trusting women who accidentally got pregnant to make the right choice, I don’t feel that I have the authority to say that they should or should not be trusted to decide about aborting, and neither does the state. How do I know what’s right for them? When my partner and I got pregnant we were using birth control–it failed. That failure does not mean that she (we) shouldn’t have had the choice to abort if that was what we needed to do, or that we shouldn’t have been trusted to make that decision. Thankfully an abortion wasn’t the right choice for us, but I’m equal thankful that we got to make our own decision without some high and mighty bureaucrat telling us what to do. Again, I’m for the separation of church and state. Saying that abortion across the board is murdering a baby who has the same rights as the mother is a moral argument based on specific religious teachings. Other religions believe that life doesn’t begin until the baby is born, or until the “bones are stitched.” Why are they wrong and the Christians right? To me the fundamental problem is mixing church with state. And I don’t want to assume too much here, but it sounds like perhaps you don’t know anyone who has had an abortion. If I’m wrong I apologize, but there is nothing simple about that “way out.” It is something that stays with many women the rest of their lives. Nonetheless, I again don’t feel that I have the right to tell them that they can’t make this difficult decision.

Bill E,
You are asking me to define what a 3rd party candidate will do if reaching a higher office. I can’t … simply because it hasn’t happened yet. But I think we can all well define what happens with the status quo.
I think you have jumped in late, but on previous posts I stated that I have voted for both DEMS and PUBS before and will continue to do so when they best represent my view, I am independant and not always a 3rd party proponent.

When I said “I’ll abide” was 2 fold. I think it is a states rights issue thus deeper than Roe V Wade… and I am never going to be in that position.
Yes we can agree that the scenario is not the norm. But it is a reality, that needs to be considered.
Truth is my acquaintance should want to be a part of the kids life but he CHOOSES not to be.

Sorry if you feel that I am one of those talking past people, that is not my intent. I am on here in between a busy work schedule and I am an arrogant ass sometimes.
Speaking of social skills… my name is TONY with a Y.

People like myself may just be realistic enough to see that Bill E. and Rob will never fix the problem because you are seeing it as 2 different things. So why can’t I have my 2 cents?

Bill E., if separation of church and state were possible I’d be right there with you. It isn’t in our lifetime.

CARRY ON.

T

I, too, have been part of an unplanned pregnancy, 2 of them, in fact. While dating, my fiance got pregant. Easy solution, we moved up our wedding date, and had the first girl born to my side of the family in 140 years. A couple years later, with a marriage on the rocks, she was prescribed medication that messed with her birth control pills, and we had another baby girl. It never crossed our minds to abort them despite it being bad timing.

I will argue your point about getting them to stop having sex. Kids today see sex everywhere, magazine and newpaper ads, tv commercials, tv shows, movies. They see it on a daily, if not hourly, basis. That is the only sex education most kids get. “Well Julie on General Hospital slept with Jim, John, Dave, Eric, Sam, and Bill, and she didn’t get pregnant.” My point is this, teens need to be educated about what sex in REAL LIFE can lead to. I feel if they are taught sex, abstinance, contraception, STD’s, and AIDS, the the number of unwanted pregnancies would drop significantly.

Who Has Abortions? ( I found this online)

Fifty-two percent of U.S. women obtaining abortions are younger than 25: Women aged 20-24 obtain 33 percent of all abortions, and teenagers obtain 19 percent. Black women are more than 3 times as likely as white women to have an abortion, and Hispanic women are 2 1/2 times as likely. Two-thirds of all abortions are among never-married women. On average, women give at least 3 reasons for choosing abortion: 3/4 say that having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities; about 2/3 say they cannot afford a child; and 1/2 say they do not want to be a single parent or are having problems with their husband or partner.

So why can’t we provide better education to stop them from having “reckless” or “recreational” sex, or at least educate them to have safe sex?

Oh, wait, I guess you could say I’m connected to 3 unwanted pregnancies. My mom was given up for adoption. So, yes, I am a little partial to the pro-life side of things.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with sex education, and our kids need more of it. I do have a problem with federal dollars going just to schools that teach abstinence only and nothing else, but if they talk about sex in a realistic manner–it’s going to happen so be safe–then I agree that this could help the problem. As for your statistics, they really don’t tell us much at all. If we were to pick them apart–for example, why is it inherently bad that someone has an abortion because having the child would interfere with “work, school or other responsibilities”–I think we would find that generalities like these can be twisted and manipulated in any number of ways which in turn weakens their impact as evidence. Why do we get to decide which responsibilities are more important for somebody else? And I think you and I are on a similar page here in one respect–it sounds like we are both grateful that we were able to keep our kid(s) even though they were unplanned. Surely you can concede that the solution that was easy for you (and ultimately for me as well) might not be as easy for someone else. I just don’t think we should have a blanket law, at the federal or the state level, that takes away a woman’s right to choose what’s best for her.

And I don’t think the separation of church and state is impossible. I think it is an ideal that should be worked for, but it isn’t impossible to achieve.

Bill E.
We have found some common ground … I still think it is unrealistic, but I will always support separation of C/S issues.

CARRY ON.

T

Bill,

The stats show that the majority who get abortions are young, unmarried women who are either still in school or just out of school working some entry level job. For them, it’s kind of like the credit crisis we are in now. People bought houses they couldn’t afford, cars they couldn’t afford, and got credit cards they didn’t need, and then don’t have the guts to get themselves out of the the mess they created. Basically, the ones having the abortions are the ones who really should be taking every precaution NOT to get get pregnant. Whether it be through lack of education or simply tempting fate, or simple laziness, they did not use good judgement. Or maybe it was peer pressure, wanting to hang with the in crowd. It seems like today, it’s better to be labelled a slut that it is to be a virgin.

If you noticed in my post, I did not say that they ONLY be taught abstinance, so we completely agree on what SHOULD be taught.

Two sayings come to mind in respect to a woman’s right to choose:

If you play with fire, you’re going to get burned.

If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

If you choose to have sex, and then get pregnant, then maybe it’s a fine time to grow up, take responsibility for your actions, and either raise the child yourself, or bless somebody who can’t have children (they don’t have any choice).

I just think you’re making an awful lot of assumptions about people that you don’t even know. How do you know what kind of judgment they used? How do you know that they weren’t being responsible and using protection? How do you know that having the child–even if one puts it up for adoption–is a real option for them? I could go on, but personally I don’t feel as though I have the right to judge anyone else. As for sex ed., my comment was a reference to recent (during the last 8 years) federal policies that cut off funding for sex education for public schools teaching anything other than abstinence only, not a reference to your personal position on the matter which I know addressed STDs, AIDS, etc.

Mike and Bill E ……………..I sure am glad that you showed up. I was feeling surrounded!

Just to offer a few quick thoughts. JGUSTY You’ve mentioned on a couple of occasions where policy should be put to the states and therefore back to the people.

There are a few flaws in that thinking as far as I’m concerned.

First of all as we saw in the last two Pres Elections the majority doesn’t always win after all. And secondly I’m not so sure that “majority rules” would alway be the way to go where some personal freedoms are concerned. Gay marriage being a very good example and abortion rights on a more cloudy level.

Which touched on a whole new subject. NONE of what we have been discussing is going to mean shit if this country can’t get it together and put together a voting system that is reliable against fraud. I’m sure that you have all seen the headlines about ACORN. THIS MAKES THE 3RD PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION IN A ROW WHERE FRAUD IS PROBABLY OCCURING.

Which leads me to my next thought regarding the third party discussion. Bill E I would agree with you regarding the two party “balance” except they are just both too damn corrupt and have both been sooooooooo ridiculously un-constitutional in the way that they maintain a literal stranglehold on the political system.

Thanks for the great discussions. They have been an interesting read

JohnG

Wow. You go away for a day and there’s so much to respond to.

But before I do… let me once again express my gratitude to ALL OF YOU for taking the time out to play in the playground of constructive discussion. I think we are all better for it, as this is definitely a therapeutic process to be sure.

Here we go:

Bill E: While I respect that you may see distinct differences between what Obama & McCain are saying, proposing and promising… I have to respectively disagree with you. On almost every issue… they are identical when it gets down to it. Right up to McCain’s relationship with ACORN. (Which is why he won’t pound Obama on the very subject) I refer you again to Carroll Quigley’s book “Tragedy & Hope” and Bill Clinton’s endorsement if you need further convincing.

Bill E: Bluntly… there is no mention whatsoever of Separation of Church & State ANYWHERE in the constitution. In fact it says just the opposite. But, since you subscribe to the concept, please explain what that has to do with abortion. (Not being an ass… just sincerely looking for the connection)

But all this abortion debate dances around (or completely misses) the main point. OK… CHOICE. I get it. That’s not some grand concept that Liberals have the market cornered on. We ALL want choice. Come on… it human nature. The point is… women HAD CHOICE. Then the Federal Government came in and TOOK IT AWAY! That in-and-of-itself is very, very, fundamentally WRONG. Give the “choice” back to the women and take the “choice” AWAY from the Federal Government.

Mike: Are we currently using tax dollars to kill foreigners? I must’ve missed that piece of legislation. I’m fairly certain that was a slam against what we are doing in Iraq and Afghanistan, so I’ll give you the opportunity to clarify before I proceed to tear that subject all to hell. But I think that you know deep down inside that the objective over there was a military defensive move to get a leg up on Iran. But perhaps you’re not in that loop yet. (and that’s OK)

As for Katrina… you immediately defaulted to what the State did or did not do. Yes, in an earlier discussion I defined “people” as the State. That was speaking legislatively. My point in the Katrina example is that PRIVATE (people) giving, both monetarily and effort-wise absolutely dwarfed whatever the State of Feds did. My point is that people stepped up. Because people, for the most part, are inherently GOOD. PRIVATE people did, gave and cared far more than the governments did.

Why do some always look to the government to solve or fix any issue?

That is the fundamental difference between right and left/liberal and conservative/Coldplay and Motorhead.

Bill E: The bailout. Wow. OK… I’ll tell you how a third-party (or even a second-party) could deal with it… LEAVE IT ALONE. Let the companies that made bad decisions die. Let the people who made bad decisions suffer the consequence. Let the market work. Failure is part of it. But liberals (McCain & Obama included) refuse to acknowlege the existence of “failure.” That simply can’t be allowed because it would hurt people’s feelings, make them feel bad or perhaps even have to suffer.

Let me drop a stat on you. Do you realize that only 17% of all home mortgages in the U.S. fall under the “sub-prime” moniker? Wrap you head around that. Only 17%.

Of that 17%… only 2% of those are in foreclosure.

So how is it that 2% are absolutely CRIPPLING our economy. The obvious answer is… IT’S NOT!!! This whole economy scare-tactic is complete and TOTAL bullshit.

It’s real simple.

The Government ONCE AGAIN got involved in something they shouldn’t have and forced banks to loan money to people who could not afford it. Because of course it’s a “right” to be allowed to own a home. God forbid there could ever be people who just are not going to be able to, or are capable of the responsibility of home ownership. (Thanks Bill Clinton & the “Community Reinvestment Act”)

Of course when you allow such financial behavior to occur, there will be money lost. And there was. Add to that some absolutely SICKENING financial abuses in the form of salaries, bonuses and severance packages to the executives running these companies.

Eventually, after the financial buck gets passed around enough, SOMEONE has to pay up. And this time it’s you and me.

I’ve looked around and honestly, I don’t see life being lived much differently. Of course the gas prices are a bitch, but even THAT hasn’t changed things all that drastically. The malls are still full. People are still buying non-essentials like they always have. I personally see with my own eyes every day people spending HUGE dollars on music, merchandise and VERY expensive websites. (Yeah… I work in the entertainment business) And business is good.

But both candidates have compared this to the Great Depression. THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!! Are you kidding me???? When I can’t buy an extra Red Bull in the morning because gas is $4 a gallon is HARDLY comparable to the Great Depression and incredibly insulting to the people who actually went through it.

Bill E: Abortion is a “moral argument”? I guess be-heading could also be a moral argument if you want to get all “hippie” about it.

I’ve never understood this concept that there is any disagreement over when life begins. I’m no scientist, but I’m pretty sure life begins WHEN THE WOMEN GET’S PREGNANT. That’s the difference between a pregnant woman and a woman who is not pregnant.

The difference is that one has a baby growing inside the womb. Growing. The reason it’s growing is because it’s ALIVE. If it weren’t alive the body would reject it. That’s called a miscarriage.

This is basic science. Not some hot political debate topic.

And finally… I’ll end on one of my all-time favorite liberal traits: The art of being non-judgmental.

Someone give me an example of ANY liberal (media personality, politician, musician…ANYONE) who is non-judgmental. Please. Enlighten me.

Fact is we are ALL judgmental. Every single one of us. It’s part of being human. So please spare me the “I don’t have a right to judge someone else” crap. (I’m making a point here Bill and not intentionally singling you out. Promise.)

We all judge. It’s irrelevant whether we have the right to. It’s not a “right” you can quantify.

I love you all! Now let’s have a beer. (Preferably Fat Tire!)

Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeew.

Hey everybody. I thought this was cool.

JohnG,
I don’t have enough time to fully respond, but here are my immediate reactions:

1) As I’m sure your aware, the economic crisis extends beyond our shores. While the unreferenced stat. you provide is interesting, it doesn’t touch on the credit crunch that is occurring. A similar credit crunch occurred during the Great Depression. The FDR Administration stepped in and halted foreclosures on homes and farms and eventually bought up some of the debt. While the New Deal didn’t completely right the economy, WWII did that, it did revitalize faith in the economic system. Lack of faith feeds on itself as we have seen again in the recent crisis.

2) Saying that life begins at pregnancy isn’t as simple, or scientific, as you make it sound. Earlier you questioned why people don’t extend the same rights of women to unborn children. It’s because some of us–and if you look globally there are a lot of us–believe that embryos or unborn fetuses don’t have the same rights because they don’t have the same abilities to exercise these rights.

3) As for being judgmental, I only brought that up because labeling people who got pregnant as “lazy” or “irresponsible” just based on some general data that tells us how old they are or that they are in school is placing a value judgment on those people that just isn’t represented in the data. That’s the danger of throwing around generalities and trying to apply them to specific cases. That’s also the danger of making blanket laws that don’t take into account individual circumstances.

4) There is nothing “hippie” about saying that abortion is a moral argument. Give me one good rational, scientific explanation for why a mother shouldn’t be able to choose to abort. I have never heard a justification that doesn’t ultimately come down to a question of when life begins–and that, again, is a debate that rests on personal and religious beliefs not science.

5) Yes, I know that the separation of church and state isn’t specified in the Constitution. And I also know that such a separation has never fully existed in our country–if it had Rhode Island, Maine and Salt Lake City would have been founded by different people. But as I said in another post, I believe this is an ideal to be worked for. The reason I believe this is that I don’t think any one religion should have a monopoly on creating laws that affect people of all religions. Even though our country was founded by people with Judeo-Christian beliefs, that doesn’t mean that those beliefs have any place in the law.

6) A question that’s been bugging me. Why is it that some conservatives get all up in arms if you talk about the government injecting itself into their lives by taking their guns or raising their taxes, but have absolutely no problem with the government telling a woman that she can’t have an abortion? (I have my own answer to this but I’m interested in others’ responses.)

OK, time for coffee…

Sorry, that last one was meant for JGusty, not JohnG (as I said, I need my morning coffee)….

JGusty,
I had to get this out and then I’ll be quiet.
You said: “But both candidates have compared this to the Great Depression. THE GREAT DEPRESSION!!!! Are you kidding me???? When I can’t buy an extra Red Bull in the morning because gas is $4 a gallon is HARDLY comparable to the Great Depression and incredibly insulting to the people who actually went through it.”

And I find your flippant observations concerning gas prices and Red Bull equally insulting. As owners of Wachovia stock, my family and I just lost what was supposed to be the down payment on our first house. Generalizations like yours are troublesome to me. To my mind they either come from, at best, innocent ignorance (something we are all guilty of from time to time), or, at worst, a blatant disregard for the very real sufferings experienced by our fellow citizens. This has nothing to do with hurting peoples’ feelings. People are losing their houses, their retirement funds and their jobs. This is a problem.

On a brighter note, thanks for introducing me to Quigley’s book. I haven’t yet read it, but I just read a short review of it and it sounds interesting. Still, I’m not exactly sure how it proves much beyond the idea that the rich and powerful have always enjoyed a monopoly on shaping our government policies. If that’s your point, I agree. I still don’t see, however, how a third party candidate will be able to do things differently.

Wow 24 hours away and this…..

I guess I’ll play the role of jerk here …. I truly mean no insult but I am quite aware that it will be taken as such.

It appears to me that once again, the liberal view, just wants to blame everybody else for their problems and whine, and the conservatives , don’t have the “everybody is a great human being view” and come off cold hearted. I am in the latter.

JGusty I know that you said you “think everyone is basically good.” But the posts say a different thing. As I read your posts.. it says the herd is pretty stupid… I guess that you can be stupid and good at the same time. ( I agree, but the whole God thing keeps you from being so blunt, I think.)

I will say this ONLY about myself, and then I’ll shut up because this is going to piss people off and that is because you can’t type sympathetic tones on a website. I AM sympathetic to those less fortunate.

I think we are basically animals, and survival is in our very core nature. Some feel the best route for survival is to be taken care of, some think it is to act alone. I am in the latter, but can PROVE neither as the only way.
I think people are basically neither good nor bad… just animals.

Bill E. I am sorry that your investments went poorly, I do want to see people do well. But mine went well this year, so what am I to do? Feel bad because of my wise/lucky CHOICE?

On the flip side the only inner voice that I hear is my conscience, that is as close to “God” as I get. I never feel bad for a religious person for not having their prayers answered. To me and ME ALONE, praying is little more than self-confirmations, it should never be for wisdom in law making, etc…

I’ll duck now….

CARRY ON.

T

Tony, (sorry for the misspelling earlier)
My comment regarding my investment tanking was only to suggest that perhaps this financial crisis is a bit more complex than the price of gas and one’s ability to buy Red Bull. I, like plenty of other investors, am going to ride out this storm because things will pick up. As such I begrudge nobody who had a good year because I hope to have plenty of them myself in the future. (I guess I didn’t realize that my comment suggested that I did.)

Bill E,
Yeah, that is my point, you can’t judge inflections on websites … that is how miscommunications happen on these things. I have made plenty ‘o’ blunders with my business choices, I hope they are behind me.

Since I am back (in between sessions) can anyone tell me the truth …

Am I correct in assuming that as a collective here ,we are avoiding saying “that is your religious belief” to each other … (Bill E to JGusty in the previous few posts.)
JGusty after I read my last post it sounded as if I was speaking for you… not my intent… you are more than capable to make your points on your own… my bad! I owe you a beer or 12…
it is just from my experience sometimes Christians ( such as you and I think Rob) want to keep that less in the discussion but I feel it should be put out there.

If we can say I am Christian or not (without debating faith) couldn’t we get to the heart of some of our posts?

OR maybe I am misreading everyone here… I thought E. A. Poe was a comedy writer as a kid!!!

CARRY ON.

T

I would be extremely happy if we could all just chalk this up to religious belief, and escape this charade of pretending that science somehow solves this issue. For me, religion and the law shouldn’t mix primarily because other people with other religious beliefs have other opinions. I’m not comfortable saying one religion is right while another is wrong. Other people feel differently. As I said, I believe that the separation of church and state is something that we need to strive for and I’m happy doing just that.

While we’re stirring the pot, is now a good time to express how I believe Israel is an illegitimate state—one self-fulfilling prophecy to beget the next—and that it is at the center of our global hegemony and fiscal irresponsibility? Or not?

Joe Wurzelbacher…

OK, Mike, now I have time to address that statement.
How can anyone standing in the US (unless they are 100% Native American), have an opinion like that.
(Hello … Manifest Destiny, anyone?)
I will not go into the under current of racism in that statement. You are free to have those beliefs. But the real thing that bothers me is… you are once again blaming others .. this time it is blaming 1 nation for the global economy woes. Wow.
Those of us that see we have ourselves to blame have to feel sickened by this.
I am gonna take the route above a racial debate. Maybe I read this wrong but I do not see how. I am willing to listen though.

CARRY ON.

T

The West piggybacked on Zionist movements at the end of WWII to further their presupposition of “end times”—to self-fulfill prophecy. This move is why today, we play supposed chess-games toward Iran (as was implied the campaigns in Iraq and Afghanistan are). Our security interests center around sustaining a self-created element of religion (the gathering of Israel), the thing that exascerbates our drive to destroy each other. I am not anti-Semitic; I’m anti-Zionist.

We can use this response to put aside the bemoaning “liberal whining” as somehow a good defense of an opposite opinion. Earlier we were told to not inject race (white/black, remember?) into domestic topics as an excuse for being domestically irresponsible. Let’s extend this to conservatives in their defense of international topics for being internationally irresponsible.

By this same standard, you justify the U.S. in intervening in every event worldwide where a whole people is decimated, including Bosnia, Rwanda, and Darfur. Why do we sustain Israel?—because it carries a religious context we cannot seem to undermine.

Mike,
Thanks for clearing that up for me. My apologies for having let myself get so upset.
I am learning that wording causes many misunderstandings.
All I needed to read was the last line of the 1st paragraph.
We are friends and I was troubled by the previous post.
I agree that there is always religious undertones, unfortunately.

CARRY ON.

T

Let me first say that I am extremely proud of the discussion that is happening here. Some pretty heavy topics are being tossed about here and not once has anyone seriously dipped into the Obama/McCain realms.

That soothes my soul and proves that we all can discuss these topics without having to hard-sell each other on the current Washington scorecard. A very sincere Thank You!

To Bill: I want to say to you that I certainly feel for you and your family who are experiencing some unfortunate financial repercussions due to the current state of things. I’d like to further explain my Red Bull/Gas Price comment. But first I want to clarify something. What is happening in the financial industry does NOT define “the economy” as a whole. What is happening in that industry is a direct result of horrible Federal intrusion, bad policy, mis-management, greed and disgusting corruption? While there is certainly fall-out that is causing some rather negative situations for the poor souls who trusted others with their investments… that is not entirely “the economy.”

Every day I witness long lines at 2 Starbucks filled with people paying $4 for a cup of coffee. I regularly have to wait to be seated in restaurants of all varieties from Taco Bell to $50-a-plate establishments. I’ve yet to see any closed movie theaters. Everyone I know has cell phones. I’ve not heard of one single instance where somebody has had their Visa, Amex or Discover Card credit cut off for no reason.

And this is all in the midst of $4-plus gas.

My point is that to compare what we are currently experiencing to The Great Depression is absolutely ludicrous. Sure there are examples of hardship. But (and this is key) FOR THE MOST PART… life is continuing as it always has.

During the Great Depression, vast number of people were REALLY suffering. I mean stand-in-the-soup-line suffering.

We are NOWHERE close to that. Not even close.

So I did not mean to come off as flippant… but my original point still stands. Hopefully I explained it better.

Tony: Yes… you are correct… I do believe that people can be stupid and good at the same time.

As for religious beliefs… here’s where I stand. Religion is private. No one but me knows where I stand with God. And frankly… I don’t CARE if anyone does. That’s between me and God. We were discussing Abortion. My views on abortion are not based in religion. And honestly… I’ve had hundreds of abortion discussions and it’s been my experience that MOST people who have the opinion that the killing of a child is wrong DO NOT arrive at that stance via religion.

Wrong can sometimes just be wrong.

It would be “wrong” of me to steal from my friend. Not because religions tells me so… but because it’s just common sense that it is wrong. Nothing more than that.

Same with Abortion for me. Killing a baby is just wrong. I don’t need religion to tell me that. And anyone who will defend the aborting (killing) of a baby (aside from rape or very unusual medical reasons threatening the life of the mother) should head over to the nearest animal hospital and I’d like to personally watch YOU cut open a pregnant dog or cat and smoosh the babies until they are dead. Once you are cool with that… I’m sure we could find an abortion doctor that would let you assist.

Anyone up for that challenge? We could make it a BabyReagan.net video exclusive.

I’m serious.

Mike: I’m not sure what to make of your Israel statement. But you so far have been the only one to inject race into any of these conversations… so I’ll have to chalk that up to my previously-mentioned liberal stereotype (liberals will ALWAYS inject race into a topic if you wait long enough) and allow you to further explain yourself.

You claim you are anti-Zionist. Am I to interpret that means you are pro-Palestinian/Islam?

Let’s all check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist and read up so that we can truly understand where Mike is coming from. It’s far too easy to paint you as a typical liberal racist Mike. It might be that you have further explaining to do… or maybe you are just growing in your understanding of why things are the way they are.

But then again… aren’t we all?

Well, I think it’s time I leave this discussion since we obviously can’t meet on a common ground and have a serious debate. I am fully aware that investments are only part of the economy, but if you’re following the news then you know that the recent data on consumer spending suggests that people are buying less. So even if theaters are still open, and whatever other trivial examples you provided, the fact is a slowdown appears to be starting. Since the 1970s our economy has depended on consumer spending so this could be a serious problem. Sure, millions of people aren’t out of work as during the Depression, but we are dealing with some of the same issues in terms of serious problems with the fundamentals of our economy, foreclosures, the drying up of credit, etc. Simply saying “What is happening in that industry is a direct result of horrible Federal intrusion, bad policy, mis-management, greed and disgusting corruption” isn’t making an argument it’s expressing an opinion.

As for abortion, it’s too bad that you can’t admit that not everyone considers the termination of a pregnancy at an early stage of gestation to be murder. What if I were a Jew who believed that life began at first breath. Would I be wrong and you right? Why? What you are expressing is a moral belief, not a scientific one. What I was asking you to do was to give me a rational explanation for why an embryo–let’s say in the first 3 months–has the same rights as an adult woman. To simply come back and say that abortion is wrong because it is murder is ducking the issue. And thus it is clear to me that the real purpose of this site is for you to tell us why you are right and we (some of us) are wrong. That is not a discussion, and I have better things to do with my time.

Tony and Rob,
I truly enjoyed our discussions. Though we don’t agree on some major issues, we seemed at least to be able to concede points and talk seriously about some of these issues.

Peace out….

I guess killing puppies is just too much for some people.

This abortion argument has always seemed silly to me. And this is a classic example of why. I never said that I was right or you were wrong Bill. I was doing my best at making a point. And in damn near every single post I’ve Thanked the people involved for being nice and courteous. Standing ones ground does not equal telling an opposing conversationalist that they are “wrong.”

Neither does a challenge.

If a fetus is not alive… then why abort it? Just leave it alone. The answer is simple… it’s aborted because it will continue to grow and eventually be delivered.

That aint political. It’s not religious. It’s life.

I’ve watched it happen before my eyes twice.

Sorry you are bowing out Bill. You made good points.

Bill E,
It was a pleasure and thank you for being respectful of my view as I tried to be of yours. I wish you and your family success in the future. Good Luck.

JGusty,
Thanks for making clear your stance on religion and politics crossing. You views on religion have morphed a bit in the past few years!
As you know having studied theology pretty extensively and being raised by a well educated and walk the walk minister, I have to laugh at myself for always thinking political motivation and religion mix into every “Christian’s” point of view. Especially when I am against that happening….

As for Mike, I will let him speak for himself, but I can say that I was shocked and angered by the 1st post because it came off a bit racist to me. Perhaps, a reaction was what he sought, because the 2nd post was less shocking and more focused.

CARRY ON.
T

And one more thing Bill (you know you’re still reading )
Tell the owners and employees of theaters, restaurants and Starbucks that their time, money & business are “trivial.” You can’t honestly declare that can you? There are COUNTLESS examples of thriving businesses that rely primarily on disposable income that are doing just fine. And my simple point was, that as long as those businesses are still up & running… it’s a bit much to equate the current state of the economy to The Great Depression.

Only 2% of all home loans are in foreclosure. Hardly an economy-breaker. And if you are dealing in the normal, non-sub-prime realm of credit… there does not seem to be much of a problem.

It’s an election year. Of course it’s doom & gloom.

As for abortion… of course I acknowledge that there are those who don’t consider it “murder.” Don’t be frickin’ ridiculous. I even acknowledge that there are some among us who consider murder to be “God’s Work.”

That doesn’t mean I have to structure my beliefs that way. As for your Jewish life-begins-at-first-breath example… that’s a religious belief. And I made myself perfectly clear that I was NOT coming from a religious perspective. In the religious realm… all you can do is respect each other’s beliefs. And I do.

I wasn’t arguing religious beliefs. We were discussing whether or not a fetus was “alive.” (which is like arguing that water isn’t “wet”)

It’s amazing to me that some will argue to-the-death whether that’s the case. Why the passion over that point? Why?

But I’ll say this… if a doctor came in and shanked an unborn Jewish baby in the back of a neck with a scalpel… there wouldn’t be a chance for a first breath.

And finally… the purpose of this site is for DISCUSSION. I’ll say it again… just because someone stands their ground in their beliefs does NOT equal conversational dictatorship like you accused me of. Your reaction is a prime example of why it’s LIBERALS who routinely bring-up & support “censorship” initiatives. For some reason (perhaps it’s the wiring) it’s very common to witness liberals unable to accept another’s certainty, steadfastness or difference of opinion. It just doesn’t compute.

So they take their ball and go home.

I’d prefer the path of open-mindedness and tolerance.

I don’t have the time to expound on everything, but it is important to explain even more plainly that I am not at all racist, anti-Semitic, or blaming the problems of those who have less on race. I am anti-Zionist because the explusion of those who settled the “Holy Land” to further supposed prophecy has been an ecumenical and international boondoggle. We will cause our own destruction because of it. A reaction is what I wanted, not to have everyone keep picking this misguided scab of racism. I’m sorry a debate on the topic didn’t take shape, and I am sorry if the term “white-bread” is lost on anyone. And I open myself to the attack that apology is “typical” of a liberal, but I-IV-V is typical too and that’s what sells albums.

It’s all good Mike. Seriously. In fact… I’ve always been intrigued by the whole subject of the historic battle over the Holy Land. And it sounds like you are as well. Let’s keep that discussion going. It sure seems at the heart of a lot of things we find ourselves involved in. I’m sure that there are a ton of things we can all learn from discussing it.

And please know that no one is calling you a racist.

It’s one thing to make a remark that could be “perceived” as racist. It’s a whole other thing to actually BE a racist. I’m pretty sure you’re OK.

Geeesh – you get caught up in work and life for a few days and come back and WWW3 has broken out here at the ol’ Baby Reagan. I can’t even begin to respond to all that I want to respond to, but I will respond to the abortion piece (of course…).

As a woman, I take great offense at the post above where it was implied that the “woman got in that predicament”… Um, just a quick lesson on the birds and the bees folks, women can’t do it alone (well they can and sometimes it’s better than the real thing, but absolutely not a chance for pregnancy there…). It most definitely takes two to tango, if you know what I mean. Abortion should be a choice, not a right. However, I firmly believe that it’s a choice for BOTH the man and the woman. Just like they made a choice together to have intercourse (except in cases of rape about which you don’t even want to get me started), they need to make a choice together to address the pregnancy issue.

I throw this scenario out there – a man and a woman take measures to protect against pregnancy and those measures fail at no fault of the users…

I know, as a woman, that I want the choice. Do I think that I could make the choice to abort my child today? Absolutely not. Could I say that unequivocally at the age of 16? Or even 25? Probably not.

Amen sista Jane! In 100% agreement with you.

And to be clear… NO ONE here wants to take “choice” away from anyone. Everybody want’s “choice.”

And in the abortion arena… “choice” becomes a word game. Personally, I just want the “choice” of the people protected from the Federal Government coming in and taking that “choice” away from the people as they did with Roe vs. Wade.

That’s all.

Luv ya!

Yes Gusty, your’e right, I just couldn’t avoid taking one last peak here. And now I will exit with one thought regarding abortion and one on the Depression. I am not talking about the scientific definition of when life begins here. Sure, biological life begins at conception. What I am talking about is a legal definition. If we make abortion illegal and call it murder then we are granting a fetus the same protections (against murder) as a woman. I am simply asking for a rational (non-religious) explanation for why a fetus has the same rights as a full-grown woman. So far your response to this is that abortion is murder and that leads us back to the beginning of this argument. (This is why I exited saying that obviously our discussion was useless). The language you employ in your posts makes it crystal clear to me that you either can’t take what I’m saying seriously, or you won’t. But surely we can agree that laws are social constructions. Right? Legislation concerning when in the life cycle to grant a person rights depends on one’s own beliefs and, in the case of abortion, this is intimately connected with morality and religion. I was hoping that you would follow Tony’s suggestion and admit that this is a moral issue. Then we could have moved on to your misconceptions concerning interpretations of the First Amendment and the separation of church and state.

As for the Depression, I don’t know what news you are reading, or perhaps watching, but from the new outlets that I follow, nobody is saying that we are In a situation as bad as the Great Depression. If they are, then I agree that they are wrong. Instead they are saying that we are in the worst financial crisis SINCE the Depression. Yes, some of this message involves doom and gloom, but it also involves an honest debate concerning why or why not the federal government today should inject itself into our economy–something again that hasn’t been done on a large scale since the Depression. I think that is why you are hearing a lot about the parallels between the two crises, and this is not unusual. During the Depression of the 1930s, officials referred often to the depressions of the 1890s, especially 1893, when formulating policy. Trying to use history as a model isn’t necessarily a bad thing. In fact, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that it is a good thing.

And with that, goodbye….

Jane ,
Welcome back.
I guess the abortion debate just gets lost on me. So I will repeat my stance to the wind. Morally I think it is wrong (just for myself) , politically do what you want with ( I don’t care.). But even in your own post, “women can’t do it alone” goes to my scenario … then why is it just a woman’s choice. Am I the only one that knows someone dealing with that issue?

Mike, since you went there … I , IV, V *** is successful because most hit songs touch a common nerve of it’s intended audience. I IV V, is simple, yet makes an easy canvas to ’say something CLEARLY’ over top of it.
Don’t post a “Marilyn Manson” song and then seem indignant when someone sees it as shocking. You admit that you wanted a reaction, you got it.
I would like to explore the topic of Zionism more closely and I am glad that you brought it up!

CARRY ON.
T

***I IV V is a music progression … I guess what divides the view on it is some people view it as simple chords played in a row and some understand that playing the chords isn’t enough , they need to be in time, in tune, with proper tone and phrasing … sort of like a post here!

Tony –

The women can’t do it alone referred to the actual getting pregnant, not abortion. My stance on abortion is this:

“… I firmly believe that it’s a choice for BOTH the man and the woman.”

Jane,
Politically I concur.
I got your point, I had posted a weird scenario previously. I probably was too vague.
See Mike I point my fingers at myself also!

Like I said welcome back!

T

Bill,

Very glad you responded. And OF COURSE abortion is a moral issue. I NEVER said it wasn’t. Don’t know where you got that impression from. If you’re still reading… help a brotha out and explain where I gave you the impression that I ever thought it wasn’t. It will help me be better understood in the future.

I kinda feel you were trying to trip me up on the whole “religous” thing.

And honestly… isn’t ANYTHING connected to an opinion, stance or belief a moral issue?

Regardless… extrememly glad you chimed in again. I sincerely hope that you do again. I’ll say it again… you make good points and your veiwpoints, stances & opinions are crucial to further discussion.

Hope we see you again.

JGusty,
STOP SUCKING ME BACK IN!!! No, seriously, I appreciate your concession. I think I got the impression that you didn’t think that abortion was a moral issues when you said:

“Abortion is a “moral argument”? I guess be-heading could also be a moral argument if you want to get all “hippie” about it. ”

That plus, and I really don’t mean to get all preachy here, your use of sarcasm and graphic imagery of baby kittens and baby Jews made me feel more like I was being bullied than debated. Of course I don’t want to see either of those things happen, but neither of those examples address my comment concerning the extension of rights to a fetus.

And yes, everything we argue is somehow linked to one’s opinion, but then we need to support our opinions with evidence. When you say, for example that, “there is no mention whatsoever of Separation of Church & State ANYWHERE in the constitution,” you seem to be implying that the this separation is somehow a false construct (perhaps created by hippies, or at least liberals) when it’s my understanding that it is a precedent that has been established repeatedly by the Supreme Court in its interpretations of the First Amendment, and that it may have its origins in the writings of Thomas Jefferson. So, while we can argue about whether or not the Supreme Court and others have interpreted the First Amendment appropriately, I don’t think we can simply dismiss the concept of the separation between church and state simply because that language isn’t used in the Constitution.

But now that we have established that we are talking about a moral issue, I will continue advocating for the separation of church and state and you will do your thing.

Basically as I read some of the posts here, especially about abortion, I became troubled by the use of unreferenced statistics and supposed facts to support dubious, and at times what I considered to be hateful, positions. For example, some here used statistics to show that the majority of women who have abortions in this country are young and single. Sure, from what I found at the CDC website (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5407a1.htm) recent data (2002) shows that 80% of women who have abortions in this country are unmarried, they are young (though less than 18% are under 19) and roughly 40% already have one or more child. But to take those statistics and then attach labels like “irresponsible” or “lazy” or “slut” is simply wrong, at least to my mind. And don’t even get me started on the recent posts about Obama being a Communist….

Ok, maybe just one thought or two. First, lets assume that I agree to suspend all of my rational and critical thinking abilities and accept the notion that Obama is in fact a Communist because I heard someone else say that he was. I’m still left wondering why exactly I am supposed to be afraid of this? Last time I checked, the Cold War ended, and Communism is now a thoroughly discredited system. Capitalism was never meant to provide social welfare. It is designed specifically and exclusively to generate profits. But governments can decide to use those profits to provide for their people. All governments in capitalist countries do this to a varying degree. But to simply say that daring to suggest that the top 5% income earners in this nation might need to pay a little more back to the government during a time when the gap between rich and poor is only growing, and following a period of widespread deregulation which fueled a lot of those earnings, is not, to my mind, the same thing as saying that someone is a Communist or even a socialist. These are very old arguments in our history (remember Huey Long’s “Share the Wealth” plan and the support, and uproar, that it caused? Or FDR who was labeled by some as a dangerous fledgling dictator because of his New Deal?) For me, I really do believe in Justice Oliver Wendel Holmes’s quote that “I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization.” I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that all of us have in some way or another benefited from government funding and I think that is okay. Anyway, I’m rambling…

So there, I’ve definitely added more than two cents, but now I must duck out…

Keep on Keepin’ On

This is unrelated to this post, but I was so excited I couldn’t wait for context. Behold the day we bid f’ing adieu to one of the worst senators in US history: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14819.html

Perhaps someone should tell Ted that prison – it’s not like a big building, it’s more like a series of cubes.

Well, in between the tumbleweeds here …I am going to state a belief that I have had for some time now.
I have been hammered and grilled here about being so pro 3rd party. (Please keep it coming, I have grown stronger in my beliefs, learned that some of my views were wrong and I have seen why others feel differently, even if I still think they are a bone-head!)

We are on the subject of finance right now. So here goes an insight to my thinking process.

The PUBS wanted Wall Street / banks to have freedom and control with too much trust … they had it.
The DEMS wanted everybody to get a loan and a shot … even if undeserved or unattainable … that happened too.
So with both sides getting what they wanted … here we are. (You see Bill E …. people on both sides are not so good in my opinion.)

What concerns me the most is … the only person that I have heard point this out besides me … (I did so during a record release party to a girl named “Stormy”) … was … Bill O’Reilly.
Now I am really freaked out….

Taylor…
What stuck out most to me about the article was .. only DEMS asked him to step down … if the claims are false, this is partisanship … if they are true, this is PARTISANSHIP …

CARRY ON.
T

Wow! I’m away from the computer for a couple days and y’all just went crazy! ALOT of reading to catch up!

Taylor, Sometimes justice is served, and when deserved prison time actually happens, that’s the dessert with the chocolate topping!

I may lean libertarioan but I tend to agree with Bill E on the communist issue. I think that a society that has been blessed with the means that the US has should help those that fall through the cracks.

Of course the problem is that when the gov. runs ANY kind of program standards and efficiency go straight out the window. To me that’s more of the problem. The welfare system, in the shape of any gov assistance program, is way too easy to abuse. I’ve never taken a dime of assistance and have always worked hard and paid my taxes. But I do feel compassion for those that TRULY fall through the cracks. NOT those who are too lazy to make their own way in the world and suck on societies teet instead. The gov isn’t efficient enough to weed the people out that need to be weeded.

On abortion. JGUSTY I have to take some issue with you. And it’s probably on a broader fundamental issue then just abortion.

you had said “I just want the “choice” of the people protected from the Federal Government coming in and taking that “choice” away from the people as they did with Roe vs. Wade.”

Here’s my issue. Should majority always rule? If the majority in a state vote to make abortion illegal then a person(s) such as in Jane’s senario paraphrasing “acted responsibly but still got preggers through no fault of there own” just had the choice made for them by people they don’t even know. Aren’t the rights of the minority just as sacred (if not more so) then the majorities?

I keep bringing up gay marriage as an example because it speaks clearly to my point.

I’m not gay and don’t understand the gay mentality in the least. If a gay couple were to get married in my church I would be extremely vocal in my disapproval. However if they want to have a civil union in the courthouse who am I to stop them? It’s their courthouse too! If they aren’t extended the rights that the rest of us are then we need to quit collecting taxes from them. That’s more in line with the “tea party” reference Matt used earlier (and offers a humerous tone to it that just turned into a Saturday Night Live skit in my head).

So should EVERYTHING be put to a majority rules vote of the people? The minority clearly has rights as well and the government does have a clear responsibility to protect those rights.

JohnG

John G,
Democracy…
Got any better ideas?

Government where the power is distributed by MAJORITY RULE votes from the common people to elected representatives, where SOCIAL equality and respect are given to the individual in the community…

The minority has the right to vote, campaign, live under the law, make a CHANGE, be respected, PURSUE prosperity/happiness, and to take an ass kicking at the voting booth! (Which I am about to do.) We can’t keep a democracy with out someone losing, that is just the way that it is. We agree on much John G , but I think maybe you spent the weekend hugging trees again…
…hey at least you are back… for a while I thought I was the only one left after the rapture!

Now if you want to get to the electoral college / true democracy we have some lead-way….

Democracy as defined by Yahoo Dictionary in case anyone cares… see #4.

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
2. A political or social unit that has such a government.
3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
4. Majority rule.
5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

CARRY ON.
T

Since John G brought it up, I’ll add my bit concerning gay marriage. I have absolutely no problem with gays getting married and being granted the same rights–hospital visitations, inheriting property, etc.–as heterosexuals. When my wife and I got married, we attended a pro-gay marriage rally following our own ceremony. We wanted to show the people there that we appreciated the fact that we are allowed to marry, and that we support their efforts to secure those same privileges. I think a civil union could be a solution, but we would have to ensure 100% equality with church marriages. There is too much homophobia in this country (we’ve seen some of it here on this site) to just trust employers, cities, states, etc. to do the right thing. I just read yesterday, in fact, that while violent crime rates across the country are down again this year, rates of crime against homosexuals is on the rise. (Here’s a link to an article about this from last year since I can’t find the article I read yesterday: http://www.kpho.com/news/17813954/detail.html#-)

I have never understood the argument that gay marriage destroys the sanctity of marriage. What is it exactly that people are afraid of? Is it that their own marriage will be somehow lessened because two men choose to get married in a church? Is it that allowing this to happen will lead to higher divorce rates? (could they really go that much higher?) Or is it simply the belief (that plenty of people challenge and dismiss) that we know that God intended for only men and women to be married? Ultimately I suspect we’re back at a separation of church and state issue. And on this one I again believe that peoples’ own religious beliefs should be kept out of the law as much as possible. So, gay marriage? Fine by me….

Bill E,
I read the same article … sad.

My first column here was on Civil union so I will just re-post the relevant part:

How about the gay community and the Christian community, instead of throwing stones and fresh-baked muffins, sit down and come to an agreement on domestic partnership (civil union). I am neither a homosexual nor Christian, so I will be happy to mediate. If Christians hold sacred to “marriage” as a union ordained by God, fine. Keep it. But if a gay couple holds sacred a union ordained by love, then that is a beautiful thing, call it another name. It’s just a name … you know, like … Jehovah, God, Jesus, Yahweh, Allah or Kevin! Why would you want to have it ordained by a God that doesn’t approve of your lifestyle. (See: Leviticus 18:22 ; Leviticus 20:13 ; Romans 1: 26-27 ; ICorinthians 6:9 ; ITimothy 1: 8-11 )

Can’t you both show each other respect and have what you want? Unless, what you really want is to attack the “other side”. See my point? Tolerance is a two way street. Tolerance is NOT necessarily acceptance, stop standing at party lines. Let’s take those stones and build a cottage where we can sit down, have some muffins and solve a problem. AS PEOPLE!!! This is a state by state issue, if you are that bent out of shape… move, yes I am talking to both sides. If Georgia ever passes a law about young squirrel corruption I will move. Promise.

PLEASE DO NOT SEND ME THE WHOLE GAY CHRISTIAN RESPONSE, I KNOW THAT YOU EXIST, BUT REALLY… STUDY THE BOOK AND THEN TELL ME HOW YOU CAN BE BOTH … ONCE AGAIN I AM NEITHER. I KNOW THAT YOU CAN PROVE THAT YOU ARE GAY BUT CHRISTIAN IS A SELF PROCLAMATION … FROM BOTH SIDES. If you can reconcile being both in your head that is cool but your stance on this issue is then quite obvious. Stones and muffins!!! I am trying to be respectful to all.

CARRY ON.
T

Tony,
“The minority has the right to vote, campaign, live under the law, make a CHANGE, be respected, PURSUE prosperity/happiness,”
True enough, but to my mind the majority still doesn’t have the right to deny the minority this chance to pursue happiness by passing laws (in this case anti-abortion laws) that are based on religious beliefs that are not held by everyone. But now we’re back at church and state again….

Tony,
Right on, and once again I agree as long as “marriage” and “civil union” are treated 100% equally under the law.

For those still interested in reading about the financial crisis, here’s an op-ed from David Brooks. He talks about the crisis in terms of understanding human behavior–trying to figure out how so many people could have been so wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/28/opinion/28brooks.html?em

First, let me say, I do not support gay marriage/civil union/whatever the hell you want to call it. It is against my beliefs as a Christian. And using the phrase “God love everybody”, I feel, is a Liberal’s way of dismissing much of what the Bible teaches (assuming they actually read it). They can have rights to visit in hospitals, inheritance, etc., I have no problem with that. If we pass laws for gay marriage, then where does it stop? Will we have Arabs demanding laws allowing for multiple wives? Will people from Alabama want laws allowing them to marry sheep? And if we have a liberal congress, liberal senate, and a flaming liberal president, who knows where it will end.

If a law is passed legalizing gay marriage, my concern is this, what happens to a church who refuses to conduct the marriage? Can they be sued for discirmination? Charged with a hate crime? Forced to comply?

Rob,
I’m going to dismiss your comments equating homosexuality with polygamy, beastieality, the end of life as we know it etc. because they represent the homophobic intolerance to which I referred in my first post on this subject. I acknowledge your right to have these opinions based on your definition of Christianity, but I do not respect those opinions one bit. But this comment:

“my concern is this, what happens to a church who refuses to conduct the marriage? Can they be sued for discirmination? Charged with a hate crime? Forced to comply?”

does interest me. I would hope that if we enforced the separation of church and state, then no, no church that refused to marry two men or two woman would face any legal repercussions or be forced to comply. To my mind that would be an issue between the congregation and the minister. Aside from a few cases of people perhaps wanting to push limits, I have a hard time believing that granting rights to gay marriage or civil unions legal would somehow lead to a run on churches that express open hostility to these rights and these people.

Rob,
1st of all I respect your Christianity completely. I can assure you that I have read and studied the book that you live your life by.
So here we go.
You asked… “If a law is passed legalizing gay marriage, my concern is this, what happens to a church who refuses to conduct the marriage? Can they be sued for discirmination? Charged with a hate crime? Forced to comply?”

Well….
I am assuming that you read only English (if I am wrong let me know…)

Romans 13:1-7 states: “Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.”

Your rules not mine…
CARRY ON.
T

Bill, the “sheep” thing was just a joke, I thought it would be fairly obvious, but I guess not. Sorry.

I was not equating anything, just using that as an example of a society which possesses different beliefs than ours. My question was simply, what will prevent other factions from pushing for similar laws?

Tony,

The Proposition 8 website that advertises on this site actually brought up those questions. I purposefully didn’t reference that so as to not influence anybody. I just want to see what people here thought about the issue and not get into a discussion about where the questions were coming from.

Rob,
My answer was from the Bible …. advertised globally…
Respectfully, I think it is bunk, but since you are a Christian, I thought I’d toss that into the forum.
One of my bitches about Christians is that they don’t know the book that they live their life by …. not saying you … I don’t know you. No individual judgement passed.

Carry On.
T

I wasn’t trying to pull the topic towards gay marriage but enjoyed reading everyone’s take on the issue. It supports what I’m trying to get across though. There are alot of OPINIONS about gay marriage but isn’t there this thing called the Constitution?

If Rob doesn’t want it in his church then I’m cool with that. I wouldn’t want it my church either. But church’s aren’t government institutions of the people paid for by the people. The constitution expressly prohibits taxation without representation. Period. End of story. Doesn’t matter if the majority agree or not. Unless congress amends the constitution then these people have a RIGHT to the courthouse every bit as much as you and me and everyone else footing the bill to keep that courthouse open. And as far as I’m concerned amending the constitution to TAKE AWAY rights is a far cry from what the broader intent of the document was in the first place.

I was using gay marriage as an example. the same can be said regarding the war on drugs or a number of other “laws” or policies that are passed to please the masses. It’s like this “mob mentality” happens in just about every election and INDIVIDUAL rights and the constitution just don’t seem to matter if enough people like the way a law sounds.

IF the criteria to be a liberal is individual rights regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender, etc………. then I’m a card carryin’ tree hugger baby!!!

Now where was that hot little maple that I was checking out earlier?

JohnG

Rob,
Thanks for the clarification. I’m glad you weren’t equating homosexuality with beastieality. It still sounds to me, though, like you are operating from the homosexuality is a choice angle; that it’s something that is somehow a social construction and not a biological one. I know there is division on this topic, but to me it’s not about choice, it’s about who people are at a fundamental level, and society has no business telling them that their identity is wrong.

JohnG
I am with 100% as far as individual rights.
(I think drugs should be legalized …and no I don’t smoke pot … but the only way to make that happen is by voting for someone to make it a law.)
I pose this question though. What individual? The Christian and the Homosexual (in general) are in complete opposition on your subject. Which individual gets the nod. That is why voting in a democracy is so important.
Also several individuals think that the fact that churches do not pay taxes is a travesty, if your church does not pay taxes the what rights does it have as an entity? You pay the clergy, bills etc.. from donations from the individuals, so there is a profit. I am quite sure that in your congregation a homosexual lurks (sarcasm) and if he gives his 10% tithe … isn’t he/she then worthy of using the church also. If this person is excommunicated then a church is now a privately funded business and thus should (render unto caesar, sorry couldn’t resist) pay taxes.

By the way the ‘maple’ is on the table at IHOP where each Sunday at 12:30 pm, church goers gather to tip cheaply (they just gave 10% already) and discuss keeping gay marriage from happening!
I smell bluberry waffles!

CARRY ON.
T

Interesting discussion:
Tony,
“I pose this question though. What individual? The Christian and the Homosexual (in general) are in complete opposition on your subject.”

Here again I can’t help feeling like we are working from fundamentally different positions concerning the nature of homosexuality. Am I wrong in assuming that people here–and I don’t mean to single anyone out, I’m just posing the question for clarification purposes–think that homosexuality is a choice? If so, then we disagree. But If not, then I have a hard time understanding how “Christians” and “homosexuals” can be used as equal categories that can be in opposition to each other. Being a Christian is a choice, being gay is not (in my humble opinion). I know several gays who are devout Christians and Catholics, and they have no problem living with this combination because being gay is simply who they are and being Christian is how they choose to live their lives. Again, I really don’t want this to be an attack on anyone here, but I truly believe that the heart of the problem is people who either don’t understand, don’t want to understand or won’t understand being gay. No, I personally don’t completely understand the desire to kiss another man, but I do understand that love and the physical expressions of love involve complicated human emotions. We don’t choose to have those emotions, we just have them.

I have a strong suspicion, and I sincerely hope I’m right about this, that within a few generations this won’t be a serious issue. Already, people I know who are in their twenties clearly have no problem with people being gay. They have grown up knowing that homosexuality is a perfectly natural part of life for many people. I, at 35, was brought up in a left-of-center household by parents who thought that homosexuality was unnatural and deviant. I hope that mindset dies out soon.

Everyone… I’m currently in NYC speaking at a conference and have been only able to observe from my phone.

But I would like to chime in on the whole gay marriage thing. Because I kind of see this as the “Roe vs. Wade” of our generation. What I mean by that is it’s more of a power play by the Feds wrapped in a heartstring issue… and not so much about the actual issue itself.

I ask a very simple question: Does anyone besides me find it odd the issue of marriage even falls into the “legal” realm? If two people are truly in love (same-sex or otherwise) the pursuit of state or Federal recognition to validate that love seems kind of at odds with what the union of two souls should really be about.

Case in point: I don’t give a damn (tax-wise or anywhere else) if my state recognizes my marriage. My marriage does not exist in the legal realm to my wife and I.

Oversimplifying the issue perhaps… but marriage should be more about the eternal commitment and not about legal recognition.

Once it gets into the legal realm, a marriage falls into the same category as a hunting license or a car title. And to me… that in-and-of-itself marginalizes the whole concept and is borderline insulting to those who take it seriously.

Just a thought.

JGusty,
“Once it gets into the legal realm, a marriage falls into the same category as a hunting license or a car title. And to me… that in-and-of-itself marginalizes the whole concept and is borderline insulting to those who take it seriously.”

Marriage already is in that category–we have marriage licenses–and I’m not sure if that marginalizes the concept or not. What I do know is that there are specific, and very serious, rights in this country–to inherit property, hospital visitations, etc.–that are only granted to either married people or to family members. In those instances it does matter for those of us who are married if the state recognizes are marriage or not. Outside of those legal areas, you’re right, I could care less about what the state thinks about my marriage. I just think that all people no matter who they choose to marry should enjoy all of the same privileges that our country has historically limited to married couples only. And, I still think there is a question of equality here–legality aside, why can’t we just allow gays to marry? Why are heterosexual marriages ok and gay marriages not? Anyway, enjoy the conference.

Bill E,
I do not care either way choice or born that way. Homophobia is sad. We agree there for sure.
I am under the assumption, and correct me if I am wrong, that science is still pin pointing sexual orientation genetically.
So we, you and I are, not fundamentally looking at homosexuality differently.

I think our difference is… what a Christian is… because the book that they use as a guideline clearly states that the god they worship declares “homosexuality is an abomination”. I am not a Christian and I think it an archaic belief, but they have the right to have that belief.
I am not trying to offend Christians but it a self proclamation for people that want to feel good about the afterlife … they are not all truly observing the dogma at all …

JGusty, I am with you…
I am married and you can call it “snuffleupogus” for all I care it doesn’t change the commitment that I made.

CARRY ON.
T

Tony,
Yes, you and I agree that homophobia is sad and wrong. I’m actually not as concerned with the Christianity question–I decided years ago that I have a fundamental problem with organized religion. Not spirituality, or religion as an organizing principle for one’s own life, but the combination of faith and real-world power in any way that imposes one’s own views on others bothers me. Christians, Jews, Muslims and anyone else can certainly have their views, just please don’t (not you, anyone) impose them on me through the legal system and please allow me (not you, anyone) to question those views when they are used in an argument. I’m also not particularly interested in where exactly sexuality resides on the human genome. I do think, though, that this question of homosexuality as a choice versus homosexuality as part of one’s nature underlies a lot of the disagreements on this subject in the community beyond babyreagan.net.

Allow me to say, I take offense to being referred to as a homophobe. About 15% of the employees where I work are gay, I interact with them every day, and treat them the same as I do everybody else. I don’t see them as gay, I see them as a coworker, and in some cases, a friend. Just because I don’t agree with their choice of lifestyle, you call me a homophobe?

Tony, your knowledge of the Bible is quite impressive. I don’t profess to have read every word, nor do I quote it on a regular basis. But, allow me to ask this, do you honestly believe our government was created by God? But I will fire back with a scripture, from Hosea, ““They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.” I think we had this conversation a few days ago, where we agreed that until we get people with good christian values into the government, the greed and corruption will continue to flourish. But, since you quoted the scripture, let’s talk about that. The Apostle Paul was not referring to worldly governments, the early translations used “higher powers”, and looking at that passage in context, it is evident that he is referring to the Kingdom of Heaven, not the Roman Empire, or for that matter, any other secular government.

Rob,
Personally I’m glad you are offended–not because I want to offend you, or because I find some weird pleasure in that, but rather because not being offended would to my mind be even worse because it would suggest a callousness to your fellow man. For what it’s worth, I’m glad that’s not the case. But your comment, “with their choice of lifestyle” is exactly what I’m trying to get at. Why is it a choice? And I really am asking this of anyone who wants to answer so I apologize if this all seems targeted at you, you just happen to be one of the few speaking up on this issue.

Rob,

you wrote: ” …allow me to ask this, do you honestly believe our government was created by God?”

I do not believe in any of it … so, No I don’t believe that scripture … or any other.
Rob, your faith and bible tells you that God created all things … so it is you that should think so.

You fired back: Hosea, ““They have set up kings, but not by me: they have made princes, and I knew it not.” Well your book says God knows all things, including every hair on your head … so which is it?
Did he not know about this prince or is he omnipotent?

If you want a Bible debate I’m your huckleberry … as long as you understand that I respect your right to believe …

Once again I agree with you that morals would help greatly … but can we agree that I do not need a book to choose to be a good person .. and join in hopes of better morals and values?

Did Paul come to you and explain his intent, I have heard this explained several ways and never once had Paul confirm it’s meaning … (sarcasm)

Just to show respect and be clear …
I don’t recall calling anyone but Matt a homophobe directly, (and that was rebuttal to using the word gay… and done with tongue firmly planted in cheek.) I don’t know you.

CARRY ON.
T

Rob,
Now that I have time to properly post instead of in haste between metal guitar tracks…
My previous response may have read angry, it was not. I just have a huge passion for theology and since you are translating Greek or the later script of Latin … exactly what context are you reading in?

The term, “Potestates supereminentes” translated in English as … pre-eminent powers, translates more strictly as “Magistrates” …. Reference Luke 12:58 where the same term is used in the most widely known document of original text.

“For as thou art going with thine adversary before the magistrate, on the way give diligence to be quit of him; lest haply he drag thee unto the judge, and the judge shall deliver thee to the officer, and the officer shall cast thee into prison. ”

As far as I know there are no mentions of magistrates in heaven … but I could be wrong…
Study to show thyself approved … IS however, in there…. written by your man Paul … to Timothy.

CARRY ON.
T

‘Homophobia’?

WTF is that?

I don’t know anybody who is afraid of homos.

Tony,

You said: “What individual? The Christian and the Homosexual (in general) are in complete opposition on your subject. Which individual gets the nod.”

I looked back at my post and just as I thought I never said anything about Christians. If you’re trying to say that Christians would be offended if gay marriage were allowed then my answer is. So what? I keep bringing up the constitution because it protects individual rights against exactly that situation. In this case there are more Christians then there are gays in this country. The constitution says that regardless of that fact the minority still has rights.

I keep bringing up the constitution and you’re bringing up the Bible. For me PERSONALLY the Bible carries alot of weight. But as for governing the country the constitution is literally the law of the land ………..not the Bible. Yes homosexuality is forbidden in the Bible and is a sin. However that’s not the case in the constitution. If the Christian right has their way and gets enough people elected to amend the constitution then we have a whole different ballgame. But as of now that’s not the case.

The way that you posed the question hits a little bit of a sore spot with me. And maybe you didn’t mean it this way. But the way that you phrased “What individual? The Christian and the Homosexual (in general) are in complete opposition on your subject. Which individual gets the nod.” goes with the surefire word game that Christian conservatives just love to play. How is not denying gay marriage infringing on ANYBODY being Christian? They call it the “Defense of marriage” act. As if allowing gay unions has anything whatsoever to do with hetro marriages. Bill and Steve getting married doesn’t lower the value of my marriage to my wife one single bit.

Legislating morality is not only a slippery slope but in this country it’s just plain wrong IF peoples behavior doesn’t TRULY have an effect on other peoples rights. THAT is my point. It’s not the governments job to make sure that the citizens act morally. That’s more known as Big Brother.

If you’d like to “carry on” (shoutin’out to ya’ brotha) with the conversation of church and taxes and gay marriage within the church we can have that convo too

JohnG

Matt,

I don’t think the term “homophobia” is being used to literally mean “fear.” I think that it’s meant more as an antagonistic attitude towards people who happen to enjoy sex with their same sex.

Antagonistic attitudes are just child-like and annoying.

Most people simply don’t care who is having sex with who. What is also annoying are people who feel the need to have to tell everyone what their sexual practices are. It’s not just annoying; it’s very presumptuous to think most people care to know.

Big boys and girls don’t need to announce it to the world.

JohnG,
Are christians and homosexuals not individuals? Regardless of whether they were in text of your post, you said,” If Rob doesn’t want it in his church then I’m cool with that. I wouldn’t want it my church either.”

Well I can assure that your church isn’t full of people like me, or satanists or immigrant grocers …
It is full of christians… (at least those with that claim…)

If you carefully follow the past posts then you will see that when I addressed you… JohnG …I agreed 100% on individual’s rights … and NOT ONCE quoted the bible to you. You are preaching my very point on this whole subject … the bible should not matter. Bill E and myself then went to Gay marriage along with Rob. Please review and follow the posts and I think you will see this to be an accurate account.

I was clearly addressing Rob with those quotes … on a different subject. He bravely posted that he is against “gay marriage” because of his christian beliefs which he has the right to feel that way. We were addressing Christianity and the book that gives them their basis, and he was doing just find for his stance… this had NOTHING to do with individual rights.

How I posed my question, hit a sore spot? How about I answer you the same way that YOU answer the offended christian conservative….

I would like to continue a discussion if you want … but we agree on this point of not legislating morals.
JohnG, I got your point and moved to a different conversation.

We can agree all day long on individual’s rights if you want, we can allow Rob his rebuttal to me about the bible or we can have waffles. Your call… you bring the syrup.

CARRY ON.
T

Tony,

My bad

Tony,

One other thing.

I usually have powdered sugar on my waffles when I actually eat them. I can bring powdered sugar or I’ll make pancakes (to go with the syrup) if you’d prefer. Of course if you want pancakes the question would be plain, blueberry or bannana?

It’s hard being complex

JohnG

JGusty

All ‘phobias’ are defined as a fear of something. How is it that ‘Homophobia’ is uniquely the only phobia which is not a fear of the particular condition identified in its name?

It can only be assumed that the term ‘homophobia’ is an invention of the left in an attempt to create an erroneous impression about those who do not condone homosexual activity. The left is attempting to create the image of people fearful of sexual freedom.

That is not the case.

Personally, I don’t give a flying crap what 2 adult homos do in private, I just don’t want to know about it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to be forced to condone it. I don’t even want to think about it.

And no, I don’t think gay marriage should be legalized. On the other hand, I also don’t acknowledge the government’s authority over ANY marriage. I don’t seek the approval or permission of the government in the legitimacy of my own marriage.

Screw the government, it’s none of their goddam business who I choose to marry. Same goes for any other US citizen.

[But please, stop having gay pride parades and 'Gay Day' at Disneyworld'. That shit is arrogant, selfish, gross and inexcusable.]

“Personally, I don’t give a flying crap what 2 adult homos do in private, I just don’t want to know about it. I don’t want to see it. I don’t want to be forced to condone it. I don’t even want to think about it.”

Homophobia, exhibit A.

Matt,

I understand that a “phobia” is a fear of something. My humble point was to point out that when the word “homophobia” is used, people are mostly talking about antagonistic behavior and attitude towards gays… not literal fear of gays. They are using the word incorrectly if you want to get technical.

People use that word wrong and throw it around loosely much like the word “racism” gets casually thrown around and used incorrectly.

That was my only point.

And I don’t think you’ll get any argument out of anyone in regards to the silliness of pride parades and celebratory days at theme parks. Most people would find a “We Love Big Boobs” parade or “Boobie Day” at Six Flags pretty obnoxious too.

But if there ever is a “Boobie Day” at Six Flags… I promise you all that I will tough it out and attend in order to bring you an accurate first-hand report.

JohnG,
Blueberry … I rarely eat sugar but I will make an exception.
I just didn’t want you to think I was attacking you.

Rob,
I was not attacking you either.
I was attacking the bible, and will continue to do so when I feel it is used as a rationale in decision making. Not your god of choice… the bible.

I will say… Most Christians have no clue what it is that they truly are following when they say the bible is “god’s word” .
I’ll shut up now unless anyone wants to take this further…
JGusty perhaps a category for this, avoiding clashes for those not interested or those who choose to keep their head in the sand?

CARRY ON.
T