My wife's making a bit of a deal about it. She worked for United Cerebral Palsy for over a decade and that included working with kids with all sorts of developmental disabilities, including Down's. Her take on it is, since the baby's so young, the Palins don't even really know what they're in for yet, or how they're going to handle it. And that's not a good time for taking on massive national responsibilities precisely because it's a very hard burden to bear.
Of course, she also thought that Edwards should have quit the race to take better care of his wife too, and she was an Edwards supporter. But that's my wife. She thinks people need to take care of themselves and loved ones first before taking care of the country...
That's great Bill, and I am glad your wife is such a giving person with her time and effort. It's that kind of personal responsibility this country could use more of.
However, as the father of a a 15-year-old CP/ multi-handicapped blind and deaf child who is bedridden for her life and stuck at a 3-month developmental age I do take exception with the notion that the entire life of someone should come to a screeching halt because of a personal tradgedy. You adjust, you move on. Anything life throws at you can be overcome, the fact my daughter has lived so long is testament to that.
Will Palin's work load be more difficult because of a Down's Syndrome child? Absolutely. But how much different is a child with Down's Syndrome than a normal child at that developmental stage? Should she not try to be all she can be because she has an infant? Or is it just an infant with developmental difficulties? Should she have quit being governor of America's largest state when her baby was born?
Do the Palins know what they are in for? No more than anyone else who has a child, disabled or no. You adjust your life and you soldier on. You don't stop, cry, discard everything in your life because an extra burden has been placed on your shoulders. I will say the fact the Palins have raised four before this baby gives me hope they can persevere.
With all the hate I have seen just surfing the blogosphere lately I think I have to take a break. My party ain't even in this one. I'm starting to get mad over this whole issue, and it ain't worth it.
LIBERTARIANS IN 2012!
Kirth, wanting people who you don't agree with out of power isn't hate. It's not a "war" on other Americans. Bill's wrong(in my view) on many things, but he's not a crackpot.
This directly from Bill's book, Culture Warrior:
"For a variety of reasons that I will explain, I have chosen to jump into the fray and become a warrior in the vicious culture war that is currently under way in the United States of America. And war is exactly the right term. On one side of the battlefield are the armies of the traditionalists like me, people who believe the United States was well founded and has done enormous good for the world. On the other side are the committed forces of the secular-progressive movement that want to change America dramatically... Because of the very personal nature of the battle I have chosen to fight, this is a difficult book to write. I don't like to sound bitter, but the truth is, I am bitter to some extent. Although I have won far more battles than I've lost, my life has changed drastically."
If he's not a crackpot, I do feel strongly that his sense of priorities is a bit suspect, insofar as he totally neglects the real (rather than media-manufacured) challenges facing America in favor of the more sensational and lucrative "loyal Americans" vs. "traitors" stuff.
Well, the use of the word "war" might be too strong but what he said is essentially correct. He feels secular-progressives are trying to change the U.S. and he feels a need to stand up to it. What is wrong with that? He neglects what you call the real challenges of everyday life because conservatives like he and I feel that's for people to solve themselves. I'm not saying you're wrong. You're just seeing this through a liberal perspective just as I'm seeing it differently than what you do because of a conservative perspective. We're just not going to be able to come to an agreement on this.
He neglects what you call the real challenges of everyday life because conservatives like he and I feel that's for people to solve themselves. You're just seeing this through a liberal perspective
You can solve the national debt for yourself? Eliminate terrorism? This isn't a liberal/conservative thing, it's a squabble-within-your-own-country vs. look-at-what-else-is-out-there thing. I'd maintain that for me to want fiscal responsibility in government is not by any stretch of the imagination a "liberal" view, it's a pragmatic one. Likewise, for me to consider terrorists to be a greater threat than well-meaning but naive American intellectuals is not a "liberal" view.
That's what I dislike about O'Reilly: his so-called "no spin" approach is to pretend everything is all about a big traditional vs. secular fight occurring in a vacuum, that there is no way for these groups to work together, and that no exterior factors or more pressing issues exist. Disagreeing with him doesn't make me a liberal unless you buy into his whole "with-me-or-against-me" message.
I'm with you Patrick. Libertarians in 2012...and in the meantime, we can vote Barr or write in Ron Paul! It's obvious the two mainstream parties have totally lost it.
sigh
Yeah I just wish the Libertarians had nominated anyone other than Barr .... Oh well
Runs back to the serene Buddha thread
He neglects what you call the real challenges of everyday life because conservatives like he and I feel that's for people to solve themselves. You're just seeing this through a liberal perspectiveYou can solve the national debt for yourself? Eliminate terrorism? This isn't a liberal/conservative thing, it's a squabble-within-your-own-country vs. look-at-what-else-is-out-there thing. I'd maintain that for me to want fiscal responsibility in government is not by any stretch of the imagination a "liberal" view, it's a pragmatic one. Likewise, for me to consider terrorists to be a greater threat than well-meaning but naive American intellectuals is not a "liberal" view.
That's what I dislike about O'Reilly: his so-called "no spin" approach is to pretend everything is all about a big traditional vs. secular fight occurring in a vacuum, that there is no way for these groups to work together, and that no exterior factors or more pressing issues exist. Disagreeing with him doesn't make me a liberal unless you buy into his whole "with-me-or-against-me" message.
O'Reily (and Moore, and Limbaugh, and Franken) all have the same problem. They aren't trying to make things better. It isn't about logic to them, no matter what they claim...it's about making the other side look bad. Seriously. I can't listen to any of these people without being buried in fallacies. Sure, they might mean well, but they invariably adopt an "the ends justifies the means" mentality and objectivity and reason go out the window.
|
Did anyone see NBC's coverage of the Republican convention last night? It was the worst thing I've seen in a long time. I thought it was really immature of them to mute the applause that the president was getting during his remarks. No other network did that and I flipped through them all just to make sure. It's one thing not to agree with the guy, it's another to use an editing trick to make it seem like no one else does either. That's change I can't believe in.
Did anyone see NBC's coverage of the Republican convention last night? It was the worst thing I've seen in a long time. I thought it was really immature of them to mute the applause that the president was getting during his remarks. No other network did that and I flipped through them all just to make sure. It's one thing not to agree with the guy, it's another to use an editing trick to make it seem like no one else does either. That's change I can't believe in.
Reporters are supposed to record events, not edit them. That was extremely foolish on their part.
|
Did anyone see NBC's coverage of the Republican convention last night? It was the worst thing I've seen in a long time. I thought it was really immature of them to mute the applause that the president was getting during his remarks. No other network did that and I flipped through them all just to make sure. It's one thing not to agree with the guy, it's another to use an editing trick to make it seem like no one else does either. That's change I can't believe in.
Honestly, it's better to just watch on C-SPAN if you actually want to see what's going on the whole time. I think they stream live coverage at their web site, http://rnc08.c-span.org/ if you're curious.
When MSNBC was covering the delegate roll call at the DNC convention last week, everybody kept talking over the delegate introductions. So I thought it was funny when one of the commentators (Chuck Todd?) mentioned how interesting it was to hear all the accents in the convention hall from people all over the country. I couldn't help but yell at the TV "then shut up so we can hear them!"
So, yeah; go with C-SPAN.
|
Yep the Republicans got some of that change thing going now.
On the radio there was an interview with an up and coming Republican and the subject of Palin's unwed teenage daughter came up. The up and coming Republican said it was OK, she just represented so many Americans adn was just like everyone else.
So in essence the Republicans have accepted and embrace unwed teenage daughters and teen sex.
I wonder if that will be part of their new campaign... "Come on kids let's all have a big party and everyone can just screw! It's ok now!"
Damn hypocrites.
Runs back from the Buddha thread because he just can't help himself
I have to say as an actual registered Independent/Libertarian I have been appalled by the convention coverage I have seen from some of the television stations. I expect partisanship from Limbaugh, Franken, Moore, O'Reilly, Stewart and Colbert (etc. etc.) because all of these people don't PRETEND to be non-partisan! They are entertainers, not newsmen.
I have to say I have become very turned off this year by the ugliness of some of the comments from these supposed 'impartial' newsfolks, and I think they are doing the Democrats no favors with their tone.
GAAH! I'm getting angry again!
Scurries off again
He neglects what you call the real challenges of everyday life because conservatives like he and I feel that's for people to solve themselves. You're just seeing this through a liberal perspectiveYou can solve the national debt for yourself? Eliminate terrorism? This isn't a liberal/conservative thing, it's a squabble-within-your-own-country vs. look-at-what-else-is-out-there thing. I'd maintain that for me to want fiscal responsibility in government is not by any stretch of the imagination a "liberal" view, it's a pragmatic one. Likewise, for me to consider terrorists to be a greater threat than well-meaning but naive American intellectuals is not a "liberal" view.
That's what I dislike about O'Reilly: his so-called "no spin" approach is to pretend everything is all about a big traditional vs. secular fight occurring in a vacuum, that there is no way for these groups to work together, and that no exterior factors or more pressing issues exist. Disagreeing with him doesn't make me a liberal unless you buy into his whole "with-me-or-against-me" message.
Fair enough. My opinion is different on Bill than yours. Ok, how do you propose that we work together to solve problems when we think so differently on how to solve them? Go for common ground? If it was that simple Washington wouldn't be in the condition that it is. Both conservatives and liberals want to do the right thing and eliminate poverty, terrorism,etc., but we can't agree on anything.
|
O'Reily (and Moore, and Limbaugh, and Franken) all have the same problem. They aren't trying to make things better. It isn't about logic to them, no matter what they claim...it's about making the other side look bad. Seriously. I can't listen to any of these people without being buried in fallacies. Sure, they might mean well, but they invariably adopt an "the ends justifies the means" mentality and objectivity and reason go out the window.
I fully agree.
Runs back from the Buddha thread because he just can't help himself
I have to say as an actual registered Independent/Libertarian I have been appalled by the convention coverage I have seen from some of the television stations. I expect partisanship from Limbaugh, Franken, Moore, O'Reilly, Stewart and Colbert (etc. etc.) because all of these people don't PRETEND to be non-partisan! They are entertainers, not newsmen.
I'd go along with that if the others would follow Stewart's and Colbert's lead and admit that they're comedians.
Did anyone see NBC's coverage of the Republican convention last night? It was the worst thing I've seen in a long time. I thought it was really immature of them to mute the applause that the president was getting during his remarks. No other network did that and I flipped through them all just to make sure. It's one thing not to agree with the guy, it's another to use an editing trick to make it seem like no one else does either. That's change I can't believe in.
Agreed. Coverage should be impartial and unedited. I don't like Bush, but I freely agree that that's dirty journalism. When I watch the new, I want the facts -- unedited and uneditorialized. I think the whole "gonzo journalism" thing is the worst thing to happen to journalism.
Ok, how do you propose that we work together to solve problems when we think so differently on how to solve them? Go for common ground? Both conservatives and liberals want to do the right thing and eliminate poverty, terrorism,etc., but we can't agree on anything.
That much seems to be the case. And, unfortunately, short of outlawing organized political parties and making the elections a free-for-all, I can't see an easy way to suddenly and all at once cut out all of the us-vs.-them squabbling between Americans that seems to be what politics are all about. But that doesn't mean it can't be done.
My first step would be to cut out the silly attacks and "point scoring" and instead send out the message that WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. We all have a stake in this country's future. Calling the other side "S-Ps" dehumanizes them, and declaring that you're at war with them sends a loud and clear message that (a) you're unwilling to work with them on anything, and (b) you're totally unwilling to compromise with them. A more useful message would be something like: "We were forced to enter WWII because we met an enemy that refused to see reason, and refused to compromise. Let's not fall into that trap ourselves."
Imagine I'm Nancy Pelosi (shudder!). Instead of spouting nonsense like "those evil warmonger Republicans just want to blow up more civilians in Iraq, and must be stopped!" I instead say, "The troops need our support, and they need to maintain their families at home. Our families are important to all of us, Democrats and Republicans. Finding a way out of Iraq cleanly will allow the troops to rejoin their families so they can help raise their children." (Not necessarily my view, but a more effective way of presenting hers.) Notice: no attacks on the military, no demonizing the leadership. Conservatives might not respond favorably, but at least I've made an overture, and acknowledged publicly that their views have strong merits.
Or, if I'm Alberto Gonzoles, instead of saying "those stupid liberals hate America and want to coddle terrorists and anything the President wants do is legal and you all better suck it up!" I instead say, "Many people are afraid of unchecked government power, the way our Founding Fathers were. Let's show them a transparent military tribunal and how it maintains balanced and civilized standards of justice, so that they'll know it's not some kind of Gestapo kangaroo court." And then follow up on it.
As voters, we can vote for the people who take the second approach in each case, regardless of party. If we're listeners, we can tune in to the people that follow those alternative approaches. Spouting vitriol about the other side is good for ratings -- and that's our fault for listening to it.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Fair enough. My opinion is different on Bill than yours. Ok, how do you propose that we work together to solve problems when we think so differently on how to solve them? Go for common ground? If it was that simple Washington wouldn't be in the condition that it is. Both conservatives and liberals want to do the right thing and eliminate poverty, terrorism,etc., but we can't agree on anything.
I wouldn't agree that politicians want to solve problems. There's plenty of problems that are allowed to fester (social security and AMT for two) because they can be used to political advantage better if they aren't fixed.
|
|
Ok, how do you propose that we work together to solve problems when we think so differently on how to solve them? Go for common ground? If it was that simple Washington wouldn't be in the condition that it is. Both conservatives and liberals want to do the right thing and eliminate poverty, terrorism,etc., but we can't agree on anything.
First, we send all the wingnuts on either side to Timeout, and let the moderates in both camps find their common ground. Sure, the radicals on both sides will be unhappy, but the governing body will be much more productive.
|
I would like to point out that, as a man who spent every day for a few months actively campaigning for Hillary Clinton, it has taken me a very very long time to get to the point where seeing Obama doesn't anger me.
We fought them tooth and nail. I put in 16 hour days to see that this man didn't get the nomination because we felt that he was unfit to be president. We felt that we were screwed over because of how the process was set up. For instance, we felt that caucuses unfairly favor Obama's voters due to the nature of caucuses and that fact that clintons supporters were far more likely to have to work nights and therefore be unable to attend.
If the states were winner take all, we still would have won. Even then, we felt that at the end, we had the momentum and the fact that the contest was a virtual dead heat, we felt that it was a situation that needed adjudication, rather than giving the victory to obama outright. I mean, if you have two candidates one who just found her voice and has been on a roll and one who had the lead going in but now seems to be running low and with a message that seems to be weakening, who would you go with.
So yeah that was bitterness and frustration. I even had to choke back tears watching her speech at the convention because, I just felt like "she's the president" and then watched Obamas and still felt nothing, like this guy could be in class with me and that he just didn't feel like something special to me. So I am torn. I like Obama's positions, but very much dislike his personality and I feel as though he would be a bad president, IN SPITE, of his positions.
He comes off ,to me, as just a liberal bush. And that would be bad for my party,because ou positionsare jsut coming in vogue
|
|
My first step would be to cut out the silly attacks and "point scoring" and instead send out the message that WE ARE ALL AMERICANS. We all have a stake in this country's future. Calling the other side "S-Ps" dehumanizes them, and declaring that you're at war with them sends a loud and clear message that (a) you're unwilling to work with them on anything, and (b) you're totally unwilling to compromise with them. A more useful message would be something like: "We were forced to enter WWII because we met an enemy that refused to see reason, and refused to compromise. Let's not fall into that trap ourselves."
United we stand, divided we fall.
United we stand, divided we fall.
The United States motto was "E. Pluribus Unim" ("Out of many, one") all the way up until the 1950's, when some well-meaning partisan changed it to "In God We Trust."
Vote for McCain; he's always reachin across the aisles.
Yeah, but look how weak a candidate he is. Moderates usually make weak leaders. Look at the history of presidents in this country. There have been good presidents that were conservative and I'll admit there were good liberal presidents. The reason why this is because because people with an ideology have a passion for their beliefs and things are going to get done. Moderates tend to be wishy washy. I can't think of one good moderate president.
Runs back from the Buddha thread because he just can't help himself
I have to say as an actual registered Independent/Libertarian I have been appalled by the convention coverage I have seen from some of the television stations. I expect partisanship from Limbaugh, Franken, Moore, O'Reilly, Stewart and Colbert (etc. etc.) because all of these people don't PRETEND to be non-partisan! They are entertainers, not newsmen.
I'd go along with that if the others would follow Stewart's and Colbert's lead and admit that they're comedians.
I'd go with that. I just wish I didn't hear so many people saying they get all their news from Stewart/Colbert or O'Reilly/Limbaugh. They are all comedians, and should be treated as such, with a healthy grain of salt. I will say that all of the above comedians have the intellectual honesty not to pretend they are 'non-partisan'. Who are the real comedians? My vote's for the news anchors.
Moderates tend to be wishy washy. I can't think of one good moderate president.
Hitler had strong, passionate ideals. I certainly wouldn't want him as president. George Washington was pretty moderate -- he had no well-established parties to worry about yet, so he was spared being labelled one way or the other (moderate by default?). He seems to have set us off on the right foot.
Strong ideals are invaluable, but if those ideals force you to view anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy, and if those ideals have at their foundation a desire to "win" against other Americans, they're just not very useful ones.
"S-Ps" dehumanizes them, and declaring that you're at war with them sends a loud and clear message that (a) you're unwilling to work with them on anything, and (b) you're totally unwilling to compromise with them. A more useful message would be something like: "We were forced to enter WWII because we met an enemy that refused to see reason, and refused to compromise. Let's not fall into that trap ourselves."
Calling someone a secular progressive dehumanizes them? Seriously, I didn't know that. Isn't that the same as calling someone a religious
conservative. How is that bad?
Moderates tend to be wishy washy. I can't think of one good moderate president.Hitler had strong, passionate ideals. I certainly wouldn't want him as president. George Washington was pretty moderate -- he had no well-established parties to worry about yet, so he was spared being labelled one way or the other (moderate by default?). He seems to have set us off on the right foot.
Strong ideals are invaluable, but if those ideals force you to view anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy, and if those ideals have at their foundation a desire to "win" against other Americans, they're just not very useful ones.
True, he disliked parties. However, I'd have a hard time saying he was a moderate.
Calling someone a secular progressive dehumanizes them? Seriously, I didn't know that. Isn't that the same as calling someone a religious conservative. How is that bad?
Shortening it to "S-P," the way O'Reilly does, makes them sound like UFOs or something. "I spotted an S-P!" And then he divides all people into either "traditional warriors" or "S-Ps." His web site even has a 5-question test to determine which one you are.
Calling someone a religious conservative is one thing, but if I start calling them "RZs" (for "religious zealots") or something, and then say things like, "Are you a compassionate citizen, or an RZ?" -- that doesn't help anything.
However, I'd have a hard time saying he was a moderate.
Today, he would be: some "liberal" views, some "conservative" ones. Having ideals doesn't mean towing the entire junk bag that one party happens to have somehow collected.
Calling someone a secular progressive dehumanizes them? Seriously, I didn't know that. Isn't that the same as calling someone a religious conservative. How is that bad?Shortening it to "S-P," the way O'Reilly does, makes them sound like UFOs or something. "I spotted an S-P!" And then he divides all people into either "traditional warriors" or "S-Ps." His web site even has a 5-question test to determine which one you are.
Calling someone a religious conservative is one thing, but if I start calling them "RZs" (for "religious zealots") or something, and then say things like, "Are you a compassionate citizen, or an RZ?" -- that doesn't help anything.
Well S-p is alot quicker and easier to say than secular progressive. However, calling someone a zealot can be construed as bad. I think you're being a little oversensitive on something that's not that important.
|
|
Moderates tend to be wishy washy. I can't think of one good moderate president.Hitler had strong, passionate ideals. I certainly wouldn't want him as president. George Washington was pretty moderate -- he had no well-established parties to worry about yet, so he was spared being labelled one way or the other (moderate by default?). He seems to have set us off on the right foot.
Strong ideals are invaluable, but if those ideals force you to view anyone who disagrees with you as an enemy, and if those ideals have at their foundation a desire to "win" against other Americans, they're just not very useful ones.
Actually, as a scholar of the era George Washington was the founder of the Federalist Party which was in all senses the conservative party. The trick was that the man himself was above reproach and the vicious media style of the day (seriously, you think Fox news is bad look up some of the stuff said about Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton with NO factual basis.
Just so you know.
I agree though ,the trick with conservatives and liberals is we actually do stand for vastly different things. And to say " why can't you just compromise" shows a vast misunderstanding of he situation. So all that can get done is what we can agree on. Trick is, the agenda setters often ignore the real problems in favor of what can help them raise money, which is a problem with the system, not the candidates or their ideals. Pass campaign finance reform and we should see a new day dawning.
Actually, as a scholar of the era George Washington was the founder of the Federalist Party which was in all senses the conservative party. The trick was that the man himself was above reproach and the vicious media style of the day (seriously, you think Fox news is bad look up some of the stuff said about Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton with NO factual basis.
Above reproach? I wouldn't say that. But being a war hero, which really meant keeping an army together and in the field in retreat after retreat, certainly accounted for a LOT.
Pass campaign finance reform and we should see a new day dawning.
Amen to that.
O'Reily (and Moore, and Limbaugh, and Franken) all have the same problem. They aren't trying to make things better. It isn't about logic to them, no matter what they claim...it's about making the other side look bad. Seriously. I can't listen to any of these people without being buried in fallacies. Sure, they might mean well, but they invariably adopt an "the ends justifies the means" mentality and objectivity and reason go out the window.
I can't put Franken the same list as O'Reilly or Limbaugh or even Moore. Unlike those others, he decided to throw his hat in the ring and that's more than a lot of other sideline quarterbacks would be willing to do. Whether you agree with him or not on the issues, participation, I think, always rates a cut above standing back and criticizing.
|
|
Vote for McCain; he's always reachin across the aisles.Yeah, but look how weak a candidate he is. Moderates usually make weak leaders. Look at the history of presidents in this country. There have been good presidents that were conservative and I'll admit there were good liberal presidents. The reason why this is because because people with an ideology have a passion for their beliefs and things are going to get done. Moderates tend to be wishy washy. I can't think of one good moderate president.
To be moderate doesn't necessarily mean lacking in ideology. More often it means having an ideology that doesn't run to either of the two popular extremes (as if those extremes were the only ideologies).
|
|
...and being responsible individuals...this is the crux for me. sorry, socialist types, but my compassion ends where your bad decision making begins...
So you've never made a bad decision ever in your life?
You're going to tell me that when the stock market goes bad and I lose all my money I should be out on my ass because my investment turned out to be "bad"( purely subjective because the same thing could have been said by investing in Microsoft in its early days and yes that would be considered a good investment,if you get my meaning). That there should not be a fallback system to help in case your investments and such fail( and hence why social security is necessary).
Furthermore you would wind up on the streets or being forced to divert someone else in their families income and overall lowering the value of our society. It is ecnomically better for there to be social security than for there not to be.
It's the same thing with healthcare. At one point, it was affordable and insurance wasnt even necessary. But things have changed and for the good of all, it is better if everyone can have healthcare. for, if they do not, all of their medical treatment will be expensive emergency procedures and since its an emergency it will have a very low success rate. Further, since they will be unable to pay, the costs of those procedures have to be passed somewhere and inevitably that would mean higher cost of healthcare for all. Therefore, it is more equitable for everyone to have healthcare and have regular visits with a doctor, rather at a lower cost to the system than for him to need expensive procedures and be unable to pay.
It makes economic sense.
...and being responsible individuals...this is the crux for me. sorry, socialist types, but my compassion ends where your bad decision making begins...
I'd like some clarification on this view of yours.
First, are you saying that only "socialist types" make bad decisions? Or are you saying that it's a trait of "socialist types" to want to help people out even if they're in a predicament because of bad decisions?Secondly, how do you decide what is a "bad decision?"
I'm especially curious about your views because I'd probably fall under the category of a "socialist type," being European and from one of the countries with the most socialist or liberal take on a lot of things (from being the first country to legalize porn to having universal health care, a large social "net" to catch people falling through the cracks and registered partnerships/marriage for gay people (and the oldest gay culture magazine still in print) - although, of course, we still have people who find any and all of this offensive because of their "superior Christian morals" (their sentiment, not mine)).
EDIT:
I'd just like to also clarify that I, of course, think that people should behave responsible in whatever way they are capable of. I'd say that's a given.
|
|
So you've never made a bad decision ever in your life?
i've made some doozies, and to date haven't taken a government handout.
You're going to tell me that when the stock market goes bad and I lose all my money I should be out on my ass because my investment turned out to be "bad"( purely subjective because the same thing could have been said by investing in Microsoft in its early days and yes that would be considered a good investment,if you get my meaning). That there should not be a fallback system to help in case your investments and such fail( and hence why social security is necessary).
they have a fallback system. its called a "diverse investment portfolio". if you are foolish enough to put all your eggs in one basket, then yes, i have no sympathy.
Furthermore you would wind up on the streets or being forced to divert someone else in their families income and overall lowering the value of our society. It is ecnomically better for there to be social security than for there not to be.
you pay into social security, last i checked. its your money...
It's the same thing with healthcare. At one point, it was affordable and insurance wasnt even necessary. But things have changed and for the good of all, it is better if everyone can have healthcare. for, if they do not, all of their medical treatment will be expensive emergency procedures and since its an emergency it will have a very low success rate. Further, since they will be unable to pay, the costs of those procedures have to be passed somewhere and inevitably that would mean higher cost of healthcare for all. Therefore, it is more equitable for everyone to have healthcare and have regular visits with a doctor, rather at a lower cost to the system than for him to need expensive procedures and be unable to pay.
buy insurance instead of a big screen TV. priorities. americans are instant gratification junkies unwilling to "sacrifice" some material comforts for neccesary expenses. not my problem...
It makes economic sense.
no, being responsible for your own decisions, and NOT being a drain on people who work their asses off every day to get by makes economic sense.
However, calling someone a zealot can be construed as bad.
Weren't you the one telling me how people who were NOT zealots ("moderates") made bad leaders? So zealots would be revered. "Call a spade a spade," as conservative pundits are fond of saying.
To me, a person strong in their ideals is confident enough NOT adopt a siege mentality, and immediately brand all people who disagree with them as traitors, and declare "war" on them. That always seems more like the desperation of insecurity. I know that now, "compromise" has become synonymous in the minds of many people with "lack of values." I personally think it's silly, but there you have it.
It is kind of silly to harp on someone discussing the culture "war" instead of the threats of terrorism or something, in a book called Culture Warrior. I mean if the book was titled War on Terrorism and then it was all about the cultural conflicts, I could see your point.
However, calling someone a zealot can be construed as bad.Weren't you the one telling me how people who were NOT zealots ("moderates") made bad leaders? So zealots would be revered. "Call a spade a spade," as conservative pundits are fond of saying.
To me, a person strong in their ideals is confident enough NOT adopt a siege mentality, and immediately brand all people who disagree with them as traitors, and declare "war" on them. That always seems more like the desperation of insecurity. I know that now, "compromise" has become synonymous in the minds of many people with "lack of values." I personally think it's silly, but there you have it.
I think your definition of zealot is different than mine. What I consider
a zealot is someone WAY over the line on either side of the politicalspectrum. A fanatic for lack of a better word. I don't think we've ever
had a zealot as a president.
I don't think we've ever had a zealot as a president.
But I would have so voted for Fenix!
|
|
...and being responsible individuals...this is the crux for me. sorry, socialist types, but my compassion ends where your bad decision making begins...I'd like some clarification on this view of yours.
First, are you saying that only "socialist types" make bad decisions? Or are you saying that it's a trait of "socialist types" to want to help people out even if they're in a predicament because of bad decisions?
Secondly, how do you decide what is a "bad decision?"I'm especially curious about your views because I'd probably fall under the category of a "socialist type," being European and from one of the countries with the most socialist or liberal take on a lot of things (from being the first country to legalize porn to having universal health care, a large social "net" to catch people falling through the cracks and registered partnerships/marriage for gay people (and the oldest gay culture magazine still in print) - although, of course, we still have people who find any and all of this offensive because of their "superior Christian morals" (their sentiment, not mine)).
EDIT:
I'd just like to also clarify that I, of course, think that people should behave responsible in whatever way they are capable of. I'd say that's a given.
by "socialist" types, i mean anyone who thinks government should hold everyone's hand from cradle to grave and protect people from themselvs.
look, i have no problem with giving a hand to people who do all they can to be responsible and take care of themselves, but life throws a curveball. take the normal people who worked for enron, for example. they did what people are supposed to do, get a job, bust ass, and build a life. unfortunately, the crooks that ran the company pulled the rug out from under them. the day to day workers weren't irresponsible, the people they trusted to do the right thing were.
kids who have lousy, neglectful and/or abusive parents. it isn't their fault they were born into bad circmstances, help them out.
people with misplaced priorities? people who spend $2000 on a flat screen plasma tv but don;t have basic health insurance? people who max out all of their credit cards to live a lifestyle they really can't afford? adults who don't take precautions sexually? people who don't save ANYTHING for retirement (if they can afford it, and aren't working paycheck to paycheck, that is...)? people who can't hold a job due to addiction or laziness? nah, no sympathy...
I think your definition of zealot is different than mine. What I consider a zealot is someone WAY over the line on either side of the political spectrum. A fanatic for lack of a better word. I don't think we've ever had a zealot as a president.
You and I differ on this because I don't see a spectrum; I see individual issues. What you call "conservative" is to me a mishmash of views on various issues, some similar, most unrelated, and some inherently self-contradictory (abortion not OK because of the sanctity of life, but capital punishment is good?). What passes for "liberal" is just as nonsensical a smorgasbord. There is nothing inherently similar about being pro gay marriage and being pro abortion, that I can see -- the two are unrelated except that we've chosen to lump them together.
Our current president is a zealot about many things -- one or two I agree with, others I think are somewhat foolish. Everyone is a zealot about some issue or other.
It is kind of silly to harp on someone discussing the culture "war" instead of the threats of terrorism or something, in a book called Culture Warrior. I mean if the book was titled War on Terrorism and then it was all about the cultural conflicts, I could see your point.
If he talked about other subjects on his show, I'd be the first to agree with you. But the book really summarizes his entire claim to fame. When you watch "The O'Reilly Factor," you don't get a discussion of threats of terrorism; they don't seem to exist to him, except as a means to bust on his American "enemies". He's too focused on the people he perceives as enemies because of some misplaced idealism, to see that there are real enemies out there who would be happy to kill him and the "S-Ps" both, unfortunately, again out of misplaced idealism.
It is kind of silly to harp on someone discussing the culture "war" instead of the threats of terrorism or something, in a book called Culture Warrior. I mean if the book was titled War on Terrorism and then it was all about the cultural conflicts, I could see your point.The book summarizes his entire claim to fame. When you watch "The O'Reilly Factor," you don't get a discussion of threats of terrorism; they don't seem to exist to Bill. He's too focused on the people he perceives as enemies because of some misplaced idealism, to see that there are real enemies out there who would be happy to kill him and the "S-Ps" both -- unfortunately, again, out of misplaced idealism.
So? Why shouldn't he explore that material if that is what he finds interesting? You might think he is wasting his time on that stuff when he could be discussing bigger issues, but he might think that you'd be wasting your time playing RPGs and discussing them let alone wasting time discussing him.
So? Why shouldn't he explore that material if that is what he finds interesting? You might think he is wasting his time on that stuff when he could be discussing bigger issues, but he might think that you'd be wasting your time playing RPGs and discussing them let alone wasting time discussing him.
That's true. He just talks about what gets him ratings, and real issues don't do that. I blame his fans equally.
See, my playing RPGs doesn't reinforce rigid political stereotypes and advocate refusal to cooperate with anyone who disagrees with any of my views. In fact, RPGs require cooperation on many levels. Points were made before that compromise is either (a) wishy-washy, or (b) impossible. I contend that it isn't necessarily either one of those, but that we've let ouselves believe that it is by listening to people and sources like Pelosi, Bush Jr., Moore, Limbaugh, Daily Kos, and O'Reilly. Maybe we should start listening to the "wishy-washy moderates" for a bit, and see if maybe some of that message can't sink in.
Actually, as a scholar of the era George Washington was the founder of the Federalist Party which was in all senses the conservative party. The trick was that the man himself was above reproach and the vicious media style of the day (seriously, you think Fox news is bad look up some of the stuff said about Jefferson and Adams and Hamilton with NO factual basis.Above reproach? I wouldn't say that. But being a war hero, which really meant keeping an army together and in the field in retreat after retreat, certainly accounted for a LOT.
Pass campaign finance reform and we should see a new day dawning.Amen to that.
You're right. Nobody's above reproach. However, I'll always admire Washington for his strong convictions. He even turned down being our king. If it was offered to me I'd been like "Oh, hell yeah". Thankfully, Washington was a better man than me.