|
New topic, if we could. The WHO has declared a phase 4 alert for Mexico as a result of the swine flu. This means that there is a significant chance of human to human transfer. They have also strongly discouraged travel to Mexico from other countries. As I understand the news reports, this is as close as you can get to quarantening a country. Under these circumstances, would it be sensible for Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to push for increased border security?
Naah, it wouldn't work.
|
New topic, if we could. The WHO has declared a phase 4 alert for Mexico as a result of the swine flu. This means that there is a significant chance of human to human transfer. They have also strongly discouraged travel to Mexico from other countries. As I understand the news reports, this is as close as you can get to quarantening a country. Under these circumstances, would it be sensible for Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to push for increased border security?
I'm ALWAYS pushing for increased border security, and I'm neither a Republican NOR a Blue Dog Dem...but not over the flu. I'm a lot more worried about terrorists sneaking dirty bombs across. Beyond that, tons of illegals drive cars in the states with no insurance, and there are a lot of criminals in their ranks as well (besides just the crime of entering the country illegally - I mean the violent stuff like rape and murder).
And that's in addition to all the stuff everybody complains about - "anchor babies", clogging up our health care facilities, applying for government aid programs, and so on and so on.
But the swine flu is still just the flu, man. Even though it's a nasty version, it's still only going to kill 1-2% of the people that catch it, people with weak immune systems already, for whatever reason. That's just a reminder to us that we aren't completely seperate from natural selection, despite our best efforts. Getting the flu isn't pleasant, but it ain't gonna kill ya, either. I've been to Mexico before, and if I were planning a trip there now, I wouldn't have cancelled it, except that apparently they're forcing us to now. "Montezuma's Revenge" is part of the package, this is only a little different.
So - short answer - I'm for increased immigration prevention, but it's got nuthin' to do with the swine flu.
|
Right now our country is at a crossroads. Congressional Republicans need to crap or get off the pot. Are they really foolish enough to think that Obama is going to reject his own plan completely and accept their "Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes" plan? Bush had 8 years to screw up the country. The Republican party is dying and had no clear direction. Maybe they should follow the NFL model and 'rebuild'. In the meantime, it's the Democrat's turn to succeed or fail fixing the cracks that guys like Cheney put into our country. Deal with it.
As a historian, I have a longer term view of things then most people, and this whole "The Republican Party is dying" idea has come up before. It came up when FDR won his fourth term. It came up when Kennedy won the election. It came up when Carter won the election, and it came up when Clinton became president. At least in modern times, when someone was come along to sign the death certificate, the Republican Party has jumped off the slab and took off running. Carter's election brought twelve years of Republicans in the White House. Clinton's election was followed by the Republicans taking the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. The election this year was, iirc 53-47,which doesn't seem like the Republican Party is even in poor health. Don't be too quick to declare the Republicans out yet, particularly when the Republicans who have lost lately are Republicans who tried to distance themselves from the core of the party to "reach out" to people who are never going to vote for them.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Quite a few things
I have to say, all I see here is freeform venting based on a personal dislike. Bush was incredibly popular in Texas..so while you thought he was a bonehead, someone thought he had a point. I think your perspective is best served by maybe giving us a policy disagreement. After all, the issue of whether tax increases are good for the economy should not be boiled down to "I knew Bush was a bonehead all along."
To me, the one thing you said that broached an actual issue was the waterboarding thing, and to me that doesn't address the actual dialogue. I don't think I can say waterboarding isn't a form of torture. I believe waterboarding is a far cry different than cutting someone's head off on the internet. I believe that a man taken hostage in a war, who is not fighting as a member of a nation, whos outfit bombs police stations and civilian cafes, and who pretend to surrender in order to kill a few more Americans, do not deserve to be treated with the same level of dignity as legitimate soldiers, and should be coerced to give any information that saves lives - even enemy lives if possible.
Is the coward who plots to fly an airplane into the terminals at LAX really of equal value with the thousands of Americans (and multinationals) you can save by waterboarding him?
Rest assured, I believe in the grace and peace of Jesus Christ. And if you kidnap my wife and kids and brag about the awful things your associates are going to do to them, waterboarding is the least of your concerns, and I have a clear conscience about it. I might not feel good about it, or want t do it. The issue isn't 'Here's a taste of your own medicine. The issue is exclusively, I'm going to save an innocent life.
Bush infuriated me with a lot of things, but he defended our country, he lowered our taxes and he spoke for the cause of life. Despite his short comings, he was the man he said he'd be. I contrast that with the man who campaigned against earmarks on bills, then helped rush a 1,000 page bill no one read. In 98 days, he's spent $1.47 trillion and signed into law 18,000 earmarks.
And just today, we spent $2 billion to eliminate 21,000 jobs.
See...no use of the word 'bonehead' or racist'. Just objections to the actual policies.
New topic, if we could. The WHO has declared a phase 4 alert for Mexico as a result of the swine flu. This means that there is a significant chance of human to human transfer. They have also strongly discouraged travel to Mexico from other countries. As I understand the news reports, this is as close as you can get to quarantening a country. Under these circumstances, would it be sensible for Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats to push for increased border security?
Too late; there are already cases in San Antonio, New York, New Zealand, a couple in Europe, a maybe in Israel. The cat's out of the bag; we just have to wait it out.
But the swine flu is still just the flu, man. Even though it's a nasty version, it's still only going to kill 1-2% of the people that catch it, people with weak immune systems already, for whatever reason.
Not to introduce too much doom and gloom, but early estimates of this one's mortality rate are closer to 7%, and it's people with good immune systems, between 20-40 years old, who are dying (stronger immune response -> too much fluid in lungs and too high a fever -> kills victim). No deaths in the U.S. so far, whether from a weaker strain or just dumb luck; hopefully we'll all get off that easy. (P.S. The 1918 Spanish flu, with a mere 2.5% mortality rate, killed something like 40,000,000 people, most of them healthy before catching it.)
|
|
I've been to Mexico before, and if I were planning a trip there now, I wouldn't have cancelled it, except that apparently they're forcing us to now.
I don't think they are; they're just cautioning people from traveling there.
I heard a guy going over to Tijuana on the news, saying, "well, it's in the U.S. anyway, so.....whatever...."i.e. "me me me, I'm gonna go get drunk in Tijuana for $5 or whatever cos it's all about me."
|
|
But the swine flu is still just the flu, man. Even though it's a nasty version, it's still only going to kill 1-2% of the people that catch it, people with weak immune systems already, for whatever reason.Not to introduce too much doom and gloom, but early estimates of this one's mortality rate are closer to 7%, and it's people with good immune systems, between 20-40 years old, who are dying (stronger immune response -> too much fluid in lungs and too high a fever -> kills victim). No deaths in the U.S. so far, whether from a weaker strain or just dumb luck; hopefully we'll all get off that easy. (P.S. The 1918 Spanish flu, with a mere 2.5% mortality rate, killed something like 40,000,000 people, most of them healthy before catching it.)
My great granddaddy went to WW I, caught that mess, and come right back home.
I'm kinda confused about the differences in mortality rates between the two; I think a lot of people in Mexico aren't able to live an optimal lifestyle so might have a weaker immune system; maybe there's a few strains going around. I just don't know.
|
|
Congressional Republicans need to crap or get off the pot. Are they really foolish enough to think that Obama is going to reject his own plan completely and accept their "Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes" plan? Bush had 8 years to screw up the country.
Again, the dem's are running the show now. I'm still waiting for one, just one, dem in power to say "I'm in charge of this. I take responsibility for this," instead of "waa waa waa. George Bush ruined the world. George Bush shot my dog! Cheney looked at me mean. I'm doing the best I can waa waa waa....it's hard to make a libtopia with the broken crayons and broken world that Bush left me." Quit trying to blame the repub's. They can't do jack in congress right now.
Anybody else,.......grain of salt, allright? I'm talking to Chucky for christ's sake. You didn't seem too upset when he was doing it.
Well, Kirth kinda did...
|
|
So - short answer - I'm for increased immigration prevention, but it's got nuthin' to do with the swine flu.
I'm for increases illegal immigration prevention, but I think the current state of the law is ridiculous. Migrant and temporary work visas need to be a LOT easier to obtain, for three reasons: a) So migrant and temp workers are in the system, which makes driving legally, being part of the income tax system easier, and making it easier for people to become citizens if they choose, b) if they are here legally, it shuts up the idiots like Lou Dobbs and Tim Tancredo, and puts coyotes out of work, thereby making life safer for everyone (a lot of people die in deserts and abandoned trucks coming in illegally), and c) if people with nothing to hide can come in legally, it makes it harder for real criminals to come in, as DHS doesn't have to deal with the people just coming to work and support their family, they can concentrate on drug runners and other criminals, i.e. increased enforcement and border security without more expense and stupid walls.
Oh, one more. If workers can come in legally, it makes exploitation that much harder, as the immigrants will be more empowered to report people basically looking for virtual slave labor.
Illegal immigrants aren't coming here taking tech jobs and stuff, they're mostly taking jobs Americans seem to think are "beneath" them. Which is odd to me, how can any job be "beneath" someone without a freaking job? Just saying...
|
|
Liberals try to demonstrate a little thing called decorum.
This may be the funniest thing I've read in a long time. Chucky, thanks, things have been hairy on this side of the screen, and I needed a laugh!
There hasn't been anything approaching "decorum" from either side for a long time, until Obama ran last year. And now that he's in, that's pretty much out the window too, unless he's talking to Chavez, Castro, the "moderate" Taliban (gee, I hope it's the "moderate" Taliban who get Pakistan's nukes) or Amendinijad...
;)
P.S. I can't believe anyone let this part pass without comment this long ;)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
As a historian, I have a longer term view of things then most people, and this whole "The Republican Party is dying" idea has come up before. It came up when FDR won his fourth term. It came up when Kennedy won the election. It came up when Carter won the election, and it came up when Clinton became president. At least in modern times, when someone was come along to sign the death certificate, the Republican Party has jumped off the slab and took off running. Carter's election brought twelve years of Republicans in the White House. Clinton's election was followed by the Republicans taking the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. The election this year was, iirc 53-47,which doesn't seem like the Republican Party is even in poor health. Don't be too quick to declare the Republicans out yet, particularly when the Republicans who have lost lately are Republicans who tried to distance themselves from the core of the party to "reach out" to people who are never going to vote for them.
Not only that, it was a mere 4-5 years ago that the death of the democratic party was predicted.
And that Hilary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president...
And that John McCain was done for last January...
The modern news cycle is an idiotic argument between the guy from Memento and Big Brother.
|
|
As a historian, I have a longer term view of things then most people, and this whole "The Republican Party is dying" idea has come up before. It came up when FDR won his fourth term. It came up when Kennedy won the election. It came up when Carter won the election, and it came up when Clinton became president. At least in modern times, when someone was come along to sign the death certificate, the Republican Party has jumped off the slab and took off running. Carter's election brought twelve years of Republicans in the White House. Clinton's election was followed by the Republicans taking the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. The election this year was, iirc 53-47,which doesn't seem like the Republican Party is even in poor health. Don't be too quick to declare the Republicans out yet, particularly when the Republicans who have lost lately are Republicans who tried to distance themselves from the core of the party to "reach out" to people who are never going to vote for them.Not only that, it was a mere 4-5 years ago that the death of the democratic party was predicted.
And that Hilary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee for president...
And that John McCain was done for last January...
The modern news cycle is an idiotic argument between the guy from Memento and Big Brother.
Shouldn't "news" be in quotes?
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Shouldn't "news" be in quotes?
Good point.
I'm particularly annoyed at the state of journalism when things like this swine flu hit. I have absolutely no idea if there's a legitimate thing to worry about, or if this is just the asshats puffing up the latest and greatest non-issue to garner ratings.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Right now our country is at a crossroads. Congressional Republicans need to crap or get off the pot. Are they really foolish enough to think that Obama is going to reject his own plan completely and accept their "Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes" plan? Bush had 8 years to screw up the country. The Republican party is dying and had no clear direction. Maybe they should follow the NFL model and 'rebuild'. In the meantime, it's the Democrat's turn to succeed or fail fixing the cracks that guys like Cheney put into our country. Deal with it.As a historian, I have a longer term view of things then most people, and this whole "The Republican Party is dying" idea has come up before. It came up when FDR won his fourth term. It came up when Kennedy won the election. It came up when Carter won the election, and it came up when Clinton became president. At least in modern times, when someone was come along to sign the death certificate, the Republican Party has jumped off the slab and took off running. Carter's election brought twelve years of Republicans in the White House. Clinton's election was followed by the Republicans taking the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. The election this year was, iirc 53-47,which doesn't seem like the Republican Party is even in poor health. Don't be too quick to declare the Republicans out yet, particularly when the Republicans who have lost lately are Republicans who tried to distance themselves from the core of the party to "reach out" to people who are never going to vote for them.
It's foolish (and hubristic) to declare either of the two parties "dead." I remember for a while in about 2002-2005 when Karl Rove was waddling around talking about a "permanent Republican majority."
What these career politicians and political hacks fail to grasp is that the two-party system is designed to be cyclical, and it's designed to throw bums out on their asses when they have proved themselves to be bums.
|
|
Right now our country is at a crossroads. Congressional Republicans need to crap or get off the pot. Are they really foolish enough to think that Obama is going to reject his own plan completely and accept their "Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes, Cut Taxes" plan? Bush had 8 years to screw up the country. The Republican party is dying and had no clear direction. Maybe they should follow the NFL model and 'rebuild'. In the meantime, it's the Democrat's turn to succeed or fail fixing the cracks that guys like Cheney put into our country. Deal with it.As a historian, I have a longer term view of things then most people, and this whole "The Republican Party is dying" idea has come up before. It came up when FDR won his fourth term. It came up when Kennedy won the election. It came up when Carter won the election, and it came up when Clinton became president. At least in modern times, when someone was come along to sign the death certificate, the Republican Party has jumped off the slab and took off running. Carter's election brought twelve years of Republicans in the White House. Clinton's election was followed by the Republicans taking the majority in both houses of Congress for the first time in 50 years. The election this year was, iirc 53-47,which doesn't seem like the Republican Party is even in poor health. Don't be too quick to declare the Republicans out yet, particularly when the Republicans who have lost lately are Republicans who tried to distance themselves from the core of the party to "reach out" to people who are never going to vote for them.It's foolish (and hubristic) to declare either of the two parties "dead." I remember for a while in about 2002-2005 when Karl Rove was waddling around talking about a "permanent Republican majority."
What these career politicians and political hacks fail to grasp is that the two-party system is designed to be cyclical, and it's designed to throw bums out on their asses when they have proved themselves to be bums....
Erik, only problem is, quite a few on both sides have proven themselves to be bums for a prolonged period of time, but they're still there...
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Yes, that's true, but the party survives. Whether or not a specific corrupt politician, bum, or layabout is able to hold his seat is an issue of local politics, charisma, demographics, and luck. My point isn't that bad congresspeople and presidents get tossed, but that parties in general are punished when the public gets sick of them.
Anyone sitting in the catbird seat who thinks that they and those like them will be in charge forever is simply wrong.
And while I'm at it, any political partisan who truly believes that their side is mostly blameless and the other side is a bunch of weasels isn't looking to get into an honest discussion in the first place, in my opinion.
|
|
Yes, that's true, but the party survives. Whether or not a specific corrupt politician, bum, or layabout is able to hold his seat is an issue of local politics, charisma, demographics, and luck. My point isn't that bad congresspeople and presidents get tossed, but that parties in general are punished when the public gets sick of them.
Anyone sitting in the catbird seat who thinks that they and those like them will be in charge forever is simply wrong.
And while I'm at it, any political partisan who truly believes that their side is mostly blameless and the other side is a bunch of weasels isn't looking to get into an honest discussion in the first place, in my opinion.
Yeah, I agree. The sooner people realize both parties have only their own interests at heart, and are, at best, composed of petty to serious criminals, the better.
Sorry, I can't stand any of the lying, greedy, douchebag bums...
Well, I have a solution to deal with all the "scumbags" in Congress(, senate, ect., ect., ect.), but if we do that, then we would have to get someone to "replace" those people.
|
You know, for having a political system as dysfunctional as ours, we seem to do pretty well. I mean, the USA has managed to avoid a good deal of the problems that plague most of the rest of the world. With a few notable (and short-lived) exceptions, we don't have to deal with full-blown political witch-hunts, we still enjoy a free press (even if the forces of capitalism have pushed them to broadcast to the lowest denominator), and it is still OK to be a total nutjob. I think that's the best sign of a free country: when two whackos on opposite sides of an issue can live in the same country, hate each other, but not have to worry about the other side killing them. Of course, whackos will fear that outcome anyways, but their fears are ridiculous. They are nutjobs, after all.
I have a solution, too.
It's called "elections".
~sighs sadly~ Spoilsport! I was hoping to try something else!
~GRINS~
|
|
Shouldn't "news" be in quotes?Good point.
I'm particularly annoyed at the state of journalism when things like this swine flu hit. I have absolutely no idea if there's a legitimate thing to worry about, or if this is just the asshats puffing up the latest and greatest non-issue to garner ratings.
The whole thing's frustrating; I'm going through it myself, right next to ground zero with small kids in the house; it's creeping into my city too and I dread hearing the numbers in the morning on the radio. They closed a school in Richardson for a week because some kids came down with something, which is kind of a suburb 20 miles from where I am give or take. Everything in Dallas is about 20 miles away; it's some sort of geographical constant.
It's a slowmotion thing, and it'll be our buddy for a while I think.I don't think all the answers exist just yet, it's a new strain of virus, so we just have to wait and see what the deal is.
And yes this may lead to people not voting for an agnostic, which is ok. But in a society where we so highly value freedom the voters and the candidate need this level of freedom.So "freedom" can mean "agnostics not allowed," but cannot mean "Christian dogma not allowed"?
Just to point out, one can be an agnostic and a christian (I know this for a fact as an agnostic christian). Agnostic is not the same thing as atheist.
===================
To the comments about decorum and the parties, I will say that if someone valued bipartisianship, then the person that you should have voted for was not the person who ended up winning. John McCain, no matter what you think about him, had a prove record of reaching across the aisle. As a (very slightly leaning conservative) moderate, I was actually quite excited by his nomination. I had hoped he'd be a true maverick and get Lieberman as his running mate, but you have to play the game and the core of the republican party wouldn't have wanted it (and before people start going off on Palin, please look our vice-president long and hard). Still the endorsement was interesting to me.
===================
As for the swine flu and the border security, even though it has reached america, that doesn't mean that increased border security wouldn't help with keeping it from spreading even faster. Having 20 sick people is bad, having 20,000 sick people is worse. Anyway, I was joking with my wife tonight that it was created by a group of conservatives (who of course don't care about killing them dirty mexicans, /sarcasm) to make border security more of an issue.
|
|
It's not going to work for a lot of reasons.
Remember, there's scads of U. S. citizens that just have to be able to go to Mexico for whatever reason; it doesn't matter if you catch every single solitary illegal crossing which is no mean feat in and of itsself, there's still going to be people from this side going over and vectoring it back here.
Shouldn't "news" be in quotes?Good point.
I'm particularly annoyed at the state of journalism when things like this swine flu hit. I have absolutely no idea if there's a legitimate thing to worry about, or if this is just the asshats puffing up the latest and greatest non-issue to garner ratings.
Yeah, and then you hear about how this and this senator had flu emergency stuff pulled out of the "stimulus" bill, and got it put into a regular spending bill (repeat: it was not killed, just put in a bill they thought was more appropriate). And then here about how they were such big dumb heads, because if people get sick then of course that is going to hurt the economy so they were dumb for not putting it in the stimulus bill (again, even though they did put it in a regular spending bill). I mean WTF?
It's not going to work for a lot of reasons.
Remember, there's scads of U. S. citizens that just have to be able to go to Mexico for whatever reason; it doesn't matter if you catch every single solitary illegal crossing which is no mean feat in and of itsself, there's still going to be people from this side going over and vectoring it back here.
But less vectors is better than more vectors is it not? It is not going to stop it but it may reduce it becoming a huge wave of cases at one time to a slow tide.
|
|
But less vectors is better than more vectors is it not? It is not going to stop it but it may reduce it becoming a huge wave of cases at one time to a slow tide.It's not going to work for a lot of reasons.
Remember, there's scads of U. S. citizens that just have to be able to go to Mexico for whatever reason; it doesn't matter if you catch every single solitary illegal crossing which is no mean feat in and of itsself, there's still going to be people from this side going over and vectoring it back here.
I see your point, and I've developed mine a bit further I guess.
First of all, I'm assuming you're not for a complete shutdown of the border, simply for a heightened patrolling to catch illegal crossings. I don't have the numbers for legal vs. illegal crossings, but for the price tag to do that, I believe the legal crossings that will continue to happen will be of such a vast percentage versus the illegal crossings that would be stopped by such measures that the slowing of "20 vs. 20,000" number would be more like "5,000 with increased security" vs "10,000 without" and as such would be a moot point.Furthermore, I think the big numbers allready came through before the problem was even identified. A trucker somewhere in South Dakota right now is coming down with it full blast, and he's shed viruses in every gas station between there and Juarez before he knew he was sick. So the vast expenditure that it would take to shut down a very porous border would be better spent on a whole by possibly.....making more Tamiflu or something along those lines. I think it's probably too little, and probably too late. I think there would be a more effective utilization of the resources than putting a paper towel over the noodle strainer when the water's allready gone through.
|
|
Oh, and in USA today link
one of the speculations as to why Mexico is so hard hit vs. U. S.; they said there might've been way more cases in Mexico than were reported of milder infections, so ergo the mortality rate vs. reported infections may very well be skewed.
People with the mild infection said "meh....I'm sick..." and didn't go see the Doctor because it wasn't common knowledge yet that there was a new strain of flu going around.
I have a solution, too.
It's called "elections".
That still doesn't solve the problem of where we would get quality people to replace the current set.
I see your point, and I've developed mine a bit further I guess.
First of all, I'm assuming you're not for a complete shutdown of the border, simply for a heightened patrolling to catch illegal crossings. I don't have the numbers for legal vs. illegal crossings, but for the price tag to do that, I believe the legal crossings that will continue to happen will be of such a vast percentage versus the illegal crossings that would be stopped by such measures that the slowing of "20 vs. 20,000" number would be more like "5,000 with increased security" vs "10,000 without" and as such would be a moot point.
A 100% increase in cases is a "moot point"? Huh? Also I think you are missing a bigger issue with illegal immigrants and health, they are a hell of lot less likely to seek out medical care (for fear of being deported) and thus are more likely to spread it. Also while we might not close the border entirely (I agree that is not very realistic), increased border security overall can help to pick up people that are sick and have them pulled to the side and checked out. Sure we aren't going to check everyone, but we can do SOMETHING.
Furthermore, I think the big numbers allready came through before the problem was even identified. A trucker somewhere in South Dakota right now is coming down with it full blast, and he's shed viruses in every gas station between there and Juarez before he knew he was sick. So the vast expenditure that it would take to shut down a very porous border would be better spent on a whole by possibly.....making more Tamiflu or something along those lines. I think it's probably too little, and probably too late. I think there would be a more effective utilization of the resources than putting a paper towel over the noodle strainer when the water's allready gone through.
I think the real problem is people aren't going to feel comfortable pointing a gun at a bunch of sick women and children from south of the border telling them, "Go back to your homes, we can't take care of you." Sadly our unwillingness to take harsh measures means we are probably going to cost the lives of some of our own citizens. We can talk about towels and strainers, but the fact is the U.S. isn't full blown like Mexico is. We can try to slow the tide or we can just throw our hands in the air and say the hell with it. I prefer making an effort, though I understand the desire to throw in the towel.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Just to point out, one can be an agnostic and a christian (I know this for a fact as an agnostic christian). Agnostic is not the same thing as atheist.
I dunno. Can you believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and still not be sure what you believe? Certainly there are details that range in importance and my level of belief in them. A good example is the current debate our men's group is having related to Reform views (election and predestiniation) and Arminian views (responsibility and choice on man's part).
Or do you mean it's possible to be Christian and not feel you have all the answers, just that you know who does? And that's not intended to sound trite...I am just trying to understand the idea of a Christian agnostic.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
And while I'm at it, any political partisan who truly believes that their side is mostly blameless and the other side is a bunch of weasels isn't looking to get into an honest discussion in the first place, in my opinion.
To be clear, I haven't said I think my party is blameless or that there aren't good, credible folks with different ideas. Joe Lieberman couldn't be much more different than me ideologically, but I respect him a great deal and I applaud his character. He fights for what he believes in and treats his political opponents with respect. And I'm pretty quick to express frustration with conservatives who prefer to summarize their differences with name-calling (a great example is Michael Savage. I have very little tolerance for him, though I dig the Metallica riffs.)
I believe the difference in rhetoric exists, and I believe I'm honest enough to look for and admonish against the kind of rhetoric I don't want to hear from either party.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Supposing one did want to place the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse as an iconic display of the rule of law, how would you go about making it clear that it was to be understood in this way, and not taken as a method to deliver the actual message inscribed upon the face of the stone, "I AM the LORD thy God, Thou shalt have no other gods before me"?
Well..the ten commandments are on display. The printed money says 'in god we trust'. And yet there are roughly zero repercussions if you sleep in on Sunday or otherwise participate in any religion or no religion. Your taxes aren't changed based on your religion. You don't carry a religion or party ID card mandated by the state. Your decision to marry or divorce is not subject to approval by a state church. While the ten commandments are on display, a Buddhist temple or unitarian studies church or First Church of Xenu-the-Planet-Starter has the same provisions for tax-exempt status.
Oh, also, no one born in this country really grows up thinking they have to go to church or the government will frown on them. Parents, maybe. Folks in your neighborhoos, maybe. The government has never asked you to belong to a religion, and as a reasonable person you are very aware of that.
|
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
To be clear, I haven't said I think my party is blameless or that there aren't good, credible folks with different ideas. Joe Lieberman couldn't be much more different than me ideologically, but I respect him a great deal and I applaud his character. He fights for what he believes in and treats his political opponents with respect. And I'm pretty quick to express frustration with conservatives who prefer to summarize their differences with name-calling (a great example is Michael Savage. I have very little tolerance for him, though I dig the Metallica riffs.)
Glad you mentioned Savage. The man is a disgrace and a perfect illustration of cultural poison I think all thinking people of any political persuasion can agree to condemn.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
Well..the ten commandments are on display. The printed money says 'in god we trust'. And yet there are roughly zero repercussions if you sleep in on Sunday or otherwise participate in any religion or no religion. Your taxes aren't changed based on your religion. You don't carry a religion or party ID card mandated by the state. Your decision to marry or divorce is not subject to approval by a state church. While the ten commandments are on display, a Buddhist temple or unitarian studies church or First Church of Xenu-the-Planet-Starter has the same provisions for tax-exempt status.Oh, also, no one born in this country really grows up thinking they have to go to church or the government will frown on them. Parents, maybe. Folks in your neighborhoos, maybe. The government has never asked you to belong to a religion, and as a reasonable person you are very aware of that.
So its ok to act contrary to the constitution because it has little to no effect on most people?
How would you feel if that same logic were applied to the other protections of the Bill of Rights?
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Focus on the Family? And Ann "We should kill them all or convert them to Christianity" Coulter? New Orleans "deserved" destruction because they were "against God"? And to counter that idiot windbag Michael Moore: 'documentaries' explaining how "The Nazi genocide was all because of the theory of evolution?"
I'd be interested in seeing some vitriol from the usually-quite-mellow Dr. Dobson and Focus on the Family.
The Coulter quote is considerably out of context. You'll note the Garofalo comments are not. They are name-calling, and then insults based on the foundation of that name-calling. Coulter writes in one of her books that the spread of Islam centuries ago used two weapons: killing the opposition, or outbreeding them and converting them. The idea of killing 'them' or converting 'them' to Christianity is to address the enemy as they address us. They have a strategy, and have been largely ignored while they put their pieces into place. (of course, I speak of the militant terrorist types and not of more moderate muslims).
I agree with your earlier position that anyone can find examples of some 'tard they wish could keep their mouth closed. A common example is the 'God hates f*gs' Church of Weirdos in some small town in Kansas. But those folks aren't Christians. They don't preach a Bible or share a Gospel. They spew hate and it's the focus of what they do. And thusly with anyone who said 'New Orleans deserved what they got because they were against God', which I have not heard anyone identified as a political pundit say. Now, I have heard it argued that New Orleans did not prepare, that money that should have gone to prepare the city went in someone's pocket. But those are lamentations about what happened to New Orleans. Not a grateful writing off of Gamorrha.
Again, I don't claim they don't exist, but what documentary are you quoting from? The history of eugenics, and the ideas of a master race might have something to do with taking a godless darwinism too far, but I have only heard those ideas and the crimes associated with them laid at the feet of the Nazis. If you're remarking on Coulter again, you remain out of context. As a Christian, she writes that man has a connection to its creator, and that even at the turn of the 20th century, a few people used this burgeoning idea of evolution to justify their crimes. In no way does she excuse Hitler and put the blame on Darwin.
My whole point was that examples of this invective can be found among main-stream liberals, and it takes no effort. The NAACP ran that commercial against Bush "when Governor Bush didn't support extra punishment for hate crimes, it was like my daddy was murdered all over again." Bush's argument: Murder is murder and let's throw the book at 'em. The NAACP's argument: Bush hates black people, and doesn't care if they get drawn and quartered in the streets. One side had an argument, and the other spent money to side-step the argument and esentially call him a racist.
When Dr. Condaleeza Rice was confirmed as Secretary of State, liberal columns and cartoons were rife with references and characatures of "house ni99as" (I use that term with trepidation. Pity the liberal cartoonists weren't so sensitive.) Imagine if the roles were reversed and conservative magazines ran with that. Yet we get sterotyped (by organizations that subsist on continued racial tension) as racists. Garofalo makes her sad comments and continues to advance her argument as if it were true just because she said so.
Conversely, we'd have heard about it if on a national news program a conservative had responded to a gathering of muslims with the statement 'these people don't want economic freedom or faster naturalization. They're just a bunch of terrorists'. Or if some celebrity had ever departed from their thank you speech to rant 'Shame on you, Bill Clinton', or if perhaps Sarah Palin had ever made the public comment "I don't think you can be a Christian and a Democrat at the same time." We'd know about these things. Or if a politically motivated prosecutor ever indicted a Democrat Senator for something that wasn't even against the law.
And if some second-rate numbnut can be found to have said such a thing, a large group of conservatives would be the first to tell that guy we don't need him. Who's trying to get Howard Dean or Al Gore or Al Franken or Sam Donaldson (to illustrate this goes back a ways) or Rosie O'Donnel or a host of others to be more civil?
I know there are bad apples. But you have to look harder to find the republicans. If I didn't make an honest effort to look for it, and if I didn't believe it, I wouldn't have only almost gave up on my party these last 2 years. I'd have turned in my card and gone to bed a long time ago.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Glad you mentioned Savage. The man is a disgrace and a perfect illustration of cultural poison I think all thinking people of any political persuasion can agree to condemn.
Utterly. I give him credit for being an ally to Israel and serious about his love for his country. Beyond that, I can't stand him. I have little use for the words 'scumbag' or 'moron'. I acknowledge him as maybe the most mainstream of the type of rhetoric I despise on the conservative side of the aisle. I even sometimes suspect his anger is exaggerated for ratings. But I see a lot more of his kind of talk from those who glibly throw out phrases like 'Bush lied, kids dies' without having once considered that there's a whole spectrum of argument they are ignoring in their attempt to say something arrogant and hateful.
I really do like the Metallica riffs, though. And Petrucci. Yeah.
|
Director of Narrative
|
I have a solution, too.
It's called "elections".
Not to be contrary, but I'm amused and deflated by the words of Winston Churchill, "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
Then again, I'm 1% and never really expect anything to go my way on a large scale.
Fixed it for you ;)I have a solution, too.
It's called "elections".
That still doesn't solve the problem of where we would get quality people to replace the current set.
Of course the people we would like to put in government are usually too honorable to want the job.
Both are true though. :(
So its ok to act contrary to the constitution because it has little to no effect on most people?
Most of American History does seem to support that position.
|
|
Just to point out, one can be an agnostic and a christian (I know this for a fact as an agnostic christian). Agnostic is not the same thing as atheist.I dunno. Can you believe in the death and resurrection of Christ and still not be sure what you believe?
The thing to remember is that agnostic simply means that you don't agree with organized religion. One can believe in Christ and the Bible and still believe that all churches have strayed from the path.
|
|
To be clear, I haven't said I think my party is blameless or that there aren't good, credible folks with different ideas. Joe Lieberman couldn't be much more different than me ideologically, but I respect him a great deal and I applaud his character. He fights for what he believes in and treats his political opponents with respect. And I'm pretty quick to express frustration with conservatives who prefer to summarize their differences with name-calling (a great example is Michael Savage. I have very little tolerance for him, though I dig the Metallica riffs.)
Glad you mentioned Savage. The man is a disgrace and a perfect illustration of cultural poison I think all thinking people of any political persuasion can agree to condemn.
My brother gave me one of Michael Savage's books for Christmas a few years back. He thought I would like it because I'm conservative. I got through two and a half pages before I was so sickened by it that I threw it in the fireplace.
|
|
I tried to post this last night...
Honestly, in my lifetime, I can think of maybe four pols I've really admired on a personal level: Paul Tsongas, Joe Lieberman, Daniel Patrick Moynahan and (non-2008 general election) John McCain (honorable mention to Bill Bradley), and I don't agree with even 90% of their politics. I just found those four (five) to be the only national politicians that, when I see their lips moving, I don't assume out of hand that they were lying.
They are or were all honorable in a field seriously lacking in that virtue, and, even though I may not agree with them on a lot of policy, I admired them for trying to elevate politics out of the pig sty.
Unfortunately, the pols I agree most with on policy I think are dirt bags. Gingrich falls into this category. Dude gets it on a profound level, policy-wise, understands old school Goldwater conservatism, but he's such a douche in his personal life, and a crook in some of his political dealings, that it annoys me that I agree so much with him on a lot of the (fiscal) politics side.
Again, I don't claim they don't exist, but what documentary are you quoting from? The history of eugenics, and the ideas of a master race might have something to do with taking a godless darwinism too far...
Central premise of Ben Stein's pro-Creationist movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." A lot of the church groups here were sponsoring big trips to see it, and "teach the controversy" is a Texas Republican platform issue.
P.S. Most of my co-workers somehow believe that Michael Savage is "extremely moderate." Talk about media bias...
|
|
Again, I don't claim they don't exist, but what documentary are you quoting from? The history of eugenics, and the ideas of a master race might have something to do with taking a godless darwinism too far...Central premise of Ben Stein's pro-Creationist movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed." A lot of the church groups here were sponsoring big trips to see it, and "teach the controversy" is a Texas Republican platform issue.
P.S. Most of my co-workers somehow believe that Michael Savage is "extremely moderate." Talk about media bias...
You know what's funny? Glen Beck takes a lot of crap, but if you actually watch or listen to the dude, he rips Republicans as much as he rips Dems (and he did constantly during the Bush admin, particularly on fiscal matters). Savage, Rush, Hannity, eh, whatever, but I think Beck gets a bum rap sometimes...
Joe Lieberman was one of our senators the whole time I lived in CT; he sponsored me to West Point. Conservatives affectionately called him a "DINO" (exactly analagous to Specter's "RINO" appelation); liberals ranted that it was "no fair" that we had two Republican senators. Anyone who's at all moderate gets disowned by their own party and overly-warmly received by the other.
Ben Stein, about his movie:
---
"When we just saw that man, I think it was Mr. Myers, talking about how great scientists were, I was thinking to myself the last time any of my relatives saw scientists telling them what to do they were telling them to go to the showers to get gassed … that was horrifying beyond words, and that’s where science — in my opinion, this is just an opinion — that’s where science leads you... Love of God and compassion and empathy leads you to a very glorious place, and science leads you to killing people."
|
|
Joe Lieberman was one of our senators the whole time I lived in CT; he sponsored me to West Point. Conservatives affectionately called him a "DINO" (exactly analagous to Specter's "RINO" appelation); liberals ranted that it was "no fair" that we had two Republican senators. Anyone who's at all moderate gets disowned by their own party and overly-warmly received by the other.
Yeah, like McCain before he won the nomination ;)
That's what I like about Lieberman and McCain, they really DON'T play partisan politics, they don't just pay lip service to the concept (like someone I know in the Oval Office...).
And look what happened in 2000 with McCain, and 2006 with Lieberman, for being their own men. Trashed by their own parties. Kudos to the people of Connecticut for keeping the person they wanted in the Senate, rather than the guy the Party wanted...