Rants Without Pants: "Top Five Reasons Progressives Have the Moral High Ground"
This
week on Rants Without Pants, I'm embracing the liberal elitism. I list
(in no particular order) the top five reasons progressives have the
moral high ground. In case you want to skip around, these are the
times on the video for each subject.
5. Health Care Reform :047 4. Gay Marriage 3:00 3. Voter ID Law 4:00 2. Citizen United 4:56 1. Race & Disrespect 6:38
There's so much to say about these subjects that I'm going to leave some thoughts one by one. Here's number five...
Here’s a great quote from Benjamin Franklin to kick things off…
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --Benjamin Franklin, "Management of the Poor" (1766)
1:23 “Progressives want all Americans to have health coverage and preventative care.” Good, so do conservatives – we’re in agreement! Where we differ is in HOW that should work. Do we need health care reform? Abso-freakin’-lutely! Should it be done through a social program where people are taxed for not participating in a government program that won’t work efficiently? No way!
“(The President) kicking around some ideas – any ideas”? Umm… not just any ideas. Socialist ideas. There’s no place for that in a Republic… This will add more government control over another aspect of our lives. Let’s take a look at the other aspects of life that the government oversees, shall we? How’s that postal service working out? How about Social “Security”? Yeah, everything the government puts its grubby hands on turns to poo…
“CBO predicts it will save the country trillions of dollars”. Yeah, we’ll see about that. What if that changes? Are you going to change your stance on Obamacare?
Jesus would be 100% for health care reform. Interesting statement. As I said before, anyone who doesn’t see that the current system is broken and needs fixing is pretty blind. The question is – how do we fix it? Show me in the Bible where Jesus said that taking care of anyone was the role of the state. There are NO instances where any of the disciples suggest that the state is a substitute for the individual responsibility to care for one another.
Jesus’ emphasis was (IS!) that the individual and the church were responsible for taking care of those in need, not the government. Is the church slacking on its responsibility to care for the orphans and the widows? You bet. The government forcing people to do it through the taking of their money isn’t the way to go. The more the government forces people to help those in need, the less giving takes place.
Back to Benny’s quote – there are a whole lot of people who are already milking the system through government programs. This health care program is only going to make that worse. Are there people that genuinely need help? You bet – let’s find a better way to help them…
I think Benjamin Franklin's quote is right on. Look, I don't think we should coddle the poor. But I'm sorry, I work with it everyday at my job. Moving to Milwaukee and working where I work, I was shocked at how extremely poor people are how many there are.
I believe one of the most important thing the US Government should do is take care of those who are ill. We are the only industrial nation in the world that doesn't. I think it should have been a Medicare buy in program for those that are interested. I was/and still am not a huge ObamaCare supporter. But I do think it is a good first step. Just because something is a socialist program,doesn't mean the country is suddenly socialst. Also, this is essentially a buy out to the Insurance Companies. With all honesty, I am not a huge fan of the mandate either. But you must remember, it was a republican idea. Also, what do you have against the mail? Also, if the Government didn't keep on rading Social Security, it would be just fine.
This is Adam's older, conservative (and immoral?) brother, Jeremy with my two cents.
I really think that you're taking extreme situations and comments made by a few and transferring them to the majority of Republicans/conservatives. I could do the same with Democrats/liberals/progressives, but it would be unfair to take a small percentage of extreme situations and use them as blanket statements for everyone. You also seem to be using conservatives and the GOP as one and the same; just because the GOP may act a certain way doesn't mean that I endorse it, similar to some of the Democratic party actions not being endorsed by all those who are liberals. It would be nice to hear you admit that there are many conservatives who are moral and have good intentions…
I'm not going to go into every point in great detail, but here is my general reaction on the five reasons:
#1. Health Care Reform – I DO care about the needs of others, but I don't think the government should be mandating insurance and taxing someone who doesn't want to participate. I know that the CBO predicts it will save a lot of money, but like Nate, we'll have to wait and see what happens. I feel that the individual mandate is definitely unconstitutional, regardless of which party came up with it.
#2. Gay Marriage – The Bible is pretty clear on this: homosexuality is a sin. So, if you're going to ask me if I would vote “yes” to something that I believe is sinful, I'm obviously not going to do that. I don't believe that gay people have the right to marry - marriage is only for one man and one woman. As you know, I'm not a homophobe - I have friends who are gay. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I don't hate them or want them dead, etc. They know where I stand on the subject and I know where they stand.
#3. Voter ID – I think it's amazing that we need an ID to buy beer, use the library, verify checks, etc., but for the privilege of voting, we don't. Again, you may say that the GOP is doing it for nefarious reasons, but that's not the same as my reasons. Everyone who drives or purchases alcohol has a drivers license. I can't believe that anyone can say they are me as long as they know my name and address. That's ridiculous to me. The point isn't to suppress voters, the point is that it make sense to require an ID.
#4. Citizen United – I really don't have a problem with this reason and I think that most reasonable conservatives would agree.
#5. Race/Disrespect – To suggest an entire group is racist and disrespectful is unfair. Do I agree that some Republicans go too far and are racist? Yes. Do I think that some Democrats are also racist? Yes! What bothers me is that many liberals (but not all) tout tolerance for everyone's beliefs, but it seems if you have certain beliefs (usually religious in nature), then they are extremely intolerant towards you. They're basically tolerant as long as you believe what they believe.
I think SOME change would be a good first step, but I think this current system is a big mistake and a step in the wrong direction. I'm worried that it's going to become another bankrupt government program that will only put us further down the debt spiral we're already in. And the middle class is going to bear the brunt of this program. My problem with the mail - it sucks. UPS and Fed Ex do a much better job, as is always the case with private companies versus government agencies. It's inconsistent, stuff gets lost a lot more, it's slow and it's losing money.
OK - on to number four...
I noticed you didn’t bring what Jesus thought into the discussion on this one. Interesting...
There is no violation of rights in this area. Everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They might not like that option, but they do have that right… If you don’t want to do that, your rights aren’t violated, you just don’t avail yourself of the opportunity. No one – including us – has a right to marry someone of the same sex. Fundamentally, two people of the same sex cannot marry each other. We can create laws to pretend, but calling a same sex union a marriage doesn’t make it one. Invoking a right doesn’t make a right…
Laws address behaviors, not people. No people are discriminated against, only behaviors and ALL laws discriminate against behavior.
If it’s only about marrying who you love, why not more than one person? Why not relatives? Why not children? Marriage is not just about love, it’s about what benefits society that government is interested in.
It all comes down to why the government is involved in marriage at all. The government can either permit it, prohibit it or promote it. Same sex relationships are already permitted, and they are not prohibited. What’s the societal benefit of promoting them? All of society benefits from marriage as it is right now, regardless of any individuals being married or not. How would changing the very definition of what marriage is benefit society?
Please note, none of the above statements are coming from a religious perspective. For a professing Christian, your worldview seems inconsistent. You seem to pick what you want out of the Bible, especially when you think it helps prove your point, but then you ignore other parts of it when it doesn't line up with your point of view. So much more could be said here from a religious point of view, but I’ll leave that alone. The secular arguments stand on their own against your position...
You do a good job of knocking down the strawmen you set up. There are many more reasons than because someone feels it’s icky. Educate yourself on the REAL views of your opposition before you create supposed reasons that are easy to refute.
And for the record, I only watched Dancing With the Stars because Donald Driver was on it. I doubt I’ll be watching it again next time.
How do you feel about polygamy? Do you think people should be able to marry as many people as they want? How about marrying family members? If marriage is only about who you love, shouldn’t these be OK too?
So…what I've pieced together from your videos and comments at Althouse.com, it sounds like you have a live-in significant other who you call your spouse, even though you're not married and you don't like to say fiancé (which makes no sense to me). However, Martha calls herself your "girlfriend"… not spouse or even fiancé! Maybe you don't like to say you're engaged because Martha doesn't think you two will ever get married? Yeah… That all sounds REAL moral, dude!
I'm not sure if you're going to respond to my thoughts on number four or not (I know you've been gone, maybe you're catching up on other things...). Here's my take on number three...
Voter ID Law: “Progressives want everyone to vote.” Yes, including people who shouldn't be voting (like people who are here ILLEGALLY and dead people!)... Conservatives don’t want to deny anyone who SHOULD have the right to vote their opportunity, they only want to make sure that everyone who goes out to vote has a legal stake in the election. Denying voter fraud is a really bad idea since it is out there and it is a problem. Someone went out to see if he could vote using Eric Holder’s name and address and could have if he wanted to. The person at the poll was trying to hand him the ballot and he didn’t take it. There are many more examples of voter fraud out there. To deny there is fraud is to deny reality.
Your Mike Turzai video said nothing about African-Americans, the elderly, the poor, or those overseas. He said it would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania. He didn’t say it would guarantee a win. It would ALLOW a win, make it possible for him to win, that’s all. All the oppression you hear in that video was you projecting that onto what he was saying. He didn’t say any of the things you listed after that miniscule quote.
The fact that this is an issue is a joke. Should we end showing ID for buying alcohol, driving a car, getting on a plane, etc. too?
Check out these interviews… http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mrctv-reporter-asks-are-voter-i-d-laws-racist/
Maybe you're done responding or not even reading the comments anymore. I'll post my comments on the last two since it doesn't seem like there's going to be any dialogue here...
Citizen United: I don’t know much about this issue, so I’m gonna pass on this one. Your concerns sound valid. I would add that a lot of this seems to be hyped up as a big problem, where statistically it doesn’t seem to be (yet). I read an article just last week that said corporations have largely decided not to spend tons of money doing this sort of stuff. They looked at over $96 million that had been spent so far and 86% of it was from individual donors, while less than 1% was from publicly traded corporations. Then you can look at the wads of cash that Adelson spent on Gingrich, who ended up in fourth place. So, how effective is that money anyway? I think the potential for some crazy stuff does exist, but it doesn’t seem like we’re there yet…
Race: Calling out all Republican politicians for playing on racism is a bit much. I think that progressives tend to see racism in places where it isn’t the vast majority of the time. Then there are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Their repeated pushing of themselves into situations where race may even be the slightest factor (or no factor at all until they inject it) is despicable. Of course, the media is complicit in this venture, as has been seen in the Trayvon Martin case. First the media edited the recording of the 911 call and cover the back of Zimmerman’s head so the public couldn’t see the wounds from when Martin was beating the crap out of him (what’s that about the liberal media pushing their agenda?). Then the two race baiters swoop in to make things worse. It’s sick.
Calling out birthers as racists is a pretty big jump. I’ve never heard anyone say they’re looking into his background because he’s black. They’re looking into his background because there are so many questions. I’m not saying I buy into that (which is good since you’d think I’m up to 11 on the racist-o-meter in addition to being on the moral low ground), but you have to admit there are a lot of questions out there to be answered. He’s got a goofy SSN too (a Connecticut number from the 70s?). Just because people have questions and he happens to be black doesn’t make anyone a racist…
Are there Republicans and conservatives (I think you should think about not using those words interchangeably – they are often not the same thing!) who are racist, sure. Are there Democrats and liberals (again, not always the same thing) who are racist – sure there are. But historically speaking, the Republican party has been the party that fought for the rights of blacks. To say that the Republican party is to blame for racism is just plain inaccurate (read up on the KKK!), especially when there are people like Jackson and Sharpton who continually make sure they inject it into every situation.
Your justification for not allowing two people to marry without evoking the bible is slim at best.
The definition of marriage is “Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.”
You seem like a smart guy Nate, but come on man, you really believe two people of the same sex that have been with each other for 20 years and would like to get married and have the same benefits and rights as straight people, is the same as a crazy person who wants to marry himself? You are saying you don’t see a different? Come on.
I think it can be a bit insulting to gay people when others make the argument that it’s a slippery slope. Like our own Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleehfisch comparing gay marriage to marrying a table. I’ve also heard the argument, “Well, what’s next cousins marrying each other (which actually is legal almost half of the States in the US)? Or the worst, comparing it to bestiality.
I understand you aren’t taking it that far, but I’m sorry, the slippery slope argument doesn’t hold any water. It seems you are also focusing on that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and I’m sorry, that’s semantics.
The point is two gay people should have the rights to marry each other as two hetros do. It is a civil rights issue. For me, there are many areas that are gray, but this is not one of them.
I understand why the Voter ID law seems like it makes sense to many people, because most people have a driver’s license. It is every American’s right to vote. It is not every American’s right to vote who has a license or ID.
I can tell you through my work that there are absolutely people that are living not the way that you and I live. It will absolutely disenfranchise college students, elderly, the poor and African Americans that still deserve to vote, even if they don’t have the means or make it extremely difficult for them to get an ID.
You ask “Should we end showing ID for buying alcohol, driving a car, getting on a plane, etc. too?” No. Because voting is different. It’s a right for every American whether you have an ID or not has.
Also, as for the Mike Turzai video? I think you absolutely know what he was saying. Your explanation of his statement in his speech is a bit of a stretch
I absolutely agree with you on Jesse Jackson and your thoughts on the media exploiting race. No doubt. The media is a huge problem. My main point was with politicians on the right, rather than the citizens themselves.
As for the birthers, I absolutely believe that if anyone right now, has any doubts about Obama not being born in the US after all both forms of his Birth Certificate being release and the evidence that is out there like his ACTUAL BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE HAWAII PAPER, yes, I believe that person is a racist and I do believe people fed into it because he’s black. Hell, there are 40% of Republicans that believe he’s a muslim.
John McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone. If he won the presidency, do you think he would have had the same birther issues? I don’t think so.
I don’t believe the Republican Party is to blame for all racism. There is racism everywhere in all parties and with all colors. Like I said, I do think some republican politicians feed on that and try to use it for their political gain.
You are right about not using conservative and republican interchangeably. I’m going to try and not do that. There is a difference and concede to that point.
So you're going with the Wikipedia definition of marriage over the Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries, eh? Interesting choice. The definition of marriage has always included "opposite sex". That's what marriage is. Just because some people want to change it doesn't mean it is or should be changed...
This is not a civil rights issue. Every human being has the same right to marry a non-related adult of the opposite sex (that's what the definition of marriage is anyway). If you choose not to or don't want to, that's your choice.
I think the slippery slope argument is usually misunderstood. The same arguments for same sex "marriage" could be used to defend those other things. Pedophilia is currently getting the same treatment homosexuality used to get. The same ways that homosexuality has become more mainstream can be used in the future to earn protection and "rights" for pedophiles. That's not saying that the two are the same thing, just that the arguments for one can just as easily support the other. That's the slippery slope...
Laws don't discriminate against people, they discriminate against behavior. As I said before, the government has three options regarding any issues, whether to permit, promote or prohibit them. Same sex relationships are already permitted and not prohibited. What would be the societal benefit to promoting them?
In addition - the forcing of this issue is actually infringing upon freedom of speech and religious rights, which are supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Business owners who don't want to cater to same sex couples are being sued, fined, shut down for their beliefs. Talk about rights issues!
There's so much to say about these subjects that I'm going to leave some thoughts one by one. Here's number five...
ReplyDeleteHere’s a great quote from Benjamin Franklin to kick things off…
"I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer." --Benjamin Franklin, "Management of the Poor" (1766)
1:23 “Progressives want all Americans to have health coverage and preventative care.” Good, so do conservatives – we’re in agreement! Where we differ is in HOW that should work. Do we need health care reform? Abso-freakin’-lutely! Should it be done through a social program where people are taxed for not participating in a government program that won’t work efficiently? No way!
“(The President) kicking around some ideas – any ideas”? Umm… not just any ideas. Socialist ideas. There’s no place for that in a Republic… This will add more government control over another aspect of our lives. Let’s take a look at the other aspects of life that the government oversees, shall we? How’s that postal service working out? How about Social “Security”? Yeah, everything the government puts its grubby hands on turns to poo…
“CBO predicts it will save the country trillions of dollars”. Yeah, we’ll see about that. What if that changes? Are you going to change your stance on Obamacare?
Jesus would be 100% for health care reform. Interesting statement. As I said before, anyone who doesn’t see that the current system is broken and needs fixing is pretty blind. The question is – how do we fix it? Show me in the Bible where Jesus said that taking care of anyone was the role of the state. There are NO instances where any of the disciples suggest that the state is a substitute for the individual responsibility to care for one another.
Jesus’ emphasis was (IS!) that the individual and the church were responsible for taking care of those in need, not the government. Is the church slacking on its responsibility to care for the orphans and the widows? You bet. The government forcing people to do it through the taking of their money isn’t the way to go. The more the government forces people to help those in need, the less giving takes place.
Back to Benny’s quote – there are a whole lot of people who are already milking the system through government programs. This health care program is only going to make that worse. Are there people that genuinely need help? You bet – let’s find a better way to help them…
Progressives and the moral high ground... Hhmmm, isn't that an oxymoron?
ReplyDeleteCarlosRock10
Nate,
ReplyDeleteI think Benjamin Franklin's quote is right on. Look, I don't think we should coddle the poor. But I'm sorry, I work with it everyday at my job. Moving to Milwaukee and working where I work, I was shocked at how extremely poor people are how many there are.
I believe one of the most important thing the US Government should do is take care of those who are ill. We are the only industrial nation in the world that doesn't. I think it should have been a Medicare buy in program for those that are interested. I was/and still am not a huge ObamaCare supporter. But I do think it is a good first step. Just because something is a socialist program,doesn't mean the country is suddenly socialst. Also, this is essentially a buy out to the Insurance Companies. With all honesty, I am not a huge fan of the mandate either. But you must remember, it was a republican idea. Also, what do you have against the mail? Also, if the Government didn't keep on rading Social Security, it would be just fine.
This is Adam's older, conservative (and immoral?) brother, Jeremy with my two cents.
ReplyDeleteI really think that you're taking extreme situations and comments made by a few and transferring them to the majority of Republicans/conservatives. I could do the same with Democrats/liberals/progressives, but it would be unfair to take a small percentage of extreme situations and use them as blanket statements for everyone. You also seem to be using conservatives and the GOP as one and the same; just because the GOP may act a certain way doesn't mean that I endorse it, similar to some of the Democratic party actions not being endorsed by all those who are liberals. It would be nice to hear you admit that there are many conservatives who are moral and have good intentions…
I'm not going to go into every point in great detail, but here is my general reaction on the five reasons:
#1. Health Care Reform – I DO care about the needs of others, but I don't think the government should be mandating insurance and taxing someone who doesn't want to participate. I know that the CBO predicts it will save a lot of money, but like Nate, we'll have to wait and see what happens. I feel that the individual mandate is definitely unconstitutional, regardless of which party came up with it.
#2. Gay Marriage – The Bible is pretty clear on this: homosexuality is a sin. So, if you're going to ask me if I would vote “yes” to something that I believe is sinful, I'm obviously not going to do that. I don't believe that gay people have the right to marry - marriage is only for one man and one woman. As you know, I'm not a homophobe - I have friends who are gay. That doesn't mean that I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I don't hate them or want them dead, etc. They know where I stand on the subject and I know where they stand.
#3. Voter ID – I think it's amazing that we need an ID to buy beer, use the library, verify checks, etc., but for the privilege of voting, we don't. Again, you may say that the GOP is doing it for nefarious reasons, but that's not the same as my reasons. Everyone who drives or purchases alcohol has a drivers license. I can't believe that anyone can say they are me as long as they know my name and address. That's ridiculous to me. The point isn't to suppress voters, the point is that it make sense to require an ID.
#4. Citizen United – I really don't have a problem with this reason and I think that most reasonable conservatives would agree.
#5. Race/Disrespect – To suggest an entire group is racist and disrespectful is unfair. Do I agree that some Republicans go too far and are racist? Yes. Do I think that some Democrats are also racist? Yes! What bothers me is that many liberals (but not all) tout tolerance for everyone's beliefs, but it seems if you have certain beliefs (usually religious in nature), then they are extremely intolerant towards you. They're basically tolerant as long as you believe what they believe.
That's all I got. Peace out!
Jeremy
I think SOME change would be a good first step, but I think this current system is a big mistake and a step in the wrong direction. I'm worried that it's going to become another bankrupt government program that will only put us further down the debt spiral we're already in. And the middle class is going to bear the brunt of this program. My problem with the mail - it sucks. UPS and Fed Ex do a much better job, as is always the case with private companies versus government agencies. It's inconsistent, stuff gets lost a lot more, it's slow and it's losing money.
ReplyDeleteOK - on to number four...
I noticed you didn’t bring what Jesus thought into the discussion on this one. Interesting...
There is no violation of rights in this area. Everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. They might not like that option, but they do have that right… If you don’t want to do that, your rights aren’t violated, you just don’t avail yourself of the opportunity. No one – including us – has a right to marry someone of the same sex. Fundamentally, two people of the same sex cannot marry each other. We can create laws to pretend, but calling a same sex union a marriage doesn’t make it one. Invoking a right doesn’t make a right…
Laws address behaviors, not people. No people are discriminated against, only behaviors and ALL laws discriminate against behavior.
If it’s only about marrying who you love, why not more than one person? Why not relatives? Why not children? Marriage is not just about love, it’s about what benefits society that government is interested in.
It all comes down to why the government is involved in marriage at all. The government can either permit it, prohibit it or promote it. Same sex relationships are already permitted, and they are not prohibited. What’s the societal benefit of promoting them? All of society benefits from marriage as it is right now, regardless of any individuals being married or not. How would changing the very definition of what marriage is benefit society?
Please note, none of the above statements are coming from a religious perspective. For a professing Christian, your worldview seems inconsistent. You seem to pick what you want out of the Bible, especially when you think it helps prove your point, but then you ignore other parts of it when it doesn't line up with your point of view. So much more could be said here from a religious point of view, but I’ll leave that alone. The secular arguments stand on their own against your position...
You do a good job of knocking down the strawmen you set up. There are many more reasons than because someone feels it’s icky. Educate yourself on the REAL views of your opposition before you create supposed reasons that are easy to refute.
And for the record, I only watched Dancing With the Stars because Donald Driver was on it. I doubt I’ll be watching it again next time.
How do you feel about polygamy? Do you think people should be able to marry as many people as they want? How about marrying family members? If marriage is only about who you love, shouldn’t these be OK too?
So…what I've pieced together from your videos and comments at Althouse.com, it sounds like you have a live-in significant other who you call your spouse, even though you're not married and you don't like to say fiancé (which makes no sense to me). However, Martha calls herself your "girlfriend"… not spouse or even fiancé! Maybe you don't like to say you're engaged because Martha doesn't think you two will ever get married? Yeah… That all sounds REAL moral, dude!
ReplyDeleteCarlosRock10
I'm not sure if you're going to respond to my thoughts on number four or not (I know you've been gone, maybe you're catching up on other things...). Here's my take on number three...
ReplyDeleteVoter ID Law: “Progressives want everyone to vote.” Yes, including people who shouldn't be voting (like people who are here ILLEGALLY and dead people!)... Conservatives don’t want to deny anyone who SHOULD have the right to vote their opportunity, they only want to make sure that everyone who goes out to vote has a legal stake in the election. Denying voter fraud is a really bad idea since it is out there and it is a problem. Someone went out to see if he could vote using Eric Holder’s name and address and could have if he wanted to. The person at the poll was trying to hand him the ballot and he didn’t take it. There are many more examples of voter fraud out there. To deny there is fraud is to deny reality.
Your Mike Turzai video said nothing about African-Americans, the elderly, the poor, or those overseas. He said it would allow Romney to win Pennsylvania. He didn’t say it would guarantee a win. It would ALLOW a win, make it possible for him to win, that’s all. All the oppression you hear in that video was you projecting that onto what he was saying. He didn’t say any of the things you listed after that miniscule quote.
The fact that this is an issue is a joke. Should we end showing ID for buying alcohol, driving a car, getting on a plane, etc. too?
Check out these interviews… http://www.theblaze.com/stories/mrctv-reporter-asks-are-voter-i-d-laws-racist/
Maybe you're done responding or not even reading the comments anymore. I'll post my comments on the last two since it doesn't seem like there's going to be any dialogue here...
ReplyDeleteCitizen United: I don’t know much about this issue, so I’m gonna pass on this one. Your concerns sound valid. I would add that a lot of this seems to be hyped up as a big problem, where statistically it doesn’t seem to be (yet). I read an article just last week that said corporations have largely decided not to spend tons of money doing this sort of stuff. They looked at over $96 million that had been spent so far and 86% of it was from individual donors, while less than 1% was from publicly traded corporations. Then you can look at the wads of cash that Adelson spent on Gingrich, who ended up in fourth place. So, how effective is that money anyway? I think the potential for some crazy stuff does exist, but it doesn’t seem like we’re there yet…
Race: Calling out all Republican politicians for playing on racism is a bit much. I think that progressives tend to see racism in places where it isn’t the vast majority of the time. Then there are people like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Their repeated pushing of themselves into situations where race may even be the slightest factor (or no factor at all until they inject it) is despicable. Of course, the media is complicit in this venture, as has been seen in the Trayvon Martin case. First the media edited the recording of the 911 call and cover the back of Zimmerman’s head so the public couldn’t see the wounds from when Martin was beating the crap out of him (what’s that about the liberal media pushing their agenda?). Then the two race baiters swoop in to make things worse. It’s sick.
Calling out birthers as racists is a pretty big jump. I’ve never heard anyone say they’re looking into his background because he’s black. They’re looking into his background because there are so many questions. I’m not saying I buy into that (which is good since you’d think I’m up to 11 on the racist-o-meter in addition to being on the moral low ground), but you have to admit there are a lot of questions out there to be answered. He’s got a goofy SSN too (a Connecticut number from the 70s?). Just because people have questions and he happens to be black doesn’t make anyone a racist…
Are there Republicans and conservatives (I think you should think about not using those words interchangeably – they are often not the same thing!) who are racist, sure. Are there Democrats and liberals (again, not always the same thing) who are racist – sure there are. But historically speaking, the Republican party has been the party that fought for the rights of blacks. To say that the Republican party is to blame for racism is just plain inaccurate (read up on the KKK!), especially when there are people like Jackson and Sharpton who continually make sure they inject it into every situation.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteYour justification for not allowing two people to marry without evoking the bible is slim at best.
The definition of marriage is “Marriage (also called matrimony or wedlock) is a social union or legal contract between people called spouses that creates kinship.”
You seem like a smart guy Nate, but come on man, you really believe two people of the same sex that have been with each other for 20 years and would like to get married and have the same benefits and rights as straight people, is the same as a crazy person who wants to marry himself? You are saying you don’t see a different? Come on.
I think it can be a bit insulting to gay people when others make the argument that it’s a slippery slope. Like our own Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleehfisch comparing gay marriage to marrying a table. I’ve also heard the argument, “Well, what’s next cousins marrying each other (which actually is legal almost half of the States in the US)? Or the worst, comparing it to bestiality.
I understand you aren’t taking it that far, but I’m sorry, the slippery slope argument doesn’t hold any water. It seems you are also focusing on that the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, and I’m sorry, that’s semantics.
The point is two gay people should have the rights to marry each other as two hetros do. It is a civil rights issue. For me, there are many areas that are gray, but this is not one of them.
Nate,
ReplyDeleteI understand why the Voter ID law seems like it makes sense to many people, because most people have a driver’s license. It is every American’s right to vote. It is not every American’s right to vote who has a license or ID.
I can tell you through my work that there are absolutely people that are living not the way that you and I live. It will absolutely disenfranchise college students, elderly, the poor and African Americans that still deserve to vote, even if they don’t have the means or make it extremely difficult for them to get an ID.
You ask “Should we end showing ID for buying alcohol, driving a car, getting on a plane, etc. too?” No. Because voting is different. It’s a right for every American whether you have an ID or not has.
Also, as for the Mike Turzai video? I think you absolutely know what he was saying. Your explanation of his statement in his speech is a bit of a stretch
Nate,
ReplyDeleteI have been gone up north at a cottage for a week. I most definitely am interested in dialogue.
I got back this weekend and have been busy.
Adam
Nate,
ReplyDeleteI absolutely agree with you on Jesse Jackson and your thoughts on the media exploiting race. No doubt. The media is a huge problem. My main point was with politicians on the right, rather than the citizens themselves.
As for the birthers, I absolutely believe that if anyone right now, has any doubts about Obama not being born in the US after all both forms of his Birth Certificate being release and the evidence that is out there like his ACTUAL BIRTH ANNOUNCEMENT IN THE HAWAII PAPER, yes, I believe that person is a racist and I do believe people fed into it because he’s black. Hell, there are 40% of Republicans that believe he’s a muslim.
John McCain was actually born in the Panama Canal Zone. If he won the presidency, do you think he would have had the same birther issues? I don’t think so.
I don’t believe the Republican Party is to blame for all racism. There is racism everywhere in all parties and with all colors. Like I said, I do think some republican politicians feed on that and try to use it for their political gain.
You are right about not using conservative and republican interchangeably. I’m going to try and not do that. There is a difference and concede to that point.
Anyway, sorry for my delayed response.
Adam
So you're going with the Wikipedia definition of marriage over the Merriam-Webster and Oxford Dictionaries, eh? Interesting choice. The definition of marriage has always included "opposite sex". That's what marriage is. Just because some people want to change it doesn't mean it is or should be changed...
ReplyDeleteThis is not a civil rights issue. Every human being has the same right to marry a non-related adult of the opposite sex (that's what the definition of marriage is anyway). If you choose not to or don't want to, that's your choice.
I think the slippery slope argument is usually misunderstood. The same arguments for same sex "marriage" could be used to defend those other things. Pedophilia is currently getting the same treatment homosexuality used to get. The same ways that homosexuality has become more mainstream can be used in the future to earn protection and "rights" for pedophiles. That's not saying that the two are the same thing, just that the arguments for one can just as easily support the other. That's the slippery slope...
Laws don't discriminate against people, they discriminate against behavior. As I said before, the government has three options regarding any issues, whether to permit, promote or prohibit them. Same sex relationships are already permitted and not prohibited. What would be the societal benefit to promoting them?
In addition - the forcing of this issue is actually infringing upon freedom of speech and religious rights, which are supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Business owners who don't want to cater to same sex couples are being sued, fined, shut down for their beliefs. Talk about rights issues!