I didn't think he had it in him...

[rubinpdf]

I must say I'm impressed that Senator Kerry was magnanimous and graciously conceded the election. Even though he would have needed virtually 100% of all provisional and absentee ballots to come in for him to win, I fully expected him to divide this nation further in a court battling death spiral.

"We talked about the danger of division in our

Comments

[desfido]

Social Security: Social Security was created in the 1930's when the average life expectancy of men was 62 and woman was 66. It was intended to be help elderly widows, not be a retirement plan. Seniors today look at as a retirement plan. It is a fact that we will not have the resources to fund the system in as little as 20-30 years, so it only seems wise to look for methods to relieve the pressure on the system that can still provide financial support the elderly need. But if you say that, the National Democrats will say you want the elderly to become homeless, eat dog food and/or starve.

The problem is that many of the methods suggested for modifying it (regardless of who's doing it) are clearly irresponsible. Nobody's willing to sacrifice anything. This irresponsible behavior seems to be nicely bipartisan; Republicans react the same way to Democratic proposals. I'd probably care more if they weren't both being such idiots about what they propose. But regardless, if you consider this an extreme left-wing position, then I guess the Republican party has some extreme left-wing positions. However, since it seems to be a position that most people adopt, I think calling it extreme might be a bit off.

Class Warfare: The national Democratic Party continuously tells it's members that it's not fair that some people have more money than other. The rich somehow have their money by stealing it from "you" the working poor. I guess it just never occurs to them that the vast majority of "the rich" have worked hard to become that way. I am somewhat suspicious that a large percentage of the Left that tells you that are the trust fund rich - I suspect their disgust of the rich is more of the division of Old Money vs. New Money (we can't have that riff-raff in our club).

Well, while this may be what they're trying to subtextually convey, it's not what they're actually saying exactly. If promoting a progressive tax system is left wing, does that make regressive taxes like sales taxes right wing? While maybe things shouldn't be based off of income, that doesn't seem to be what people bitch about. Honestly, supporting a progressive tax system isn't class warfare. It may be left wing, and it may even be extreme, but it's not nearly as close to being class warfare as, say, increasing sales taxes is, since those screw the people with less resources, and screws them more. If you're honestly opposed to a progressive tax system, I'm curious what you think the tax system should be like. If you say "regressive", then you're either stupid (which I don't believe), or you better have way more money than I think you have. If you say "equal", I want to know why you think that people who have more resources to spare shouldn't be obligated to share more of them, particularly since the ways of extracting money from the government (or preventing them from it extracting you) become more accessible as you get more money (once you get past the "no money" level). If you think that taxes should be an equal proportion of resources, I'm curious as to why you think that's more fair, when what those with less have to give up are more significantly effected by what they have do give up than those with more. If it's because you believe in Supply Side Economics, oh well. But it still makes the "class warfare" comment seem intentionally incendiary; basically, someone thinks the facts contradict your beliefs, and are doing something reasonable based on it. If you think everyone should accept Supply Side Economics as being the right way to do things... fine. But if you think people only reject it because they're trying to be divisive or something, then you're intentionally believing things which you should know are false (then again, you're a Bush supporter, so why should that be surprising (low blow, but when the shoe fits)).

End Part II

[desfido]

Environmental Issues: The Democrat party continuously tells it's members that Republicans want dirty air and dirty water, which is as wacky as that Captain Planet cartoon. The extreme left will not accept that Republicans want clean air and water just as much they do, but we realize there is a cost to benefit ratio... If it costs $1 billion dollars to achieve a reduction of .001% in emissions, it's probably not worth it.
Now, there are a few individuals/corporations that will attempt to "dump waste" for short term gain, and I don't know a single Republican that does not believe they should be punished for it.

Both major parties are essentially ineffectual on environmental issues, except for maybe screwing things up more. Mostly because neither is properly taking all the economic variables in to account when they figure out the costs. Obviously, at least some Republicans try to do something positive about the environment and avoid doing anything bad (George H.W. Bush, one of the two possibly non-horrible presidents who has served in my lifetime (the other is Carter, since he served for about my first 7 months) is an example of one in my opinion). While this is an example of a way that Democrats *may* be divisive, it doesn't seem to be an example of an extreme left wing position. It seems to be an example of an activity they engage in that you don't like, not a policy they support that you don't like because it's extremely leftwing. You seem to being doing this for a few of these responses. But if you genuinely believe that the Democrats are too extreme in what they want for the environment, I'm surprised. And if you think Republicans really take costs in to account appropriately, then I'm just going to be laughing too much to respond appropriately. Please tell me, anyway, though, if that's the case, since I could use a laugh.

End Part III

[desfido]

Education: If you don't agree to throwing more money down the same hole then you against educating children. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that the government has spent more on education every year with diminishing returns, and that spending more on the same doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes alot more sense to me to find a better method (possible vouchers), than to continue with the same.

Nice concept. Sounds great. Too bad nobody does anything real about it. And the only seriously considered solutions are the ones that suck. Oh well. This is another position that I believe may be left-wing, but based on what can be gleaned, it certainly can't be considered extreme.

Now if you call me a racist, misogynist, homophobic bigot who wants to starve the elderly, make the poor homeless, and children dumb, and to top it off, my real lifetime goal is to destroy the planet... Then I'm sorry, but you are not interested in an honest debate of the issues. You want to divide the country, and you are hoping that the portions on your side divided off is large enough to keep you in power.

You know, I don't think you're a racist, misogynistic, homophobic bigot. You just support people who are one or more of those things (especially homophobic). Take, for example, the Senator Kentucky just reelected. (BTW, it's interesting that you mention the homophobia here, but not the related policies... so I'm curious, do you support them? If you do, I have to admit I'm disappointed in you.) Honestly, based on your response, it's not so much that the positions are extreme - you just seem to get upset if the views differ from yours; how can you reconcile this with your comments about divisivenes. I will sadly admit that the stances Republicans tend to take on issues related to homosexuals are not extreme, even though I think they are utterly, utterly wrong. I hope they change their positions on this and a few other issues soon, or loosen the party discipline a bit, so that I have a broader pool of decent candidates to choose from.

I also found your use of "you" interesting, since you seem to be attributing views to me that you shouldn't (since, for example, if you think I'm a Democrat, then you're suffering a misapprehension). Perhaps you just aren't as careful about your pronoun usage as I like, but I am curious if you really meant to use "you" all the places you did, or if in some of them, you meant "one" or "Democrats" or some such thing.

End Part IV, End Post

[rubinpdf]

Nice concept. Sounds great. Too bad nobody does anything real about it.

That's because anyone that makes any kind of suggestion to solve the problem (other than more money) is immediately shot down with a personal attack. After a while, even the most idealistic person becomes gun-shy and comes to accept the status quo.

[rubinpdf]

You in this sense was the pronoun for Democrats/liberals/someone not you as in Jay. I think you know me well enough to know that I don't think you think me a racist/homophobe/etc... or at least some more coherent sentence containing know and think. But it is disturbing that you'd think that the Republicans I support with similar views obviously must be. There seems to be some sort of disconnect.

BTW, it's interesting that you mention the homophobia here, but not the related policies... so I'm curious, do you support them?

I had Gay Marriage on the list of talking points (along with several other items), it didn't make the final post because I didn't have time to fully develop all the points.

I have said all along that I believe that Marriage is a religious sacrament between a man , a woman, and God. I do not feel government has the right to attempt to redefine it.
I also don't beleive government has any right to make laws making homosexual acts illegal. I believe government should remain neutral. It should neither say that gay is good, nor that gay is bad.

[mrstickman]

How do you feel about interracial marriage? How would you have felt about it, say, three and a half decades ago, before the federal government redefined marriage by dropping the words "of the same race" from it?

How do you feel, in general, about the fact that there are civil laws about your religious institution? How do you feel about the fact that there's a push for an amendment to the Constitution that deals specifically with an institution of your religion?

[rubinpdf]

I beleive that it was wrong for government to attempt to restrict interracial marriages... and I believe there was no method to stop churches from performing such marriages. While they might not have had any legal binding, they were still binding in the eyes of God. I feel I cannot say the same about same sex unions.

How do you feel about the fact that there's a push for an amendment to the Constitution that deals specifically with an institution of your religion?

The Constitution spells out the limits of government and the rights of the people, so I am uncomfortable with a specific amendment to ban same sex unions to be included in the Constitution. However, there many activist judges out there that are attempting to make an amendment the only solution.

[mrstickman]

What about other religions, ones that allow same-sex marriages? Are their sacraments less valid than those in your religion?

You didn't answer my question about how you'd've felt about interracial marriage thirty-five years ago, before activist judges changed the definition of marriage in the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia. I'm also curious what position your church officially took on interracial marriage then. Exactly what religion do you practice? I'll try to look it up.