Democrats & Liberals Archives

Where Have All The Moral Values Gone?

During the last election cycle, one couldn’t lift a newspaper without reading about moral values. In essence, it was the platform the Republican Party ran on - and it appealed greatly to enormous demographic groups such as Evangelicals and seniors.

But this year, the term has been conspicuous only by its absence. Even though the Republicans have yet to clearly figure out their strategy for elevating John McCain to the White House - embracing 'change', 'maverick' and, errr, drilling in Alaska - they haven't gone after the Democrats with the same message they had in 2004.

Why not?

In 1969, John McCain's wife Carol was crippled in a car wreck. Whilst still married, some years later he began a series of affairs, and met another woman - Cindy Hensley - with whom he began an affair which eventually led to a divorce from Carol.

It's hard not to contrast the media's complete and utter refusal to even mention this - and, even more puzzling, the Democrats' failure to draw attention to it - without remembering the treatment that Bill Clinton suffered at the hands of the Republicans. Impeachment, was the cry: and yet today, McCain's immoral and adulterous behavior has been charted only on a handful of blogs (although Wikipedia also mentions it in passing).

I have previously discussed the fact that Republicans divorce more often than Democrats on Thinking Liberal - the fifteen states with the highest divorce rates all voted for Bush last time, and 10 of the 12 lowest went for Kerry - and I've wondered how the Republicans can claim the moral high ground in light of these facts.

Now I know: it's because the Democrats are too weak to exploit them. Obama claims that families are 'off-limits', which is perhaps supposed to illustrate that Democrats are above being judgmental - but for the Republicans, nothing is sacred, as evidenced by Giuliani's rather nasty comments about Michelle Obama.

So there you have it. Moral values are not an issue in this election because McCain can't possibly run on them, and the Democrats are too scared to retaliate for Swift Boats, Clinton's impeachment, and Florida 2000.

Shame.

Posted by Jon Rice at September 8, 2008 6:24 PM
Comments
Comment #262214

JR

The conservatives and especially the evangelicals of the Republican Party have always had a problem with the morals of McCain. When McCain was asked the question at Saddleback Church, “what do you consider your greatest moral failure”, McCain answered, his “first marriage”. This marked a turn-a-round of support by conservatives for McCain. Most on the left have no understanding of how evangelical conservatives view morality. The key was that McCain was willing, on his own part, to admit moral failure; on the other hand, Clinton had to be brought kicking and screaming to the microphone to admit his infidelity. Ansd even at that, he tried to parse words. Clinton was not willing to admit his failure until he was caught, and I don’t remember this question ever being asked of McCain prior to Saddleback, therefore the first time he was asked, he answered.

McCain does not have to run on morals with the Republican base, it has been settled.

To say the media has not dealt with GOP morality is ridiculous. That is all we have heard ever since Palin was nominated. From her to her daughter and to her husband.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 8, 2008 6:53 PM
Comment #262223

Why do you think there is this current intelectual exodus from this country?

We only get a small fraction of the whole story, yet we stand on a platform. Palin is picked for the second most important seat in our gov. and nobody understands why. They put the blinders on us, call her a celebrity and its all the sudden a good thing, and pull off another heist. Reading the fine print isn’t enough.

Posted by: mosom at September 8, 2008 7:21 PM
Comment #262225

Sarah Palin is popular because of her conservative values. It can’t be her experience, and it certainly isn’t her train-wreck record.

What I don’t understand is, let’s suppose you are pro-life, against gays marrying, and want federal money to go to churches. I would say that you’re best bet is to go with Obama. He may not be hard right like Palin, but he’s for reducing abortions, getting federal funding for church outreach programs, and does not want to give homosexuals the right to marry. Best of all, he would work towards these goals in a bi-partisan manner, which would actually give them a chance of succeeding.

Posted by: Max at September 8, 2008 7:58 PM
Comment #262239

Some years ago I was talking with that neo-con friend of mine, and he was telling me how all Hillary was about, was power. She would do anything, say anything, for power.

One piece of wisdom I picked up over the years is that a man will normally expect others of doing what he himself would do in their place. So I put that together with what my friend said about Hillary, and…you get my point.

The past two elections, the Republicans have shouted long and hard about voter fraud and election fraud…but all indications (see bradblog.com) show this as almost entirely done by Republicans.

There was a great hue and cry about Obama’s lack of a flag pin and his wife’s overdue pride in America…but there’s no problem with Palin’s husband being part of a party that wants Alaska to secede from America. “The fires of hell are a frozen glacier compared to my hate for the American government”. That was said in 1991 by the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, the same party to which Palin’s husband belonged for five years, and PALIN HERSELF gave a speech at that party’s convention this very year. Oh yeah - the founder also said, “I won’t be buried under their damn flag” (at same link).

Yep - accuse everybody else…but if your own candidate does it, ignore it and call everyone who says anything, ‘sexist’.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 8, 2008 8:55 PM
Comment #262248

>The conservatives and especially the evangelicals of the Republican Party have always had a problem with morals.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 8, 2008 06:53 PM

Old,

Read your own words well. It is pretty easy to adjust a word or two, or leave one out, or chance a punctuation mark, and turn what someone says into a totally different thing. That is what the Republican party is doing in this election, and that is what makes my adjustment of your words just as acurate as yours.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 8, 2008 10:13 PM
Comment #262252

And your Point?

Posted by: Oldguy at September 8, 2008 10:48 PM
Comment #262256

Marysdude

Are your objections just as noble when you see the distortions of Sarah Palin in the news media or on the left blog sites? In fact the distortions about Sarah have all but stopped by the Democrats and the media. They have given up and it seems their attacks on her personally have backfired, causing more support for her. Of course the left blogs have not learned their lesson yet.

Or are you only concerned about lies and distortions when it about BHO?

Posted by: Oldguy at September 8, 2008 11:19 PM
Comment #262258

Old,

Lies and distortions are lies and distortions. It makes no difference who lies or who distorts. I, being a Democrat see my party in the best light most of the time. I think that’s a natural trait, but when you speak of Palin, you’ll find little sympathy from me. She’s a big girl now, and should be able to step up for herself. We were called upon to assess this woman who was not known generally, and with little to go on, but a glad hand and a ‘howdy-do’ from McPain. Any word that came out of Alaska was what we had to work with. She had to know that would happen, she had to know she was an unknown figure nationally, she had to know that her background lent itself to speculation, inuendo and conjecture, and now ya’ll cry foul? Come on…

Posted by: Marysdude at September 8, 2008 11:41 PM
Comment #262261

>”It is pretty easy to adjust a word or two, or leave one out, or chance a punctuation mark, and turn what someone says into a totally different thing. That is what the Republican party is doing in this election,”

Then the left is guilty of the same thing:
1. They lie
2. They cry

We know no more about BHO than you do about Palin.
I never heard of the guy until 4 years ago and he has been a total mystery ever since. As far as crying about attacks, I can say the same thing about BHO, “he’s a big boy, he had to know what he was getting into”. I’ve heard him cry, but I have not heard Palin . Most of the objections come from voters, but go ahead, for every distortion, another vote is cast for McCain.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 9, 2008 12:45 AM
Comment #262264

They are still there, and we still believe in them. But thanks for asking about them, we appreciate them and even think some on the Left should adopt them as well. They are meant for everyone, not just followers of any single ideology. Individually people are weak, and often fail, but that doesn’t mean that the ideals emboded in values, morals and decency are not correct.

Posted by: David M. Huntwork at September 9, 2008 12:58 AM
Comment #262269

marysdude,
You are describing politics. For just one example, Sen McCain made a joke at a a seminar after several times refusing to define the word middle class (code word for relatively poor workers). Everyone laughed. He then said “No, seriously. That will probably be distorted.” Everyone again laughed. Sen Obama later, with a grim face, said in his convention acceptance speech, “McCain believes the middle class includes people who make $5 million a year”.

He said this knowing it to be a distortion(according to CNN). And media types raved about the speech and Dems rail on Rep for distortions. Imo, the distortions are common on both sides. They are deliberate. They are politics as usual because the distortions hook the faithful, one way or the other.

Posted by: Tom Besly at September 9, 2008 8:28 AM
Comment #262271

Welcome to the win-win world of Super Mom. If she is criticized, The ‘oldguys’ of the world fall over themselves claiming it’s all lies. So she can throw darts while being immune herself.

Like a secret weapon that there may be no defense against.

Posted by: Schwamp at September 9, 2008 8:49 AM
Comment #262272

” we appreciate them and even think some on the Left should adopt them as well. They are meant for everyone, not just followers of any single ideology.”

It depends on the values you are talking about David, the ones you hold the liberals to or the baser morality of “dont get caught” you hold the repubs and conservatives to.
Basic conservative ideology consist of notions such as war is the natural state of human beings and only the moneyed elite should lead. Who needs’em?


“Individually people are weak, and often fail, but that doesn’t mean that the ideals emboded in values, morals and decency are not correct.”

When a political party espouses values, morals and decency its only to fool those foolish enough to think they will actually live what they speak if the past 8 years of the repubs are any indication. There comes a point in time that as an individual you have to ask yourself, weak or not, why you are still believing what they say when they do the opposite of what they speak.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 9:02 AM
Comment #262273

The religious right are hypocrites. If them and theirs are less than perfect-they will forgive and forget but if its anyone else-watch out-for they will pray for the wrath of God to come forth and smite thee.

Isn’t it amazing what they can over look when they want to. But also the amazing zeal with which they will go after the sinner on the other side is astounding.

The thing is they would rather forgive McCain cause he is more like them than vote for a decent, upstanding young man.

Posted by: Carolina at September 9, 2008 9:10 AM
Comment #262276

Jon
Values and morals differ from person to person and that fact is what pisses liberals off and is why they don’t get votes based on them.
Govt cannot dictate values and morals onto people and expect people to just sit back and accept it.

J2
Your last post is true of both party’s, not just Republicans.
The problem isn’t that people don’t know it, its that they ignore it when its their own party at fault.

Carolina
Such as fiercely defending the sitting Presidents actions by saying its his personal life and none of our business and then, 10 years later, claiming something that happened 25 years ago to the other side, gives you the edge on values and morals?
Yes, it is amazing.

Posted by: kctim at September 9, 2008 9:36 AM
Comment #262277

Jon

Morals are used by the party as a matter of convenience. Even though they preach them when convenient they rarely practice them otherwise, as evidenced by the last eight years.

That morality is used as a crutch by right wing supporters as a defensive tool when they have no other means of rebuttal. It is a convenience that they think they have exclusive rights to. Anyone who does not think along their lines must be amoral. Of course the republican party has played these folks like fiddles for a few decades now. What is amazing is that they just don’t seem to catch on. It is like they have some sort of self afflicting desire to be used over and over again. It really is the perfect tool. Because by their reasoning immorality in others is non acceptable. But when convenience dictates it can be excused by just a simple revelation. That is so long as the person being excused is not a liberal by definition. I think the term hypocrite fits nicely with the self proclaimed sanctimonious supporters of the right who lay claim to moral exclusivity.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #262278

Morals in politics are almost mutually exclusive terms. If you look at all of our presidents there has been a lot of talk about morality but not much action to back it up. Our founders had moral failings, George Washington was in love with his neighbor. Abe Lincoln used to tell raunchy and racist jokes to Sec. Stanton while fighting to end slavery. FDR committed adultery as did Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton, Bush, & McCain (& unsubstantiated rumors of Palin too). Nixon probably would have if he could have found someone that would have him. Many have done drugs (Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama), been alcoholics, taken money from sketchy people, and worse. They all have ridiculously huge egos to think that they are the best person for the most powerful position in the world.

They all do a lot of talking about how the rest of us should behave. Do as I say not as I do. Anyone who votes on the basis of moral issues is an idiot as you are voting for someone who probably has committed or is in the process of committing the very acts that they are telling you not to do. Also, anyone who looks at a campaign ad and believes what it says is also an idiot. Most ads take something that has a kernel of truth then stretch it as thin as you can and still not be called a liar to make their guy or gal look good or the opponent look bad. Or they just make stuff up and put it out there not caring that they will be called out on their lies by the myriad of fact checkers out there. There just doesn’t seem to be any consequences for lying in an ad like Palin being against the Bridge to Nowhere.

All you can really do is look at how they behave professionally. What scandals have they been caught up in? What kind of policies do they push and/or support? If you look at the 4 people in this race which ones have been involved in a bribery scandal? McCain. Which one has been involved in a firing scandal? Palin. What scandals have Obama and Biden been a part of? Biden’s worst offense seems to be the plagiarism charge from the ‘88 presidential campaign that was dubious at best. Obama used the election rules to remove a Democratic opponent from a ballot - maybe hard ball politics but hardly a scandal.

My main problem with our political system is that it is so hard to get someone to really say what they believe. Every word out of a candidate’s mouth has gone through a committee to make sure they are on a message that has been designed by someone else. Both sides are just as guilty of this. The debates are usually the best time to get someone speaking their own actual mind as they get caught off guard by a follow up question that their handlers forgot to tell them how to answer. It’s show business plain and simple. Obama at least writes his own speeches.

OG - That was really big of McCain to acknowledge his moral failings from his first marriage some 29 years after he cheated on his wife. That was a turning point with the christian right? That has settled the morals question? What about McCain calling his current wife a trollop (who uses that word anymore?) and a c***? If I ever used that kind of language with my wife in anger I would not be married right now. What about calling Chelsea Clinton the love child of Hillary and Janet Reno? Where is this guy’s moral center?

David Huntwork - what morals are you talking about? Waging destructive and unnecessary wars? What does the bible say about that? Not providing for the poor? Not providing for the sick? Telling people that they can’t marry the person they want to (though my party is also guilty of this one albeit to a lesser extent)? There is a big difference between having morals and moralizing. The GOP have been habitual moralizers lately. The GOP talks morals (but doesn’t live them) so that poor white people will have a reason to vote against their economic self-interests.

Posted by: tcsned at September 9, 2008 9:46 AM
Comment #262286

On McCain’s character:

“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him power.” - Abraham Lincoln

McCain is so unaware of what is and what isn’t appropriate that he calls his wife such names in public…and now we’re wanting to give him access to the ‘nuclear button’?

Old Guy -

I see you think we know nothing of Obama - and I say you haven’t been paying attention, because his life story is there for everyone to see…and the main stream media have made sure of that.

By the same token, I notice that not a single conservative have tried to defend Palin concerning what I wrote above about her husband being part of a party that wants Alaska to secede from America. “The fires of hell are a frozen glacier compared to my hate for the American government”. That was said in 1991 by the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, the same party to which Palin’s husband belonged for five years, and PALIN HERSELF gave a speech at that party’s convention this very year. Oh yeah - the founder also said, “I won’t be buried under their damn flag”.

Conservatives are SO worried about whether Obama’s a patriot…and they want to elect a VP who has done THIS?!?!?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 11:10 AM
Comment #262288

tcsned:

The GOP talks morals (but doesn’t live them) so that poor white people will have a reason to vote against their economic self-interests.

Spot On.
And I have never understood the jaw-wagging stupidity that has to be involved with doing this over, and over, and over for many years.

Many have done drugs (Clinton, Gore, Bush, Obama)

You forgot Palin. She has admitted to being a former weed smoker, too.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at September 9, 2008 11:14 AM
Comment #262289

It’s always appeared to me that there is a double-standard in place in regards to Republican versus Democrat “attacks”, at least most of the time.

When you question sometimes patriotism because they belong to a party that wants to secede from the United States, that’s not an attack. When you question someone’s patriotism because they are not wearing a flag pin on their lapel, that’s an attack.

I realize a lot of this is in the eye of the beholder, but in my opinion Republicans dish out some of the worst cr*p imaginable, and at the same time are incredibly thin-skinned, to the point of reading legitimate questions as attacks.

The Palin pregnancy stuff was an exception, and that was not Obama. That was just regular people getting swept up in a long-standing Alaskan rumor. Ugly, but human nature. We questioned it here on this blog too. It was hard not too.

I think what’s disturbing to me is that the only reason I can think of for this election to be so close IS values, and those values are scary. It’s not enough that everyone be free to choose their own religion, everyone has to be born again Christian. There’s just no middle ground for the right, and that’s sad because this divisiveness is really tearing the country apart.

Posted by: Max at September 9, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #262291

Tom,

>marysdude,
You are describing politics. For just one example, Sen McCain made a joke at a a seminar after several times refusing to define the word middle class (code word for relatively poor workers). Everyone laughed. He then said “No, seriously. That will probably be distorted.” Everyone again laughed. Sen Obama later, with a grim face, said in his convention acceptance speech, “McCain believes the middle class includes people who make $5 million a year”.

He said this knowing it to be a distortion(according to CNN).

Posted by: Tom Besly at September 9, 2008 08:28 AM


Nope…Obama wasn’t refering to McPain’s gaffe at some seminar, he was refering to the gaffe at the interview by that supposed impartial preacher who asked McPain at what point a person might be considered ‘rich’. McPain replied, after a mumbled hesitation, that it might be five million dollars. Then he giggled like a little girl and said, “No, seriouly, that will probably be distorted”, or words to that effect.

This is just what I was talking about…see how much different the story sounds when I tell it? But, mine is the closer to what really happened. Obama mentioned in his speach that McPain was so out of touch he thought the middle class was anyone who made less than five million dollars. The emphasis was on ‘out of touch’, not the money amount.

That’s why I believe in the honesty of my party over yours.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 9, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #262293

tcsned
Let me restate what I said earlier:

“The conservatives and especially the evangelicals of the Republican Party have always had a problem with the morals of McCain. When McCain was asked the question at Saddleback Church, “what do you consider your greatest moral failure”, McCain answered, his “first marriage”. This marked a turn-a-round of support by conservatives for McCain. Most on the left have no understanding of how evangelical conservatives view morality.”

A couple of things I want to stress:

1. I said evangelical conservatives have always had a problem with McCain’s morals, and we will always have problems with the morals of all politicians. We do not base our vote on morality, but morality plays a part in decisions we make.

2. I said this marked a turn-a-round of support. We heard a man who was willing to admit his fault. Evangelicals believe it is imperative for the individual to first recognize his own shortcomings. When he was asked about his greatest moral failure, he took the responsibility; he didn’t blame it on his ex-wife, the war, or anything else. It was a turning point, which does not mean our decision was based upon his confession.

3. Lastly, I said, most of the left have no understanding of how evangelicals view morality. I would venture to say that most on the left view religion the same way Karl Marx did, “it is the opium of the people”, or a crutch for the weak minded. I have learned that much from reading blogs when religion is introduce into the equation.

Concerning the last part of your paragraph, I have no idea what you are talking about, and I do not see it as relevant to what I was saying.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 9, 2008 11:33 AM
Comment #262294

“J2
Your last post is true of both party’s, not just Republicans.
The problem isn’t that people don’t know it, its that they ignore it when its their own party at fault.”

Just the 2 parties kctim or all political parties big and small? Perhaps some know and realize as humans beings we are prone to mess up. The difference is when one party takes the moral highground, demonizes the others and then finds themselves to be the worst offenders, as we have seen the repubs/conservatives do so often this past 7 years. Much like McCain/Palin trying to run against their party as of all things reformers, agents of change with the same policies.. ya gotta laugh at that… I find it to be offensive that it is not only not acknowledged by party operatives such as Mr. Huntwork but is continued to be spewed as if they have any claim to morals, values and decency and in any position to suggest “those on the left adopt them.” Then to find those in the party that have been abused by the elected officials they voted in still falling for the same old line…. you gotta wonder whats in the kool aid.


Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 11:38 AM
Comment #262295

“Although Palin, like McCain, talks about liberating ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, there is no evidence that being dependent on Alaskan oil would be any more pleasant to the pocketbook.” (taken from current Michael Kinsley article)

Is this where the left wants to go? Comparing domestic oil consumption to imported oil consumption? Ridiculous, but consistent with mainstream media thinking.

Posted by: Tom Besly at September 9, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #262297

“it’s because the Democrats are too weak to exploit them. Obama claims that families are ‘off-limits’”

it appears you are finally admitting Obama and the Democrats are weak, now why would anyone want to vote for a weak president?

Posted by: NObamaBot at September 9, 2008 12:01 PM
Comment #262298

OG - What I meant was a guy who said his greatest moral failing was cheating on his wife. That was kind of a cop out - everyone knew he did that and I don’t think anyone blames his ex-wife for being in a car accident and getting cheated on while she was recuperating. How about having anger issues being his greatest moral failing - something he apparently still struggles with (i.e. yelling obscenities at his wife, shoving senators in conference meetings) or perhaps slandering a child as he did with Chelsea Clinton. It’s just a cop out and one that he might not have learned from - has he been 100% faithful to his current wife? What about taking bribes from Charles Keating? That is certainly more relevant to his career - he gave a teary-eyed apology at the time and at least on the surface has worked to clean up some of the corruption to make up for his past actions. That wouldn’t have scored points with the crowd he was speaking to so he selected something that 1) everybody knew was solely his fault 2) something that would appeal to the audience 3) he didn’t say what he learned from it nor how he has conducted himself since.

It reminds me of the classic politician mea culpa when he/she gets caught doing something wrong. First, it’s always the first time they have done something like that (as if anyone believes that they got caught the first time they said, did, or tried something). Second, when you only admit to something after you get caught what you are really saying is “I’m sorry I got caught.”

Posted by: tcsned at September 9, 2008 12:01 PM
Comment #262299

Tom,

Obama’s not against drilling. In fact, he wants to prioritize construction of the Alaska gas pipeline. It’s just that the biggest bang for the buck in terms of energy independence is going to come from other areas. Drilling alone is not going to cut it, and offshore drilling will not affect gas prices at all. It won’t produce a tangible result of any kind for at least a decade.

Posted by: Max at September 9, 2008 12:02 PM
Comment #262301

GC

I will try to address the questions you have brought forth:

“There was a great hue and cry about Obama’s lack of a flag pin and his wife’s overdue pride in America…but there’s no problem with Palin’s husband being part of a party that wants Alaska to secede from America. “The fires of hell are a frozen glacier compared to my hate for the American government”. That was said in 1991 by the founder of the Alaskan Independence Party, the same party to which Palin’s husband belonged for five years, and PALIN HERSELF gave a speech at that party’s convention this very year. Oh yeah - the founder also said, “I won’t be buried under their damn flag”

Since you provided no link to your statements, I looked it up myself.

1. The reports were that Sarah and her husband were part of this party, beginning with Dailey Kos (ultra left) and picked up by NBC, ABC, and all the other BHO supporting news medias. It was later brought out that Sarah has always been a Republican, so this was a lie, promoted by the left. Do you have proof of her husband’s membership?

2. Secondly, she sent a video to the AIK convention and did not attend. I watched the video and she simply wished them a successful convention and reached across the isle, hoping they would be able to work together for the advancement of Alaska. Do you have a problem with parties reaching across the isle? I didn’t hear her support their ideology.

3. I might with the last point in the form of a question: do you agree with everything the Democratic leadership proposes? If not, why would you say someone else does? I would be the first to say, I do not agree with everything GWB has done, and I won’t agree with everything McCain does.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 9, 2008 12:21 PM
Comment #262302

Drilling for more oil might cut a couple of pennies off the price of gas at best. What it will do is to further enrich oil companies. They are not required to sell that oil here in the states so it would most likely wind up in India or China not helping us out at all. The cost would be putting coast lines at risk of oil spills - Katrina caused a lot of spills and if those oil platforms are so safe why do people bail out every time a hurricane comes through? Why are the oil companies not exploiting the land that they have been leased fully? Why do they need more before that has happened? I can’t find the source for this but I heard that the oil companies leasing our land were paying the US as if oil was worth $36 a barrel - why not charge them fair market value for our irreplaceable natural resources? Or better yet, charge us $36 a barrel.

If John McCain really wanted to do something about energy independence he would have done something in his 26 years in the senate or at least while the GOP had the White House, Senate, HOR, and Supreme Court from 2000-2006. He is just pandering plain and simple. He doesn’t care about energy independence any more than Bush & Cheney.

Posted by: tcsned at September 9, 2008 12:22 PM
Comment #262306

“After checking the party’s archives, Ms. Clark said that she could find no documentation that Governor Palin had been a member of the party.
OG
“She said Ms. Palin attended the party’s 1994 and 2006 conventions and provided a video-taped address as governor to the 2008 convention.

Ms. Clark said that Ms. Palin’s husband, Todd, was a former member of the party.”
from:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/02/alaska-party-official-says-palin-was-not-a-member/

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #262307

“A party that will fight for the rights of Child rapist’s,Fight for the rights of Terrorist at home and abroad.Gay Marriage anyone?”

IMHO Timmy anyone or any party that wont fight for everyone’s rights has no morals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 12:53 PM
Comment #262308

Timmy,
Even the worst people you can imagine have rights. Inablienable rights. Why do you hate the Constitution and Bill of Rights so much, Timmy? Why?

Moving right along…

Poor Sarah Palin. She’s been busted for charging Alaska per diem for 312 nights when she stayed home, and for charging taxpayers for a three night hotel stay which cost $707 per night. Yes, you read that correctly, $707 per night.

Remember General Campbell of the National Guard? Maybe this quote from the AP will refresh your memory:

“he and Palin play no role in national defense activities, even when they involve the Alaska National Guard. The entire operation is under federal control, and the governor is not briefed on situations.”

He says quite a bit more which is very damaging to the GOP talking point about Palin’s military experience. But guess what? Two days later, General Campbell changed his tune in an interview on Fox News:

” National Guards are state military forces run by governors, and Sarah Palin does it great.”

And three days after that, General Campbell received a promotion to Lieutenant General within the AK Guard.

Congratulations, General Campbell. You must be very proud.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2008 1:10 PM
Comment #262315

Ah Timmy, a one issue social conservative I see. What about them? You seem to be the only one wanting to restrict and/or take away the rights of others not me. Its like I said “IMHO Timmy anyone or any party that wont fight for everyone’s rights has no morals.”

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #262316

timmy -

If an embryo has the same rights as a breathing child, well…do you have any experience with Fetal Drug Syndrome or Fetal Alcohol Syndrome? I do. One of my Foster children had the first, and one of my other Foster children had the latter. For each one of these, the state must pay over a quarter million dollar per year for the nursing care, feeding, and medical care for these children…for all their lives, since they can’t care for themselves.

So if an embryo has all the rights of a breathing child, then it is INCUMBENT upon the government to ensure that NO pregnant woman intakes alcohol (the police will have to test women before they can drink a glass of wine! And what about ‘communion’?)…and if she does, then charge her with child endangerment and put her in jail.

And since self-induced abortions are not uncommon where abortions are banned, then the government MUST investigate EVERY miscarriage to see if the prospective mother murdered her embryo.

Oh yeah, timmy - that’s surely the way to a better society, huh? That way we can double our prison population (that already is higher than any other country in the world, even China(!)). And we can pay the taxes to do that, too, huh?

One more thing - remember how the crime rates took a big drop in the 90’s? Seems the first five states that allowed abortion after Roe v. Wade were also the first five states that showed a significant drop in the crime rate…at just about the same time those not aborted at the beginning of the Roe v. Wade era were in their mid-to-late teens.

But that’s just a coincidence too, huh?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 1:42 PM
Comment #262319

Timmy,
There is no such thing as an “unborn baby.” It is a contradiction in terms.

Osama bin Laden is not an American citizen, and right at the moment, he is not subject to our laws.

Under our law, a baby born in this country is an American citizen with inablienable rights, and if Osama bin Laden were somehow a citizen, he would have the same rights as you and me and other Americans. That’s want “inalienable rights” means. They are inherent. They are part of being a human being in the United States. These rights cannot be taken away.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2008 1:53 PM
Comment #262322

Apparently I said something in my comments about gay marriage that didn’t make it past the censors. Let’s see if this gets past.

What is the states’ interest in who gets married to whom? The states interest in a marriage is essentially about property and nothing else. It is a 50/50 business relationship nothing more. Do you have the right to marry someone for their money? Yes you do as long as they are of different gender. Do you have the right to marry someone you don’t love? Absolutely, as long as they are different gender. Do you have to have children as a condition of the state granting you a license to be married? No.

We let straight couples wield the institution of marriage like a 3-year old with a water gun. You can marry for money. You can marry for convenience. Gay people can marry someone of a different gender so they can fit into a bigoted society (Minnesota bathroom come to mind?).

A church can discriminate if it wants to but the state cannot. Loving v. Virginia pretty much settled that issue.

If someone can make a reasonable argument that doesn’t have anything to do with an interpretation of the bible I would like to hear it.

Posted by: tcsned at September 9, 2008 2:03 PM
Comment #262324

Timmy,
I am sorry to say this, but I am pretty sure I know a lot more about DS pregnancies than you. It’s an awful thing. Stay out of it. Neither you nor I need to volunteer our opinions on the very beginning and the very end of life and what people should do. It is a family matter. The family may include their doctor. The hardest decisions in life can come at the beginning and end, and sometimes there are no good decisions, and the situation will end badly. That is not a time for the government to interfere, never mind phx8 or Timmy.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #262325

timmy -

I have no value of human life?

I’ll remember that as I continue to care for my medically-fragile Foster children.
I’ll remember that while I’m feeding them through their g-tubes and cleaning their trach tubes and wiping their 13- and 15-year-old butts when they urinate and defecate, because they can do none of this for themselves.
I’ll remember that as I brush their teeth and dress them for school.
I’ll remember that while I sit with them trying to decipher what their screams and moans and grunts mean instead of having dinner with the rest of my family.
I’ll remember that while I have to spend more time with them than with my youngest son.

Yeah, you’re SO righteous and holy, aren’t you, Timmy? You and those good old pro-‘life’ Republicans….

Perhaps you should also ask if the Republicans value human life after the deaths of thousands of Americans (and tens of thousands of Iraqis (including thousands of children)) in Iraq. Wait! Lemme guess - killing those children was the kind, loving, pro-‘life’ Republican way of keeping them from growing up to be terrorists! Brilliant! Absolutely, positively, freaking brilliant!

P.S. I notice you addressed none - not one - of the issues I brought up in my earlier post. Like a true Republican, you’re very good at avoiding that ‘devil in the details’ of the issues.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #262326

tcsned -

A little something to use for the anti-gays-in-the-military crowd: the only nations in NATO who don’t freely allow gays in the military are the U.S. and Turkey.

Also, if gays in the military are so bad, then why was Alexander the Great one of the most successful generals of all time? Not to mention the fact that Western Civilization was saved more than once by the Greek military which had no problems at all with gays (read ‘Xenophon’).

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 2:18 PM
Comment #262327

GC - and why did Barry Goldwater favor letting gays serve in the military? Because he didn’t see someone’s sexuality as any of his business. Don’t ask don’t tell was a horrible compromise - one of Clinton’s mistakes.

Looks like we’re right up there with that forward looking nation Turkey as being at the spearhead of freedom. Makes me proud to be an American.

I have a good friend who is in a committed relationship with someone of the same gender. My friend has diabetes and cannot get health care to cover his “pre-existing condition” if he were allowed to get married his partner’s company would cover him no problem but won’t because small minded people in this country are so uptight that they would infringe on the rights of others. Ahh, again I am beaming with pride in my fellow citizens.

Posted by: tcsned at September 9, 2008 2:26 PM
Comment #262328

News flash:

1. The BHO election campaign has dispatched 30 plus lawyers to AK with unlimited money to buy dirt on Sarah Palin.

2. The left BHO news media and blogs have now moved on from family attacks to attacking her religious beliefs. Keep it up, it only adds more votes to McCain.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 9, 2008 2:40 PM
Comment #262331

“To have morals you have to have the love for life in your heart.”

Such an absolute Timmy, yet so ready to take away the rights of others. You may want to check, it seems it may take more than the love for life to have morals Timmy.

To become a citzen of the US here is what is considered necessary for good moral character


“Any crime against a person with intent to harm
• Any crime against property or the Government that involves fraud or evil intent
• Two or more crimes for which the aggregate sentence was 5 years or more
• Violating any controlled substance law of the United States, any state, or any foreign country
• Habitual drunkenness or drunk driving
• Illegal gambling
• Prostitution
• Polygamy (marriage to more than one person at the same time)
• Lying to gain immigration benefits
• Failing to pay court-ordered child support or alimony payments
• Confinement in jail, prison, or similar institution for which the total
confinement was 180 days or more during the past 5 years (or 3 years if you are applying based on your marriage to a United States citizen)
• Failing to complete any probation, parole, or suspended sentence before you apply for naturalization
• If you have recently been ordered deported or removed, you are not eligible for citizenship. If you are in removal proceedings, you may not apply for citizenship until the proceedings are complete and you have been allowed to remain in the country as a Permanent Resident.
• Terrorist acts
• Persecution of anyone because of race, religion, national origin, political opinion, or social group”

You did read the last one right?


Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 3:11 PM
Comment #262332

Timmy -

Yes, like other Foster parents I receive some compensation. I’m not going to post it, but if you’re really that curious you can look it up. I will tell you that, compared to the number of hours I work with them, what I make is significantly less than minimum wage, because these are not ‘normal’ Foster kids. These are medically fragile and there are very few who have the experience, skill, and the patience that we have. If you don’t believe that, then I invite you to go talk to the social services in any state in the nation and ask them if they’ve got enough people to care for medically-fragile Foster children.

People say I do well, and my normal reply is, “it takes wiping a lot of poop to keep the grass green on my side of the fence”. A piece of advice when wiping butts: breathe through your mouth instead of your nose. You’ll smell less of it and you’ll be less likely to gag.

And I notice you still have addressed NONE of the issues I posted concerning abortion….

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 3:22 PM
Comment #262333

Old Guy,
Are they attacking her religion or finding out if her religious beliefs will interfere with her ability to perform? Can you show anything where these guys are insulting or degrading her church or religion? It seems you might be exxagerrating a bit here. Much like when the righites and the liberal press was attacking Obama and his religious beliefs and his family.

If it was me I would like to make sure that it really is God talking to her and not someone else. Look what happened when Bush thought God wanted him to lead us into Iraq. Sometimes people have been known to hide behind their religion in order to convince others to do wrong. She needs to be vetted.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 3:35 PM
Comment #262335

Timmy, I have worked with families of high risk children and children with developmental disabibilities-I will agree with Glenn-you need to move on. No one who fosters children with developmental disabilities gets paid near enough. What they get paid barely covers the cost of taking care of the children. There is no way to compensate someone for the emotional toll that it takes to live with a child day to day like Glenn is describing. You are trying to talk about something that you have no knowledge of.

Glenn, I admire and respect your ability to take on children that most people aren’t willing to take in. Its a shame that there aren’t more of those prolifers who are willing to do what you do. Its easy to take a stand and say you are prolife but much harder to practice it by being wiling to open your heart and home to unwanted children.

Posted by: Carolina at September 9, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #262339


I don’t know where our moral values have gone but, I know when they left, the 1950’s. That is the decade in which the government joined forces with the corporations and began the process of convincing the American people that hedonistic mass consumption was moral. That is when we abandoned the American Dream and replaced it with the American Way of Life.

A majority of the American people have been spoiled by hedonistic mass consumption via easy credit. They clamor for continuation, drill, drill, drill. We have now entered into the corporations are to large to fail phase. Market forces are no longer applicable or at least, not preferable or acceptable.

If the economy were to collapse, it could be the end for the duopoly and possibly their corporate masters as well. IMO, the duopoly government has no other option than to use the taxpayers in what is being called privitize profits, socialize losses. Other corporations such as GM and Ford are demanding their turn to feed themselves at the taxpayer trough.

The American people understand that we are traveling down the wrong road. But, they are yet to understand that the wrong road is named The American Way Of Life.

If morality is going to make a comeback, it will come in the form of leaders who are willing to speak truth to the American people. We certainly are not seeing that kind of leadership in this election cycle.

Posted by: jlw at September 9, 2008 3:44 PM
Comment #262340

j2t2

If we go by past presidence, we must assume the media will be attacking her religion. But if you are concerned that her religious beliefs may interfere with ability to govern, then we must also do the same with BHO.

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/qaddaffi-says-barack-obama-is-a-muslim

Posted by: Oldguy at September 9, 2008 3:48 PM
Comment #262342

Glen

You are being baited by shallow one sided people who pay a fee at the local place of worship to have the right to claim a higher moral ground than the rest of us heathens. Proof of this is evident in an earlier reply contending that us liberals have no understanding of the workings of evangelicals and their superior morality. As if they are some sort of special breed with insights beyond the norm. Hogwash! We all live in the same reality. The problem is that theirs is clouded by superstition. This is a no win situation for you since logic has no bearing on the rationale of some of these people.

I have no idea what sort of compensation you get for raising those children and I don’t care. It is a non factor under any circumstance. I applaud your decision to do so. I can not begin to imagine the difficulties and time involved in such an endeavor. Money or not it takes a good, caring, and mentally strong person to endure such an undertaking.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #262345

RickIL
Why does our govt take from one person and give to another, in the form of social security and welfare?

J2
“…you gotta wonder whats in the kool aid”

Yes, I do wonder.
I wonder how in the hell two people can use the same ingredients to make their kool aid and then complain about the ingredients of the others.

Posted by: kctim at September 9, 2008 4:44 PM
Comment #262346

For me, the definition of moral values is a lot like the definition of pornography…I know it when I see it. Perhaps you do as well.

Would a person born and raised in isolation, who never experienced another human’s voice or instruction have any moral values at adulthood? And by what measuring stick would we make that assessment? A philosophical question no doubt, but one that might explain our differences when attempting to describe moral values.

From where do we, as individuals, derive our moral values? Parents and family, church, synagogue or mosque, friends, schools, government or some other life experience? If we honestly answer the question as to the source of our moral compass, we will better understand how others come by theirs.

If our answer is that our morals originate from religious beliefs, then those are beliefs that have, most likely (at least with the major religions in the world) been proven to have served the adherents, and their society, well for centuries…if not millenniums. The survival over very long periods of time, to the general benefit of society, is proof enough of their merit, notwithstanding temporary lapses into war and inhumanity.

If our morals have an origin other than religious beliefs, from where did they originate?

Posted by: Jim M at September 9, 2008 4:50 PM
Comment #262347

kctim

RickIL
Why does our govt take from one person and give to another, in the form of social security and welfare?

The words social, security, and welfare tell the story. We all pay in, we all get back at some point, providing we live long enough. Now please go ahead and provide your reasoning and its relevance to this thread.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #262348


We may call ourselves a Christian Nation but, the reality is that the lure of hedonism is far more powerful than the threats of God.

Posted by: jlw at September 9, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #262349

oldguy-
Oh, that’s right. Trust the state sponsor of terror.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at September 9, 2008 5:16 PM
Comment #262351

RickIL

You miss-quote what I said earlier.

“Proof of this is evident in an earlier reply contending that us liberals have no understanding of the workings of evangelicals and their superior morality.”

What I said was:

“most of the left have no understanding of how evangelicals view morality”

Are you an evangelical? If you are not, then you do not understand what I believe about morality. That is very simple to understand.

I said nothing about the “workings of evangelicals” and I certainly said nothing about the “our superior morality”

Jim M

I know I will get hammered for this statement, but God puts within all men the ability to understand right from wrong. It is called a conscience. Religion can either enhance this conscience or retard it, depending on what religion one follows. Some religions are violent and excuse killing and hatred. Others, have the opposite effect, making the person meek and forgiving.

Posted by: Oldguy at September 9, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #262352

Jim

If our morals have an origin other than religious beliefs, from where did they originate?

Could it be that perhaps the basic concept of morals evolved over time as part of the process of becoming sentient beings. A sort of prevention devise against the perils of inbreeding and self extinction. The ability to think and reason would have allowed us to determine on an individual level the necessity of practicing morality. I will suggest that morality has evolved and been fine tuned over the course of mankind. Many teach morality and many use it for both good and bad, but no one can rightfully lay claim to the contrivance or ownership of morality.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #262354

RickIL
What makes you care about anothers social security and welfare is the relevance to this thread: your values and your morals.
As you are an Obama supporter, you obviously do not have a problem with govt forcing others to contribute to such programs, so, why is it ok for you to use govt to force your values and morales onto others, but its so wrong and evil and Republican for somebody else to do it?

Posted by: kctim at September 9, 2008 5:32 PM
Comment #262355

oldguy

I said nothing about the “workings of evangelicals” and I certainly said nothing about the “our superior morality”

You didn’t have to, the implication is there. Most of us read between the lines in effort to determine true intent and reality. It of course is impossible to prove that implication so it makes no sense to go there. I will digress in saying that it is my opinion of the situation.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 5:38 PM
Comment #262356

kctim -

Speaking of being forced to contribute to what one knows is wrong, how about those tax-supported ‘faith-based initiatives’ that were foisted upon us by Bush?

There are diametrically-opposed religions in America, and yet those of one religion are forced to pay taxes and some of those taxes are used to support the works of religions that one strongly opposes. This is flat wrong, and a clear violation of church and state.

Matters of religions are completely different from matters of protecting the livelihoods of the general public. The intent of Social Security and Welfare are for the benefit of EVERYBODY, but ‘faith-based initiatives’ are more for the benefit of those religions that used the opportunity to spread their ‘gospel’ than for those who the ‘faith-based initiative’ claimed to help.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 5:45 PM
Comment #262358

Oldguy…I too am a “seasoned” American at age 67. And, you won’t get any hammering from me as I also believe that God is the origin of morals. Others will tell us that this isn’t so and that they obtained their morals from another source.

However, as with the origin of matter, if you trace back morals (or matter) from another source (or theory) far enough, you wind up with the same answer…GOD.

Throughout recorded history man has sought to identify a higher-power to explain their origin and the meaning of life. It is a relatively new philosophy that fosters the belief that man himself is God. This belief is powerful for some. Without the existence of God they reason, we are like all the other animals. We can kill, rape, plunder, and destroy…being judged only by our fellow humans who are subject to our manipulation. And it is convenient to explain our actions as being instinct, genetic, or anything else that implies that we have no choice, or that our choice was necessary.

I have seen slogans on bumpers that read, “If you can read this, thank a teacher.” Just as appropriate would be a sticker reading, “If you have morals, thank God.”

Posted by: Jim M at September 9, 2008 5:47 PM
Comment #262359

Glenn
“The intent of Social Security and Welfare are for the benefit of EVERYBODY”

Am I not one of the “EVERYBODY” you speak of? If so, then they do not benefit me nor do they match my values and morals.

And as far as how bad it is to force values and morals in the name of religion and how its ok to force them in the name of govt, BS!

Posted by: kctim at September 9, 2008 5:52 PM
Comment #262360

kctim

As you are an Obama supporter, you obviously do not have a problem with govt forcing others to contribute to such programs, so, why is it ok for you to use govt to force your values and morales onto others, but its so wrong and evil and Republican for somebody else to do it?

Do you have a problem with contributing to the war in Iraq? Do you have a problem with hundreds of billions in government subsidies for oil and agriculture? Do you have a problem with torture, amending of civil liberties, equal pay for women or gay marriage?

A time is coming when we will all no matter what anyone thinks or desires have to contribute by way of sacrifice to bring this country out of the mess it is in. We are in that process now. It is not going to be pretty and no amount of prayer or morality will magically deliver us from the problems at hand. No one is forcing me to do anything. I will vote for Obama because he has a vision. A vision that is designed to take a responsible approach to tackling the issues at hand. This is where we are at. You can stay with McCain and continue down that road of stagnation and regression. I really don’t care what you do. If your man wins in four years you will have no sympathy from me for not having the insight to realize that your party does not have a clue and would rather lead us into an abyss than give up the reigns of power.

I have no problem with morality. I am a moral person. I do have a problem with people who would like to falsely use it to pursue an agenda. Who would like to use it to prop themselves up as some sort of sanctimonious superior being. As though one has to practice their religion to be moral. When I judge a person I judge them by who they are not what religion they are or how ardently they practice their religion. People can and do have values and are moral regardless of the church.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 6:09 PM
Comment #262362

Please copy and send this post to email friends.
and have them send it to their friends to someone out there who will be able to do this

We need someone to prepare a musical U-tube with “Dueling Plagiarists” —We need dualing bajos to be playing.

It starts with the first banjo…..

da da daaaa da da da da da Daaaaaa

First is Kinnock:

“Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because our predecessors were thick? Was it because they were weak, those people who worked eight hours underground and then come up and play football, weak? It was because there was no platform upon which they could stand.”

Now the second banjo…..
da da daaaa da da da da da Daaaaaa

Now Biden:

“Why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family to ever go to a university? Was it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because they didn’t work hard, my ancestors who worked in the coal mines of northeast Pennsylvania and would come up after 12 hours and play football for four hours? It’s because they didn’t have a platform upon which to stand.”

Now the first banjo…..
da da daaaa da da da da da Daaaaaa

Then Daval Patrick

“We find these truths go be self evident…. JUST WORDS”

Now the second banjo…..
da da daaaa da da da da da Daaaaaa

Then Obama

“We find these truths go be self evident….JUST WORDS”

Then both banjo
da da da da daaaaaaaaaaaa.da da da da ……
Best done as a cartoon.

Please can someone send this idea to someone who can make this utube thing happen —-“dueling plagiarists”

Posted by: OHIO Blogger at September 9, 2008 6:17 PM
Comment #262366

Ah, OHIO blogger remembers the infamous ‘Biden plagiarism’!

I’ve always hated plagiarism and I thought poorly of Biden for a LONG time…until I found out he had given that same quote in speeches several times before - and in those previous speeches he ALWAYS gave credit to Kinnock for the quote. BUT the ONE TIME he didn’t give credit the Republicans jumped all over it - never mind all the times that he gave credit before.

Now - want a REAL plagiarist? How about JOHN MCCAIN, who tells the story of how a NV guard came up to him and drew a ‘Christian fish’ in the dirt with his toe…and then wiped it out and walked away. How TOUCHing!

Come to find out McCain’s an admirer of Alexander Solzhenitsyn (as am I)…and the Nobel Prize winning physicist described a very, very similar incident - right down to that ‘Christian fish’ in the dirt - during his time in the Gulag.

“And McCain is an honourable man.
…are we all not honourable men?”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 6:44 PM
Comment #262367

kctim -

Sorry - I didn’t know you were independently wealthy and are certain that you won’t need Social Security when you get old.

I’m sure all the elderly depending on Social Security in order to eat and have heat in the winter would be eager to give up their checks so that you can have what you feel is yours. After all, it’s THEIR fault they’re not wealthy like you, so it’s okay to throw them under the bus, right?

Yep - that’s Republicanism! “I got mine, and if you ain’t got yours, that’s YOUR problem and not mine!”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 6:47 PM
Comment #262368

I read this interesting story in the NY Times. The headline;

Straining to Reach Money Goal, Obama Presses Donors

For the full story go here; http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/09/us/politics/09donate.html?nl=pol&emc=pola2

The article suggests that perhaps Mr. Obama made a mistake in not taking the matching federal funds as did Mr. McCain. What do you think? Will campaign funds now make the difference?

Posted by: Jim M at September 9, 2008 6:55 PM
Comment #262369

Glen said, “Speaking of being forced to contribute to what one knows is wrong, how about those tax-supported ‘faith-based initiatives’ that were foisted upon us by Bush?”

“It can fund the soup, it can fund the shelter. It shouldn’t fund the Bibles, and I think if we maintain that division, we’ll be in the right place,” stated former Indianapolis Mayor Steve Goldsmith. President Bush has selected Goldsmith to oversee the AmeriCorps volunteer program and to assume a leadership role in assisting faith-based organizations.”

For the complete article go here; http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa012901a.htm

Posted by: Jim M at September 9, 2008 7:15 PM
Comment #262370

Jim M -

And if you don’t think those oh-so-very-kind religious organizations aren’t using the opportunity to try to attract followers, I’ve got some warm, sunny beachfront property to sell you on Washington’s west coast - cheap!

(in case you’re wondering, the Washington west coast is rarely sunny…and NEVER warm)

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 7:19 PM
Comment #262371

I’m sorry Glen, but wasn’t Obama calling for MORE faith-based initiatives over what Bush proposed and put into place? Saying that Bush hadn’t done enough?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 9, 2008 7:21 PM
Comment #262372

Wow. The McCain campaign has reached a new low in dirty politics. Here is their latest ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLQhRiEXZs

That is the sleaziest political advertisement I have ever seen. Ugly. Really ugly.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2008 7:28 PM
Comment #262373

I hope no one lets that advertisement pass without roundly condemning it. I don’t care what side you are on. Make it clear that advertisement is absolutely unacceptable and over the top. McCain is disgusting.

Posted by: phx8 at September 9, 2008 7:43 PM
Comment #262374

There’s a lot of subjects covered within this topic, but I’ll press one that caught me and some news that caught my eye as well.

One, the morals and God subject, and America is a Christian nation. There’s a lot of things wrong with that, primarily that America has never been in it’s history, a Christian nation. The Vatican is a Christian nation, Iran is a Muslim nation, Saudi Arabia is a Muslim nation. That’s what it means when you tie religion to a state, that the state is inherently following the doctrine of the religion and rules set forth within that religion.

Always remember: Separation of church and state. Religion and state.

It’s perfectly fine to use God, Jesus, religion, the church as examples of how to govern, but our founding fathers, while highly religious men (obviously), tasked this country to keep those two powers apart as far as possible. So no, America is not a Christian nation, it’s just America.

Note: as I’ve indicated before on other topics, I’m not Christian, but Muslim and do my own thing with Allah(read: Allah’s just the Arabic word for God), but I’m also a doctor’s and engineer’s son and take it all with a grain of salt.

Second, I heard John McCain’s speech today in Lancaster, PA. While boring, and I admit Palin speaks 1000x better than McCain, but while there’s issues like if we’re gonna have jobs after school, or like the price of oil, the price of food is gonna go down, he didn’t say anything that I heard, but a lot of it was talk of national security, US vs Russia, Iran and Al-Queda.

K, here’s what I know about Russia, having a mom from there and grandparents. They’ve got their own problems, much worse than America, and they’re alos at this nationalist phase where they really don’t like the west, but they wouldn’t do anything much like we won’t do anything about them. There’s just too much at stake to go beyond words, so Russia shouldn’t even be a factor, nothing will happen to us from Russia. (Now Ukraine, and the eastern satellite nations, that’s a diff story)

And then Iran. How ignorant most people are about this country is beyond ridiculous.

They’re not aligned with Al-Queda. At all. Never have been. Never will be. It’s like if we allied with Castro in the 60’s to take care of Vietnam. Iran hates Al-Queda just as much as it hates Israel or the US and vice versa, they’re two separate (although incredibly stupid) ideologies.

If the US were to go to war with Iran, it won’t be like Iraq, like the Iraq insurgency will seem like a peep in comparison to the Iranian one. A large majority of the people there are super-nationalists, and zealous in their defense of religion.

But that dosen’t mean they’d do anything. Like a lot of Middle East countries, they talk the talk but don’t walk the walk. At least when it comes to outside Iran, sure they fund Hezbollah, but saying that an Iranian threat is present to the US is right up there with the Pope’s chances of breakdancing in St. Peter’s square.

Anyways, we all have fine morals, the only people I know that don’t are either in prison, in politics or up in the mountains eating bugs.

Posted by: Jon at September 9, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #262375

Glenn, RickIl, phx8,and etc.,
I’ve been sitting here reading this all day, and I know the only compensation one gets for beating their head against a brick wall…..is a headache ! I hope you all have an edless supply of Tylenol !
There are many things that I don’t see, agree with or understand about this truly cultist movement by the religious fanatics on here and elsewhere. What are the most assenine and illogic results to come from all these ugly, insidious, scathing, vicious, vitriolic hate-mongering comments, is that they’re from those supposedly cloaked in the beliefs and love of Jesus Christ.
There is absolutely no sign of love, caring or compassion from any of those bellowing the qualities of McPalin, and attacking our side.
You may think you’re walking the walk, and talking the talk, but you’re just living a lie. Good luck with that.

Posted by: janedoe at September 9, 2008 7:49 PM
Comment #262376

I agree with janedoe, arguing moral positions with true believers is simply frustrating and a complete waste of time. They have been “saved”, the rest of us are sinners. How could a “sinner” have any moral standing?

Posted by: Rich at September 9, 2008 8:07 PM
Comment #262377

Old Guy says “if we go by past presidence, we must assume the media will be attacking her religion.”

Old Guy When a person injects their religious beliefs into politics and uses religion as a means to influence others politically shouldn’t they be vetted?

Can you show specific precedents of attacks on a candidates religion by the MSM? Assume is easy, facts a little harder to come by.

“But if you are concerned that her religious beliefs may interfere with ability to govern, then we must also do the same with BHO.”

The righties have been putting out misinformation on Obama much like you just did. Have you stopped to think that Libya wants more of the same? Afterall its all about the oil right?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 9, 2008 8:11 PM
Comment #262378

janedoe

It is very much like beating your head against a wall. And you are correct that they are fooling no one but themselves. They in their impassioned efforts to bring their religion into government are just as irresponsible as the party that uses them. Both have limited vision and all the talk and persuasion in the world will not convince those who do not wish to be convinced. One is relying on campaign slogans and sleazy ugly ads to mask their lack of vision and insight. They know no integrity. The other follows them because they tell them their morals are admirable and that they share their same beliefs. They are an easy crowd. I think their faith must blind them to the truth. In that respect they are just as incapable as those they choose to run our country.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 8:34 PM
Comment #262379

phx8

Just watched the video. Your assessment of the character of this trash is much to kind. What is sad is that this will play right into the hands of the easily led.

Posted by: RickIL at September 9, 2008 8:42 PM
Comment #262411

phx8 - That add was not only a new low in sleazy it was yet another lie. What they are talking about was teaching kids about inappropriate touching. John McCain has absolutely no honor left. That crap was discredited when that psycho Alan Keyes tried to use that lie in his senate campaign.

I love that political ads now all have to have the disclaimer so now we get to hear “I’m John McCain and I approve this ad” He approves the most despicable lies to be told about his opponents. So go ahead and vote for McCain and vote for a liar who has sold out the last shreds of honor and dignity. What a loser as a human being.

Posted by: tcsned at September 10, 2008 12:50 AM
Comment #262414

RickIL, tcsned,
‘Politics ain’t beanbag,’ and I understand the stakes are high, and I don’t mind the occasional high inside fastball, a little chin music. But this ad is so over the top, I really am incensed.

It isn’t even coming from a third party or some Swiftboat organization or Drudge or Limbaugh. I mean, this dreck actually comes directly from the McCain campaign.

It’s one of the worst single political advertisements I have ever seen in my entire life. Truly shameful.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2008 1:39 AM
Comment #262415

So what is it going to take for Obama to take a stand against all this crap?
I really, honestly believe this goes a long way to show just how moral he is. I’m serious and it certainly is a positive towards his character. In questions today about just why he isn’t slamming back against some of these things, he maintains that the public will see for themselves all the lies. I respect his stance, but we don’t have time to be nice any more..because we’re not dealing with anyone who has a concept of nice.

Posted by: janedoe at September 10, 2008 1:52 AM
Comment #262416

Janedoe,
It’s tremendously frustrating to see an ad this low, this despicable, hit the airwaves. It’s tempting to call for Obama to air ads accusing McCain of being in favor of child molestation, a convenient explaination for why he would adopt. However, Obama is an honorable man, and it would be wrong to go down the low road, no matter how tempting. It’s just responding to outrageously dirty politics with more dirty politics.

There is really only one choice. Obama needs to condemn the ad. We have to hope Americans are smart enough and decent enough to recognize sleaze when they see it.

Posted by: phx8 at September 10, 2008 3:03 AM
Comment #262422

janedoe

I respect his stance, but we don’t have time to be nice any more..because we’re not dealing with anyone who has a concept of nice.

I think you are being generous in your analysis of McCains charater. He has just demonstrated a character flaw that is more in keeping with a lack of decency. One important thing this ad demonstrates, but I doubt many will see, is that this is not the party of change. They are still after eight years of less than respectable approaches pursuing that very same underhanded deceptive and sleazy manner in manipulating the American people.

Posted by: RickIL at September 10, 2008 9:02 AM
Comment #262425

RickIL
We are talking about pushing morals onto others, not the difference. But, as you took the time to ask a few questions, I will respectively answer them:
I had a problem with going into Iraq, but I do not have one with contributing to our military.
Yes, I do have a problem with subsidies.
I have a problem with US citizens being tortured.
I have a problem with the “amending of ALL civil liberties. Not just the ones I happen to agree with.
I am for equal pay for equal work. Equal treatment.
I am a strong supporter of unrestricted gay marriage. Unlike your candidate, I believe all Americans deserve the opportunity to marry the one they love if they so desire.

The time to sacrifice is already here, but that is an individual choice. You can be gullible and buy into the lies that Obama will “change” anything of importance if you want, but real change will not come until people stop looking at their own party as the only answer. Its just more of the same.

“People can and do have values and are moral regardless of the church”

As an atheist, I totally agree with you.

But our back and forth was about why its ok for one side to use govt to force their values and morals onto everybody, but its evil and wrong for anybody else to do it.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 9:22 AM
Comment #262431

Glenn
Just like liberal policy, you react on feeling and emotion while ignoring the point.
I am not wealthy, probably further from it than most, but what I have when I “get old” should be based on how I prepare and the voluntary generosity of others if so needed.

“I’m sure all the elderly depending on Social Security in order to eat and have heat in the winter”

Ever ask yourself why they are dependent on SS? Are you placing your future in the hands of the govt? I didn’t think so. Instead, your values and morals make you feel guilty and bad for them, and you believe forcing those same values and morals onto everybody else is fine.
Ok for one side, wrong for the other?

“would be eager to give up their checks so that you can have what you feel is yours.”

Um, it is mine.

“After all, it’s THEIR fault they’re not wealthy like you, so it’s okay to throw them under the bus, right?”

Why do you care so much about my values and morals? I don’t care about yours. I don’t want to force mine onto you. I want us both to have the choice to live according to our own values and morals, just like our founders.

“Yep - that’s Republicanism! “I got mine, and if you ain’t got yours, that’s YOUR problem and not mine!””

And liberalism is “you should work so I don’t have to?” Get real.
I’m not a Republican, but my “ism” is: “I work for mine and its my right to use it how I choose is best.”

You guys don’t have a problem with pushing values and morals onto others, your problem is with who is doing it.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #262449

kctim,
the fundamental principle of liberalism isn’t “you work hard so I don’t have to” that is a false assertion. It’s more like you work hard and you deserve a fair living wage for your hard work and you deserve to retire with a minimum of a safety net.

Do you really want to do away with social security? The reason FDR initiated the program was the fact the this single largest percentage of our nations poor were the elderly. Most of whom worked hard all of their lives to enrich the owner of their businesses and received nothing more than their last paycheck in return. If you really want to go back to the days of grandma eating Alpo or living under a bridge then go ahead vote for the fool who wants to privatize social security.

Posted by: tcsned at September 10, 2008 10:35 AM
Comment #262450
What they are talking about was teaching kids about inappropriate touching.

Erm, did you read the bill?

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2008 10:38 AM
Comment #262455

kctim

But our back and forth was about why its ok for one side to use govt to force their values and morals onto everybody, but its evil and wrong for anybody else to do it.

Please tell me which side is forcing any values or morals on you. I see one party that is falsely catering to a crowd of people by way of preying on their morality. I see another side that sees morality in the realization that we are all one people swimming in the same cesspool of republican malfeasance. There is a group of people that would rather avoid the obvious and use their claim of exclusive true morality to justify supporting the party that uses them. One side presents an avenue of recovery. The other says there is nothing that needs recovering from. I have a problem with the inability of people to recognize when they are being used over and over again. At some point it says that these are irresponsible people because they refuse to come to terms with the realities that surround them. They put those realities aside in favor of pushing faith based concepts into the governmental fold.

This whole moral issue is more one of a philosophical nature and can never be completely vetted out due to the nature of the opposing factors. The evolution vs creationism factor does not allow us to come to acceptable terms on the issue. It is a no win situation for each side. My problem lies with the whole notion of a greater christian morality and implications that I can not be moral without having been taught to be so by the church. That notion is at best absurd and reeks of 16th century ideology.

You presented programs that were designed to serve the people of this nation. Will you accept your social security when the time comes? Would you accept assistance if you were suddenly faced with an unforeseen crisis? Are you willing to take into your home and provide for one of those seniors or cripples who can no longer support themselves because they no longer have any income or family to fall back on? I am sorry tim but your views on this matter are just too simplistic and self serving for me to comprehend as anything more than selfishness. That is just the way my liberal mind works. I know that understanding and compassion are faults but hey we all have them.

Posted by: RickIL at September 10, 2008 10:57 AM
Comment #262457

Tom
Glenn gave an exteme view of “Republicanism:”

“Yep - that’s Republicanism! “I got mine, and if you ain’t got yours, that’s YOUR problem and not mine!””

and I gave one of liberalism.

And yes, I am pro-choice so I would love to do away with involuntary social security. But that does not mean we have to do away with social security as a whole, just make it voluntary. That way, those who “say” they care so much, can put their money where their mouths are and those who are not mature or responsible enough, can give control of their lives over to them.

The tired, old fear tactic of eating dogfood and being homeless huh? Tell me, do the sad feelings you get for buying into those fears, justify taking away the rights of others?

If you really want to discard our individual rights and freedoms and continue on this path to a more European style govt, then go ahead and vote for the fool who will take us in that direction.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 11:03 AM
Comment #262459

kctim I happen to have talked to a hard line conservative this past week, who felt eactly like you on social security for years. He was all for privatization a few years back and called SS a liberal plot to ruin the country.
That was then, as he just received his first check this past month. He needed it, and has changed his opinion to don’t touch my social security. Of course I just smiled and bit my tongue.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #262472

RickIL
“Please tell me which side is forcing any values or morals on you.”

The side which forces people to live by their sides values and morals, instead of the ones of their own choosing.
The side who tells me who I can and cannot marry and the side who tells me who I will care about and how I will help them.

“They put those realities aside in favor of pushing faith based concepts into the governmental fold.”

And others put individual rights and freedoms aside in favor of pushing ideas that will make them personally feel into the govt fold.
Both sides are still forcing their own values and morals onto others though.

“The evolution vs creationism factor does not allow us to come to acceptable terms on the issue. It is a no win situation for each side.”

Wrong. If each side respected the others rights and freedoms to their own views, acceptable terms would eventually be reached. Instead, we have allowed govt to enter into every aspect of our lives.

“My problem lies with the whole notion of a greater christian morality and implications that I can not be moral without having been taught to be so by the church. That notion is at best absurd and reeks of 16th century ideology.”

I agree with you. Where we differ is that I feel the same way about people who tell me I cannot have values and morals and say that I only care about myself, because I am pro-choice.

“Will you accept your social security when the time comes? Would you accept assistance if you were suddenly faced with an unforeseen crisis?”

I will not need it, but I will take back what has been forcefully taken from me. After that, I will no longer accept anything from the govt.

“Are you willing to take into your home and provide for one of those seniors or cripples who can no longer support themselves because they no longer have any income or family to fall back on?”

If I so choose, yes. But then again, I am not the one who claims to care about such people, am I?
No, the real question is, as somebody who says they care about them, will you take them into your home and care for them as you “say” you care about them?

“I am sorry tim but your views on this matter are just too simplistic and self serving for me to comprehend as anything more than selfishness.”

Ah, the meat of the post.
My views are “too simplistic and self serving” to you because our values and morals differ Rick. I would never try to force you to not help who your values and morals say needs help and you should not be for forcing me to help who my values and morals say I shouldn’t.

“That is just the way my liberal mind works. I know that understanding and compassion are faults but hey we all have them”

And we should ALL have the choice to understand and feel as we choose as individuals, not how other believe we should.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 11:35 AM
Comment #262479

J2
I may need it or I may not. But I should be the one making that decision, not others who fear what will happen to me if I choose wrong.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 11:46 AM
Comment #262492

kc,

Sorry, but it’s already part of our national fabric. All you have to do to change that is to act like Cheney/Bush, and break America’s economic backbone, or elect some anarchist…err…libertarian who can releive some of your pressures. Your complaints seem to fall on deaf ears here.

Posted by: Marysdude at September 10, 2008 12:56 PM
Comment #262504
Your complaints seem to fall on deaf ears here.

Which backs up my statement from previous conversations. Democrats are not concerned about individual liberty in the least.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2008 1:39 PM
Comment #262507

“Jim M - And if you don’t think those oh-so-very-kind religious organizations aren’t using the opportunity to try to attract followers, I’ve got some warm, sunny beachfront property to sell you on Washington’s west coast - cheap!” Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 9, 2008 07:19 PM

Glenn, keep your property, I have lived in East Texas for 25 years and wouldn’t consider living anywhere else.

Attracting followers by feeding, clothing, sheltering, and caring for them is indeed a powerful alluring act of kindness.

Unlike liberals…who attract followers with class-envy and then, when empowered, seek to impoverish the rich without enriching the poor, faith-based help is based upon love with no earthly reward.

Posted by: Jim M at September 10, 2008 1:54 PM
Comment #262511

Rhinehold - the sensors got my comment again - not sure what word getting flagged.

I did read the law - nowhere does it say that they plan to teach s**-ed to kindergarten students or even elementary school kids. It says over and over again “age appropriate”

Also, “All course material and instruction in classes that teach s** education and discuss s**ual activity or behavior shall be age and developmentally appropriate.” It says nothing about being mandatory, suggested, or otherwise for small children.

John McCain knows this and has no honor as I said before.

Posted by: tcsned at September 10, 2008 2:08 PM
Comment #262513

tscned,

If you read the law then you know two things.

1) They changed the s** education requirements from 6-12 to K-12. Before the law there was no required (unfunded) requirement before 6th grade.

2) While saying over and over that the cirriculum must be age-appropriate, no where do they define that. Who defines this? Yes, the INTENT may have been for s**ual molestation warnings to children, but that is not defined clearly in the law. In fact, they made a point of changing the wording from abstinence only to include other forms.

Now, do I think that Obama, or anyone who voted for that law, wants to teach s** education to kindergarten children?? No, of course not. But they made the conscious decision to not put any limits on that other than a vague ‘age appropriate’ designation. That is a very bad law, IMO. I could be misused for the purpose stated in the ad.

I think the ad goes over the top, yes. But the law wasn’t a shining example of good judgement either.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2008 2:25 PM
Comment #262514

“I may need it or I may not. But I should be the one making that decision, not others who fear what will happen to me if I choose wrong.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 11:46 AM “

Only in an anarchist chaotic world where every decision on every issue is the individuals. We have a representative democracy here kc and laws were made based upon the will of the majority for years, now upon the will of the corporation with the most money, thanks to the Cons and Libertarians. I agree kc that it sounds good but with 300 million people doing just that where would we be? Sometimes we need to compromise in order for all of us to live together. Sure you could trample on the elderly and the little kids sleeping in the streets that got in your way as you walked down the street but do you want that as a policy for the country? Sounds like a 3rd world country to me. Of course should the Cons and Libertarians continue to get their way we will be a 3rd world country.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 2:35 PM
Comment #262515

“kctim I happen to have talked to a hard line conservative this past week, who felt eactly like you on social security for years. He was all for privatization a few years back and called SS a liberal plot to ruin the country.
That was then, as he just received his first check this past month. He needed it, and has changed his opinion to don’t touch my social security. Of course I just smiled and bit my tongue.
Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 11:04 AM

j2t2, If I recall correctly, the administrations proposal of privatization of SS included no changes for those receiving, or for those anywhere close to receiving benefits. The plan centered on those with many earning years remaining and attempted to give them the choice between what we have now and a programed designed to increase their eventual benefit by investing rather than having their payroll deducted SS contributions plundered by a greedy congress and replaced with IOU’s in a lock box.

This was a plan of “change” and “choice”, both words loved by liberals, except for when they actually lead to the benefit of all Americans.

Your friend who caused the smile and biting of tongue apparently doesn’t realize that his benefit wouldn’t have been “touched” in any way. And, obviously you don’t understand that either. The current structure of SS, resembling a giant “Ponzi Scheme” is going to require some frowning and chewing off of the tongue by millions who have been lulled into a false sense of security.

Posted by: Jim M at September 10, 2008 2:37 PM
Comment #262526

J2
Do you believe laws made based upon the will of the majority should trump the rights of the minority? Did our founders?

“Sure you could trample on the elderly and the little kids sleeping in the streets that got in your way as you walked down the street but do you want that as a policy for the country?”

Ah, more exteme examples playing up to peoples fear, nice. I thought it was wrong for people to give up their rights and freedoms based on fear? Or is this one of those, “its ok to give them up for what I believe in, but not ok to give them up for what others believe in?”

And for the record, we were created as a Representitive Republic, to help protect the rights of ALL, not just the majority.

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #262537

j2t2 - thanks for pointing out to OldGuy Palin’s attendance and connections to the Alaskan Independence Party.

kctim - “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. Social Security helped my family out a great deal in my youth after my dad died. We really needed it and it was there for us (dad had no life insurance)…and without it, who knows what my mother would have had to do to keep us sheltered with food on the table. I do know my mother and I never had to resort to illegal means in order to eat.

Jim M - How conversant are you with stocks and bonds? I know only a little…and that’s a little more than the majority of Americans. Yet privatization of SS would require those who are ignorant of the perils of investing - the SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY of Americans - to choose which plan they like best. Of course, such privatization would be very secure, and we could put the same amount of trust in it as we did to Enron.

Instead of ‘safe as America’, we could say, ‘safe as Enron’. Pretty catchy, huh? That would surely help an old woman sleep more soundly at night, knowing she could trust a corporate board of multimillionaires with her ability to eat.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 10, 2008 4:18 PM
Comment #262544

“The current structure of SS, resembling a giant “Ponzi Scheme” is going to require some frowning and chewing off of the tongue by millions who have been lulled into a false sense of security.”

Jim M I agree. It was wrong to put the SS money into a general fund and spend it as has been done since the ‘80’s. Thats why I didnt think much of Reagan and his cutting taxes on the wealthy while putting the tax burden on the poor and middle class like he did. Raising SS contributions to pay for the upcoming babyboomers was a good idea at the time but then spending the money to cover the Reagan taxcuts at the same time lead us where we are today with SS as well as higher and regressive taxes and uncontroled debt. But then that was the conservative plan all along wasnt it?

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 4:45 PM
Comment #262546

Glenn
Your values and morals tell you that people in your family’s situation need help, anothers values and morals may not. Would it be fair for govt to tell you that you cannot help? Why is it fair for govt to tell you who you must help?

I’m not against SS because of what it does or does not do, I am against it because it is involuntary and the threat of force is used to assure compliance.
Do you believe your values and morals should be involuntarily forced onto others, by force if needed?

Posted by: kctim at September 10, 2008 4:46 PM
Comment #262547

Glenn, hatred of corporate America is not uncommon for many liberals since they actually produce something versus government which produces no jobs, no wealth, and no reward for risk-taking.

I am reasonably well informed with regard to the equity market, bond market, and commodities trading. Many Americans who have retirement plans are already investing in America’s engines of wealth production. Let me ask you a question Glenn, if you work and have a retirement plan and were given the option of turning your assets in that plan over to government to handle…would you?

Posted by: Jim M at September 10, 2008 4:47 PM
Comment #262549

“Do you believe laws made based upon the will of the majority should trump the rights of the minority? Did our founders?”
No and No hence the protections of the constitution. Once the decision was made and the law signed and deemed to be constitutional it was and is seen as protecting the rights of the minority wasnt it kctim?

“Ah, more exteme examples playing up to peoples fear, nice.” check your history kc.

“I thought it was wrong for people to give up their rights and freedoms based on fear? “
Of course it is but it is also foolish to not have a safety net in place should something go wrong.

“we were created as a Representitive Republic”
I stand corrected.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 5:00 PM
Comment #262551

And here’s something else about Sarah Palin, who would be our #2 protector of the FIRST Amendment, our freedom of speech:

Stein says that as mayor, Palin continued to inject religious beliefs into her policy at times. “She asked the library how she could go about banning books,” he says, because some voters thought they had inappropriate language in them. “The librarian was aghast.” That woman, Mary Ellen Baker, couldn’t be reached for comment, but news reports from the time show that Palin had threatened to fire Baker for not giving “full support” to the mayor.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1837918,00.html

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 10, 2008 5:17 PM
Comment #262552

“The plan centered on those with many earning years remaining and attempted to give them the choice between what we have now and a programed designed to increase their eventual benefit by investing rather than having their payroll deducted SS contributions plundered by a greedy congress and replaced with IOU’s in a lock box.”

The choice between a deregulated wall street plundering over which we would have no say and the Congress which is controlled by wall street , no wonder us liberals didnt like the plan even when framed with “choice” and “change”.

This was a plan of “change” and “choice”, both words loved by liberals, except for when they actually lead to the benefit of all Americans.”

Jim M in the stock market one persons gain is anothers loss, how do you justify your comment “to the benefit of all Americans”

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 5:18 PM
Comment #262555

kctim

I would never try to force you to not help who your values and morals say needs help and you should not be for forcing me to help who my values and morals say I shouldn’t.

This argument is getting ridiculously long and it is obvious that we will never come to agreement. The differences you and I speak of are not so much about morals as they are differences in priorities. I do not know you. But I seriously doubt you are totally selfish or lacking of compassion. Your differences are of a libertarian nature. You don’t want anyone intruding on your right to make any and all decisions for yourself. Up to and including how each and every penny you make gets spent. I can respect that, and believe me I wish it were that easy. But for me this country, this world and their problems are just too enormous to fathom and still believe that everything will be fine if government just stays out of our lives. It is much more complex for me. That is not to say that your more simplistic ideas are any less worthy. Just that we are viewing the problems from different angles and with different concepts of priority and perspective of emotional values.

Posted by: RickIL at September 10, 2008 5:27 PM
Comment #262558
I can respect that, and believe me I wish it were that easy.

It is. If you believe in individual liberty and personal responsibility over convenience.

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #262559

MORE Republican morality for the benefit of ALL Americans:

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/4076/lose-your-house-lose-your-vote

“The chairman of the Republican Party in Macomb County Michigan, a key swing county in a key swing state, is planning to use a list of foreclosed homes to block people from voting in the upcoming election as part of the state GOP’s effort to challenge some voters on Election Day.”

“The Macomb GOP’s plans are another indication of how John McCain’s campaign stands to benefit from the burgeoning number of foreclosures in the state. McCain’s regional headquarters are housed in the office building of foreclosure specialists Trott & Trott. The firm’s founder, David A. Trott, has raised between $100,000 and $250,000 for the Republican nominee.”

“Carabelli is not the only Republican Party official to suggest the targeting of foreclosed voters. In Ohio, Doug Preisse, director of elections in Franklin County (around the city of Columbus) and the chair of the local GOP, told The Columbus Dispatch that he has not ruled out challenging voters before the election due to foreclosure-related address issues.

Hebert, the voting-rights lawyer, sees a connection between Priesse’s remarks and Carabelli’s plans.

“At a minimum what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systematic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote,” he said. “Nobody is contending that these people are not legally registered to vote.”

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 10, 2008 5:39 PM
Comment #262565

“Jim M in the stock market one persons gain is anothers loss, how do you justify your comment “to the benefit of all Americans”
Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 05:18 PM

j2t2, in an earlier post Glenn said he had little knowledge of the stock and bond market and I admire his honesty. You have called the stock market a zero-sum proposition by saying one persons gain is another persons loss. How silly. I won’t take time to explain how markets work but you can certainly get that information easily.

If equity and bond markets worked the way you imagine why would anyone participate? You’ve described “gambling” not “investing”.

Posted by: Jim M at September 10, 2008 6:35 PM
Comment #262567

“At a minimum what you are seeing is a fairly comprehensive effort by the Republican Party, a systematic broad-based effort to put up obstacles for people to vote,” he said. “Nobody is contending that these people are not legally registered to vote.”
Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 10, 2008 05:39 PM

Glenn, I just can’t resist. Are these actions a benefit to Republicans because more Democrats are being foreclosed?

Posted by: Jim M at September 10, 2008 6:40 PM
Comment #262586

Jim M -

Well, seeing as how it’s the GOP that’s using the foreclosure list, I’d say that’s a pretty good bet - especially since it’s probably in districts or precincts that are heavily Democratic.

And when it comes to investing, is it or is it not FACT that while many do very well in the stock market - whether it’s stocks, bonds, equity, or (horrors!) options - many also lose money?

Here’s a little social services lesson for you: the fewer people who are in poverty, the lower the crime rate. If the rich bear a heavier tax burden and many are brought OUT of poverty because of it…then there is less crime and a safer society as a whole.

Does this work in the real world? Check the crime rates for western Europe, Australia, Singapore, Japan…ALL have a heavier tax burden than here in the U.S. BEAR IN MIND that their taxes are collected in different ways - most notably in their cases, a much higher gasoline tax. That’s why their corporate taxes are mostly lower.

Not only that, but they ALL - read again, ALL - have Universal Health Care, which not only has resulted in a HIGHER national life expectancy in nearly every case (with the sole exception of Ireland, IIRC)…but their companies do not have to fork over untold millions to pay for health insurance.

Call it ‘socialism’ if you want - but if it results in a better OVERALL life expectancy and a safer, better educated society, as it HAS DONE in nearly every industrialized democracy that uses such programs, then what should we do? Continue to do what doesn’t work as well in the rest of the free world? Or LEARN from them for the benefit of our population as a whole, rather than just for the rich and privileged?

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 10, 2008 10:05 PM
Comment #262590
then what should we do

I don’t know, maybe find a solution that solves the real problem and doesn’t step all over individual liberties?

I know, that sounds hard, doesn’t it? Better just to take the easy way out and hand over control of our health insurance market to political interests. Great Idea!

Posted by: Rhinehold at September 10, 2008 10:45 PM
Comment #262598

” You have called the stock market a zero-sum proposition by saying one persons gain is another persons loss. How silly. I won’t take time to explain how markets work but you can certainly get that information easily.”

On an individual stock transaction probably not but taken as a whole the stock market could be considered a zero sum game. There are winners and losers not everyone comes out ahead. In fact isn’t it safe to say that for small investors as a group there is a greater chance of losing than of winning Jim M..

“If equity and bond markets worked the way you imagine why would anyone participate? You’ve described “gambling” not “investing”.”

Actually I think I’m describing “both for most people Jim M., I don’t think much of stock market investing as it has been roughly a zero sum game for me over the years. I’ve gained as much as I’ve lost. In fact I’m farther ahead percentage wise on betting 5 team parley cards for college football teams than picking stocks. Perhaps thats why an insurance plan was chosen back in the FDR days instead of just playing the stock market for a safety net.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 10, 2008 11:51 PM
Comment #262606

RickIl
“The differences you and I speak of are not so much about morals as they are differences in priorities”

Those priorities are based on our values and morals Rick. Individual liberties are top priority for me and not for you. I can respect that, but it is not what this country was founded on.

Individual values and morals are not bad because the person gets them from a book or because the person wishes others to share them. No, they are bad only when they are forced and it doesn’t matter if it is religion or govt, forcing those things onto others is wrong and is not a sign of a person being truly free.

Sorry that this has become ridiculous to you, but I believe our individual rights are the cornerstone of this country and until we respect the individual rights of all, nothing is going to change for the better.

Thanks for your input, I’ll be back in a week or so. Hopefully, the BS posts about Palin will be tired by then and there will be another important post to discuss.

Posted by: kctim at September 11, 2008 12:27 AM
Comment #262622

John McCain has been in the middle of the two biggest bailouts by the taxpayers in US history. His inappropriate relationship with Charles Keating and the S&L crisis in the 1980s put him on the wrong side of bank deregulation costing us billions. His campaign is being run by a lobbyist for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - now we are spending even more billions of our money to take over these floundering lending firms. Now you want to privatize social security? How long will it be before we are spending billions more bailing out this bad idea? It’s like the movie Groundhog’s Day where we keep waking up to the disasters of privatization and deregulation. So if McCain gets elected he is going to be in the middle of the 3 biggest bailouts in US history - a proud achievement indeed.

Posted by: tcsned at September 11, 2008 7:28 AM
Comment #262650

Glenn asks, “And when it comes to investing, is it or is it not FACT that while many do very well in the stock market - whether it’s stocks, bonds, equity, or (horrors!) options - many also lose money?”

Yes Glenn, it’s kind of like life isn’t it. Unlike government which attempts to guarantee equal results and equal suffering, the freedom in the equity and bond market does not insure equal results. As you know, stock represents ownership in the company issuing the stock and the financial results of that ownership depends upon how well the company performs and the profit it makes (or losses it takes).

In your world Glenn, how would you go about attracting capital to your business? Or, in your world would all business be done by government?

Equity markets have been around for a very long time and have served our country and the entire world well in providing capital for business. Please name one economy in the world that is doing well without private investment by virtue of the equity and bond market.

j2t2 says, “On an individual stock transaction probably not but taken as a whole the stock market could be considered a zero sum game. There are winners and losers not everyone comes out ahead. In fact isn’t it safe to say that for small investors as a group there is a greater chance of losing than of winning Jim M..”

Sorry j2t2, still no passing grade. #1) stock represents ownership in a company. #2) the value of the stock depends (among other things) upon how well the company performs in making a profit. #3) to arrive at a zero-sum requires that all companies selling stock must exactly offset each others gains and losses. If company A (let’s say Ford) looses a dollar it means that company B (let’s say GM) must gain a dollar. Do you see how silly that argument would be? Have there been no years when both Ford and GM made or lost money?

If either of you work for a company or private entity that provides a retirement fund, the chances are that much of your fund is invested in the equity and bond market. If you really believe what you are telling me about the equity and bond market, you should immediately demand receipt of the funds available in your retirement fund as you sure don’t want to “gamble” with that money. Put the money under your mattress or in CD’s, etc.

Let’s take this a step further. This country is urging investment in new energy technology. Are you suggesting that government be the only one to invest capital in new energy? I think not. Isn’t it a fact that many are arguing that government provide tax incentives to both companies and individuals to invest their capital in this emerging market? Is your government asking you to “gamble” or “invest”. Will every dollar invested in new energy produce a dollar of loss? Using your faulty logic, that would be the case.

Posted by: Jim M at September 11, 2008 1:07 PM
Comment #262679

On the topic marriages and divorces, the two women that I know who have been married the most times are both Democrats. Maybe it’s a gender gap issue. Rpblcns, the daddy party, believe that wives are expendable, and democrats, the mommy party, believe that husbands are expendable.

Posted by: ohrealy at September 11, 2008 3:24 PM
Comment #262689

Jim M Most days the stocks I have follow the market regardless even though there is no news about the company. Of course some days there is news and the stocks seem to act accordingly.So again for most small investors, its a gamble not an investment. Perhaps not the true definition of zero sum but when I look over the years at stocks I’ve invested in its been a wash for me. Although the company I traded through always made their money for me it has been a zero sum game. Im not disparaging the stock and bond markets Im just relating my experience with them. I prefer to have SS insurance intact than to trust a private investnment company with all my retirement funds.

Posted by: j2t2 at September 11, 2008 3:57 PM
Comment #262698

j2t2 says, “So again for most small investors, its a gamble not an investment.”

j2t2, you may be correct in speaking about your own investments, I don’t know what they are. For some, they think of the markets as gambles and don’t do the “due diligence” necessary to succeed. Or, they trust an adviser who may, or may not have their best interest at heart.

For me, I prefer mutual funds as I don’t have the time or desire to investigate all the companies I may be interested in owning. Mutual funds allow one to choose a sector of the market, such as energy, transportation, etc. and a strategy such as long-term growth, small cap, big cap, emerging tech, medical and such.

My mutual funds are in growth funds with ownership in companies all over the world. At my age I want to spread the risk over the widest range possible.

Thank you for the interesting discussion. I hope my meager comments have helped as that has been my intention.

Posted by: Jim M at September 11, 2008 4:52 PM
Comment #262714

Jim M -

I notice you said not ONE thing about the facts I presented concerning Universal Health Care.

Don’t feel bad - I’ve been posting this for months on this forum and more recently on blogcritics.org, and I’ve had only TWO conservatives try to refute me. One said it was because we’ve got a stillbirth rate that’s too high (it’s not), and the other claimed we absolutely, positively CANNOT do it even if we tried because the American government is too corrupt (as if there’s no corruption in the governments of all the other industrialized democracies in the world).

This is the ONE issue that affects Americans more than any other, because the experiences of the other industrialized democracies proves that a population lives longer, healthier lives with Universal Health Care. And these countries didn’t go bankrupt doing it, either.

Where are the patriots here? Where indeed, for patriots are supposed to do what’s right for ALL America, and not just a political party that claims to be patriotic.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at September 11, 2008 6:26 PM
Comment #262723

“Jim M - I notice you said not ONE thing about the facts I presented concerning Universal Health Care.” posted by Glenn.

Glenn, I didn’t respond as I have provided my thoughts in the past. Actually, I like what I know about the plan that Mitt Romney and the Mass legislature put into place. It’s a means-tested private plan and has used the waste in emergency care to help offset costs. The latest info I have read indicates it is still working well and is not bleeding red ink like Medicare and Medicaid which would be the model for your plan.

Posted by: Jim M at September 11, 2008 6:56 PM
Comment #263476

Who’d Poke Fun At McCains Handicap


The Obama campaign ad mocking John McCains computer literacy is missing an important fact.
The ad shows images of him from 1982 and goes on to say “1982, John McCain goes to Washington,” says the voiceover. “Things have changed in the last 26 years, but McCain hasn’t. “He admits he still doesn’t know how to use a computer, can’t send an e-mail,” What the Obama folks forget is that while McCain himself has often joked about his ignorance of email and phone texting, the Vietnam veteran rarely goes into the reason: his hands and fingers were shattered by wartime torture, making it painful to keyboard for any length of time.
Another new low for Obama and company.
Meanwhile, in reality, McCain has long been praised as one of the tech-savviest members of the U.S. Senate. In 2000, Slate.com cited him for what it described as a web first: “the first-ever cyberfundraiser.” The article also noted that McCain’s war wounds limited him at the keyboard, but described him as an enthusiast who embraced Silicon Valley entrepreneurs like Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos. That same year, Forbes magazine described McCain as the “Senate’s savviest technologist.

Posted by: Punk Boy at September 19, 2008 10:14 AM
Post a comment