Comments on: Kathleen Parker: Fundies Are Killing The GOP, Should Go Back To Wooden Crates On Street Corners

By: Kurt

Kurt — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 14:53:05 +0000

Thanks I have. Do some research and see who the political parties were at that time.

By: revday

revday — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:54:19 +0000

I hope I am not being too obvious but there is the notion, and empirical evidence, that changing a socio-political ideology based on religious dogma requires redirecting the dogmatic to a liberal or generous understanding of their religions scripture. One example is slavery. The Christian biblical based prerogative for slavery changed through the shift in rhetoric of a Christian movement. Some of this can be found in, “Antislavery Christians, The Minutes of the Christian anti-slavery convention. Assembled April 17th-20th, 1850. Cincinnati, Ohio” a (Paperback)book at Amazon.com. Apartheid can also be seen as changing in the face of a reframe of Christian exegesis. These links are not the definitive scholarship available but they were easy to google in order to quickly support my point. So if I am being generous I would say that we actually could find religious or spiritual common ground for bipartisanship.
The factor of knee jerk emotional reactions against those who perpetrate unthinkable or unjust facts, for some of us, is difficult to over come. I personally yelled fuck you into Harry Ried’s office machine last night. Twice. Not very mature, spiritual, or helpful but I did it. And I am not too sorry. But I think I have to let myself a little off the hook for a very human overreaction to the level of disrespect he showed. Then decide not to make a phone call like that again. Because I disturbed myself and acted outside of my own values, and I was being disrespectful too. Gaaa. I don’t know if the dark suits will come and ask me questions about my state of mind but even then I will be in dialogue with, rather then numbly walking through the crap. It has been said that if you are not mad you are not paying attention.
Maybe that is another common ground. Oure differing view’s, despite the polarity, have created a lot of anger. Maybe we can agree on that.

By: Blue Texan

Blue Texan — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:47:49 +0000

Were does slave right fit into all this-that was a democrat liberal idea at the time.

I’ve unfortunately come to the conclusion that you have no idea what you’re talking about. Go read a book.

By: selise

selise — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:46:27 +0000

ah, and how exactly do you determine who can care for themselves? except by threatening a person with starvation and seeing who works and who starves?

strikes me as something like that old monty python scene from the holy grail:

Sir Bedevere: There are ways of telling whether she is a witch.
Peasant 1: Are there? Oh well, tell us.
Sir Bedevere: Tell me. What do you do with witches?
Peasant 1: Burn them.
Sir Bedevere: And what do you burn, apart from witches?
Peasant 1: More witches.
Peasant 2: Wood.
Sir Bedevere: Good. Now, why do witches burn?
Peasant 3: …because they’re made of… wood?
Sir Bedevere: Good. So how do you tell whether she is made of wood?
Peasant 1: Build a bridge out of her.
Sir Bedevere: But can you not also build bridges out of stone?
Peasant 1: Oh yeah.
Sir Bedevere: Does wood sink in water?
Peasant 1: No, no, it floats!… It floats! Throw her into the pond!
Sir Bedevere: No, no. What else floats in water?
Peasant 1: Bread.
Peasant 2: Apples.
Peasant 3: Very small rocks.
Peasant 1: Cider.
Peasant 2: Gravy.
Peasant 3: Cherries.
Peasant 1: Mud.
Peasant 2: Churches.
Peasant 3: Lead! Lead!
King Arthur: A Duck.
Sir Bedevere: …Exactly. So, logically…
Peasant 1: If she weighed the same as a duck… she’s made of wood.
Sir Bedevere: And therefore…
Peasant 2: …A witch!

not to mention how much does it cost to make a determination (all the people to inspect, question, etc).

By: selise

selise — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:39:50 +0000

why should you go out and work an extra hour a day to pay for taxes that are distributed to people who are waiting at the mail box for a government check?

because if the purpose of work is to make money then i’m too stupid to bother talking with.

my answer is once again: intellectual challenge, creative expression and the feeling of accomplishment that comes from making a real contribution to other’s well being. seriously. i do object when my taxes are used for things like making war on people who never threatened us - but not to providing food, shelter etc to others.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:22:16 +0000

We all have choices in this life. If one’s is simply not going to participate in society, why should society have to support them? Also, A safety net is simply that…it implies a temporary safety mechanism. No one here should have to pay for someone (who is not impaired) who simply does not want to work for their sustenance. Anyone who cannot take care of themselves, should be cared for.

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:09:51 +0000

I have to get going, so I will leave on a positive note. I do agree with your idea of CEO pay, it has gotten way out of control, but I don’t want to see the government get involved in capping as that should be left to the shareholders. If you cap CEO’s are you going to cap sports stars or anyone else making more money than another person see’s fit?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:06:05 +0000

That’s my point, doesn’t matter if it is 3 years, or 20 years, the same cycle will persist if changes are not made to modify that behavior. Flip side, thinking of yourself, why should you go out and work an extra hour a day to pay for taxes that are distributed to people who are waiting at the mail box for a government check?

If I offended you “these people”, my sincere apologies. Political correctness is not a strong point of mine, its too hard to keep up with what is PC.

By: selise

selise — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:03:10 +0000

at the moment our problems do not include an undersupply of labor. if some people don’t want to contribute, i’d still prefer that they and their children don’t starve. would rather use social sanctions that value contributions to society than threats of starvation, etc.

By: Praedor

Praedor — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:58:34 +0000

And the alternative?

Let them die? Starve? Disappear like good losers? Out of sight, out of mind?

Does your example describe ALL people using the safety net?