I was reading my daily periodicals (NY Times, Wall Street, Fox News etc) and was thinking of how we could have gotten to where we are today. As I grew up I was instilled with the philosophy, correctly I might add, that the government representatives in the United States were our (the voters) employees.
When did it change? How have we gotten so complacent that we ALLOW these bureaucratic egotistical boobs to run our lives instead of doing the job we've sent them there to do? - Have we sent them there to bicker and argue and refuse to compromise on anything so that nothing at all gets accomplished? - I sincerely pray that is not the reason you sent them there because it surely is not mine. I believe that the entire United States Congress both the House and Senate, Republicans and Democrats alike are behaving like 3 year olds at our expense.
Why do you vote? - How do you make up your mind on who you will vote for? - I'm truly curious. I am even more curious about what it will take in your mind to vote every last one of them out. I truly believe that will be what it takes to convince the establishment that we have had enough.
It is my belief that we must force politicians to take a stand on an issue during their term in office. We must allow all bills presented to reach the floor for a vote, all appointees must get a vote squarely yes or no - and if we don't like what our representative did as he or she represented us it is our duty as citizens to vote them out. Why do you vote? Help me understand
May 31, 2005
America Has Changed - Now We Work For Them
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
PA-My reason for voting is quite a simple one-It is my one true voice in what is happening in both my State and Country. Unfortunately not all feel as I do, but there is no shortage of bitching when something goes wrong. I remember an interview on 60 Minutes some years ago. Mike Wallace was interviewing G. Gordon Liddy and he had asked him what advice he would give to young people who were thinking about getting involved in politics or not getting involved as the case may be. Liddy said: "If you don't like the way things are in Washington, get off your butts and come down and do something about it. Don't just sit on the curb and complain about it." His language was somewhat more graphic, but I think that spoke volumes. We have gotten too complacient and indifferent about what is going on in our country today, and that explains much for the situation we find ourselves in at this time in our history. We should all take our responsibility of voting more seriously, and also we should let our elected officials know just where we stand on the various issues of our day. This is the only way we will ever begin to take back our country from the "bureaucratic, egotistical boobs," that are running it now.
You liked that eloquent choice of words Did you? :)
Of course--Great minds think alike, don't you know!
I believe that this Blog is one example of how we've gotten here. Take just today for instance. There are any number of topics here to comment on and in the past two hours alone we have had 30 unique visitors and not one of them took the time to express their opinion on any of them! Not one word -
I've taken notice to that. Maybe one thought is that most will not comment unless they can sling mud. Your thoughts?
Perhaps any potential responders have seen how any who disagree with you or hold a different interpretation on an issue are berated for their "ignorance" of political issues and the bible.
I'm surprised that with the wisdom that you two have, that you both are not running the country together. The rest of us plebes could just bask in the light and ask no question.
And a note to pa-conservative, I noticed you are very enamored with Rick Santorum. I wonder how you respond to his efforts to stick the taxpayer for the cost of his children's education. Perhaps if we are looking for integrity, we need to look more to a candidate's verifiable ACTIONS, rather than his or her verbal claims of a particular philosophy. Maybe that would save us from another Bill Clinton.
First off Anon raises some intresting points. I am interested on how David and P.A. will repond. Especially P.A.
I think Anon raises a point that I find a problem to be with a lot Catholic , if not all christian, voters. Some Catholics, even more so in the North East, tend to vote for canidates because they're Catholic and talk a good talk. But they don't walk the walk. I don't know much about PA local politics, just what I read on here and affiliated sites.
Now that that's out of the way onto the original post.
First, "When did it all change?". I believed it all changed in the 60's with the hippy movement. That's when it became okay to not have morals, betray ones country, be on both sides of the fence of any issue ect.
Secondly, Why do you vote/". Well I think I can sum it up with a quote from an old co-worker, "The democrats and the republicans are taking us to the same place. The republicans arre just taking us there slower." So I vote to go down the drain just a little bit slower. Hopefully someone can come and save us before we are fully flushed.
From another anonymous visitor:
To Pa and Bowie: I am one of the 30 visitors (new) that you took a cheap jab at. Maybe people don't choose to respond to you because of your smug and dismissive style.
To Annymous 1 -
You've hit the nail on the head about the integrity here. In response to voting along religious lines, there is an inherent danger there. Many a hidden agenda has been concealed behind the veil of the Church. It pays to keep your eyes open as well as your ears.
Well let me first take a moment to make an observation to anonymous. It is curious that we have not had one commentor take a negative tone with us without provocation since my posting of 5/11. No commentator here or replier has provoked you in any way so why the harshness:
"Perhaps any potential responders have seen how any who disagree with you or hold a different interpretation on an issue are berated for their "ignorance" of political issues and the bible."
This was addressed in my open posting on May 11th and I will not rehash it again.
I will however also offer up the observation that I removed the restriction on anonymous posting as well yesterday...which I see you've made use of. Isn't it interesting how confident you are now.
We are all in our right to hold strong positions on issues. And as I've said over and over, we should and must be willing to DISCUSS the issues as rational adults. However, an intelligent debate does not include berating or demeaning the person, only voicing the difference in the position.
Thank you for your comments...maybe you could reply with the reasoning you use to make your decision on your vote.
On to Rick Santorum - It is true that I am a fan of Rick Santorum - I make no argument there. Mr. Santorum has been a model conservative Senator who has voted to my approval against Partial Birth Abortion, for Anti-Abortion legislation, for bills intended to reduce taxes, the size of government, to allow States more control, has voted to confirm conservative judges at all levels.
I feel he has done an excellent job in the Senate.
The situation of his children and their school is not new and is not unique to Senator Santorum. Many politicians obtain real estate in the areas best suited for their work. If...there is a legality he should, must pay the school district their rightful taxes no question.
Shaft,
If you read any of my commentary at all you will find that I am not such a Catholic. Firstly there are very few 'Catholic' politicians that make that fact a focal point in their campaigns. So to say that Catholics vote for catholics doesn't resonate.
It is true that Christians et al do vote conservatively though. Most rely on two issues, taxes and abortion. My advice to officials in general - take the abortion fight back to the States and let them fight it out...that will allow our federal officials the chance to debate issues genuinely without the issue clouding almost every confirmation, vote, or floor debate.
I also think you nailed the "When did it change" question exactly. It does seem that this generation (the boomers) caused us alot of grief from morality to Social Security :)
Anonymous 2 - Where was the Cheap jab? - I was simply making an observation... - That this was a deliberate slap in the face is stretching it a bit... relax
From Annonymous 2 - OK, then. Maybe not a jab but more like taunt.
The intent was more an effort at thought provoking than anything else. :) - A "lets get dialoging" if you will....
I think alot of Catholics in the North East do vote simply because the canidate is catholic. I think this is how the Kennedy's have stayed in office so long. I think this is where Kerry got alot of his support. Not voting based on issues, or even going with views of the Church, but based on what faith that person is.
I would also like to see politicians held more responsable for where they spend tax payers money. Like the mayor of Detroit. The city is just about in recievership and every week we find the mayor has spent more money on himself that could've meant another year or two of someone working. I also hate to see so called politicians who claim to be all about the public school system, and not support vouvher system, then send thier kids to a private school.
On a side note: I do think the 2 Anon are reading to much into your words. Also, the should grow a spine a post with a name. I think it's kind of cowardly to post anon.
Anonymous 1 - The only thing that will save us from another (hillary) Bill Clinton is the ability of the Republican Party to find a justifiable and strong candidate to carry the torch in 2008. Short of that - it is going to be a cold winter...
from a 3rd anon.
pa-conserv, most,if not all of the "cheap jabs" were prior to your "open posting" notice. The problem is that a "confession" does not absolve you from all sins. I feel your site has certainly cleaned up it's act since then and is better for it.
You an Mr. Bowie are still very arrogant in your attitude and oppinions. This is your forum and you are certainly utilizing it to stroke each other's ego's and whatever else....
We vote because it is our duty. Period. I am a registered Independent who listens to both sides of our political quagmire. The evident split in our country is the biggest problem we face today. Extreme views either on the right or left and individuals not willing to use the brain God gave them to understand "the other sides view" represent the biggest reason our government is bogged down. We as a country need to drop our exteremest positions and work together, the way society was intended.
Ut Oh Shaft... you mentioned the Voucher word....
I am a great believer in Public Education...that is why I SUPPORT School Vouchers. I believe that our children will benefit tremendously by having a school compete for them. Where do you stand on it? Just curious
P.A. lets make a rebublican liberal ticket Giuliani/McCain. I personally think the the canidate is going to be Conda Lizza Rice.
Independents, to me, are people who are to scared to take a stand.
Anon3 - Thanks I think?...
Let me just point out something..my "confession" as you call it was not intended to seek absolution for any sins...It was an observation that I too had contributed to the problem but not in any way meant to take the blame solely.
Secondly - why must it go to that level all the time? Explain that to me
"This is your forum and you are certainly utilizing it to stroke each other's ego's and whatever else...."
Can you make your point without being snitty?
Now on to your position on voting... You are very correct. Most people are exactly the way you describe. However it wasn't always this way, what turned it? It is my opinion that the abortion issue is what started it all. The Supreme Court of the United States is there to interpret whether a law goes against the constitution... not to create legislation and that is what they did and have been increasingly ever since. If you take that "Moral" question out of the picture wouldn't you agree that compromise becomes much easier on most other issues?
Ony scared of the extreme stand. It gets us nowhere. the issues our country faces are never black or white. Yes, ultimately everyone needs to pick a side. but the point is that there needs to be mor thought than God told me to etc...
Shaft - I don't take anything away from an Independent...If I can't buy into a political partys platform completely then why should I be lumped in with them?
A Guiliani/McCain ticket scares the living shit out of me... Might as well be a Kerry/McCain ticket
What's extreme about believing that Life starts at conception and that killing that life is wrong? It isn't solely wrong because God says it is... it is wrong because its wrong to kill an innocent life before it has a chance to do any good at all in the world. - if that's extreme then so be it but that's on of the main reasons why I vote conservative
Can you tell me another view you think is extreme?
I am glad you brought up agin the abortion issue. this is a perfect example of why "black & white" does not work.
Anti abortion vs pro choice
given those options I am "pro choice" Why? I am not pro abortion. I feel that individuals who use abortion as a regular choice for birth control are absolutely unethical individuals. But should a woman have that choice. Yes she should.
How do you know that just one of those tiny babies didn't know the sole reason cancer happens and we as a society allowed them to be killed....
Why? Why should she choose?
the example over and over is. What if your daughter was raped and got pregnant? It is overused but certainly valid. Would you want your daughter to be saddled with some sick nutbag's child for the rest of her life? A constant reminder of the damage some maniac caused? She should be able to at least have that option. shouldn't she?
So I guess the question is what about the circumstances? Are they critical and should they be considered? Why should it be black or white?
She has the choice to use condom, pill, or any of the 10's of other birth control methods there are out there.... and most of which she has the choice to not take the chance of getting pregnant at all by not having sex - those are perfectly reasonable choices that she does have....
ONCE there is life there - that's where the choice ends.
If she is raped and is pregnant by no choice at all of her own then you have me. I'm not sure how I feel about what the reasonable methods should be in that case..
First off, I don't believe there are independents. I think people who call them selves independent are A) to scared to stand up for thier views or B) Want to look like they've thought things through and they're the more inteligent ones.
Secondly, I'll give you three reasons why abortion should be illegal.
A) it's immoral and goes against the basic fabric of life.
B) Constitutionally we are guaranteed the the right to Life, Liberty and the Persuit of Happiness. Abortion takes away your right to life.
C)It goes against equal rights acts. If a woman has the choice to have the child, then the man should also. But he doesn't. If the woman chooses not to have the child then alls well that ends well. But if she chooses to have it then the man must pay child support. He has no choice.
But the rape issue is an extenuating circumstance is it not...can't we all come to an agreement that otherwise "abotion-on-demand" for no medical or criminal reason should be illegal?
Shaft - brings to light some very good arguments as well...
I don't know the potential of a fetus. Nobody does. But I do believe that, much of the abilities of a child are based upon "nurture" not nature.
If the child is unwanted he or she will be neglected, abused or worse. Never reaching their potential. potential and achievment are not a direct relation. The potential must be developed and encouraged. an unwanted child has a very good chance of never telling us why cancer occurs...
An unwanted baby could always be put up for adoption. I know I will be trying to adopt in the next year or two.
Shaft's points are valid, and represent the reason I am not pro-abortion. I still fell strongly that a woman should have the choice.
Regarding the contraception issue. You are catholic? I could be wrong, but when I was being raised catholic they preached that birth controll of any form was frowned upon. I've been away from the church for a time now, has that position changed?
I'm sorry anon but that argument is flawed in so many areas.A
Over and over and over socialist liberals have been telling us that our school systems need money so they can improve the quality of life in our students because their parents cannot provide emotionally, psychologically...
It has been proven in sociological studies that you CAN successfully take a child out of a bad situation and improve their life by providing quality role models and environments.
We are now debating what we do to assist and help unaborted children who are products of rape or insest correct? - Fine - That is a debate that we can all agree on - as long as we do something for them.
Fine....Lets agree that in all other cases the procedure should be illegal and then move to the exceptions to the rule....
The problem with adoption here in the states is that the birth mother is entitled to many "post decision" rights. You could provide a home for that child that is wonderful and nurturing only to have the birth mother come in years later and tear your family appart.
The US adoption laws are a certainly to liberal, to protect the generous families who wish to provide good homes.
thanks for the time everybody. Gotta get back to the J.O.B. Good afternoon to you all.
As far as I'm concerned if I am going to stand before my God and attest for my actions..
I believe that my actions in preventing a child from being killed by never allowing that life to be conceived in the first place, is a much better pro-choice position
Thanks Anon -
Get a logon and come back so we know who we're talking too :) .... Take care
Shaft - Anon also has a good point albiet off subject a bit - the laws in the US are very pro-biological parent. It would be difficult if not impossible to structure an adoption law that wouldn't take biology into account...
Clean slate....
TO ALL "ANON" commenters: I am quite frankly amazed at the hostility in your tone, since this is obviously your first experience with this site. But let's set the record straight, I have never taken a jab or taunted any person because they have disagreed with any commentary I have posted to this site. My statement that persons are free to comment or not comment was not intented to be berating to anyone, it was a simple statement of fact, and I reiterate that position. As to the comment of being "enamoured" with Rick Santorum, I'm not sure that is a proper choice of words, however I do highly respect his strong moral and conservative stand on major issues facing this country.
From my obswervations those who have shown berating and demeaning attitudes have been demonstrated by those who obviously do not like the direct approach that PA and I take when dealing with tough issues. Again, like it or not, you are free to comment or not as you see fit. As I said in MY open posting, I make no apologies for my Christian Faith, nor do I apologize for my Conservative Political thinking. Enough said!
I would much prefer we change laws regarding adoption. I think we actually need to make it easier to adopt. Then allow countless innocent victims go on being murdered under current abortion laws.
Agreed.. Thanks for your input on the discussion - It was definitely not a waste of time.
The independent thing we disagree on though...:) but I understand your position. I frankly would much rather see No political parties per sa. The political parties in this country have aided tremendously in the corruption of the government
I finally found common ground with pa--voting for a conservative leader who lowers taxes! Another reason I wanted to give W. a second term is his position on changing the qualifications for filing Chapter 11 bankruptcy. As I'm sure both pa and Mr. Bowie agree, the past ease of filing amounted to nothing more than another government welfare program. While my family struggled to save and spend our money with restraint, others were running up credit card debt, and expected the rest of us to foot the bill because they showed no restraint. I have little sympathy for those who can't say no to the latest big screen TV, but cry foul when those they owe money to dare to attempt to collect what is owed. We should not have to foot the bill for such losers, nor should we prevent collection agencies from seizing assets such as equity in a home. The only exceptions should be for those who face catastrophic illness or loss of employment--not those who can't control credit card spending.
Special note to shafter: perhaps an independent is one who can vote along the conservative lines usually attributed to republicans, but still embrace the wonderful valor of risk-taking democrats like Zell Miller. Maybe it's a desire not to be pigeonholed, and a recognition that no one group has all the right answers every time.
To Anonymous: As one who has been down the Chapter 7 road, I can tell you first hand that when you are young, as we all were at one time, we make bad decisions, and it does not take a long time before you are in big trouble. I KNOW I'VE BEEN THERE AND IT'S NOT A PRETTY SIGHT! However, this does not excuse being irresponsible with one's financial resources. Those who run up extreme amounts of credit card debt simply because they can make it more difficult for the responsible folks to get the credit they need. The folks in the former category should not be allowed to simply "wipe out" all that debt with the mere stroke of a pen. Looking at this from a Christian perspective, it is a matter of stewardship, because it's through the Grace of God that we have the resources we do and we must handle them with care. Your thoughts on this, please.
Annonymous Recent: Since there's no way to know if you are a prior Annonymous or not (registering a username is painless :))
I have been chastised on many occasions on this blog for lumping all peoples together..and for not being "open minded" enough to show compassion. I would like to point out that there are any number of reasons that people get into debt. Some start businesses that do not thrive, some are looking to provide education for their children, and yes some for medical expenses (especially when no insurance exists). I do not dispute that there are those who "Screw" the system and simply rack up huge debt only to file for relief, however to classify them all with a broadstroke brush is unfair. (p.s. Pat you'll get your freek'n money)
Cindy... a "stinker", I think we can come up with a few more choice descriptions for what your husband did. However, while in the end mass bankruptcy does effect the consumer (taxpayer), it more immediately effects the credit card companies who are charging 18-22 percent for these cards. I frankly don't feel real sorrow for them considering they are raking in 3 times as much in interest than they are losing through bkrcy
Mr. Bowie,
You were interested in my thoughts on stewardship. As a Christian, I hope all of my decisions are guided by faith. Part of growing up is realizing that there are consequences for actions. The ability to "bail-out" on debts is a prime example of poor stewardship, and a hole I fear that too many young people fall into. It should not excuse responsibiliy for that debt. Unfortunately, the recognition that today's parents are more likely to defend deficits in their own kids, instead of making them take responsibility for bad choices, only exacerbates the problem.
For Cindy--you're better off burning that bridge--you deserve better. As for stewardship in this case, I'll keep the boobs that the good Lord gave me:)
Same anonymous:
To pa--as someone involved in both a failed business and one finally showing return, I can feel anyone's pain. But I still take responsibility for those losses. The only pain I inflicted in these endeavors was self-inflicted pain--no animals or other people were injured or financially impacted in these efforts.
Same anonymous again: Pa--I feel no sympathy for the credit card companies and their profit margin, but that is a fallacious argument. You can't justify bad behavior (not taking responsibility for personal debt) by pointing to other bad behavior as being worse (credit card companies gouging consumers). It all comes down to MY responsibility. And the credit card companies recoup by further leeching on other consumers for MY MISTAKES. It's an ugly, vicious circle that originates with personal irresponsibility.
Anon, I think P.A. was pointing out that Credit card company's, much as drug company's, Take advantage of people in the most need. How does it help to jump someone's intrest rate from 5% to 22% because they are having trouble. Making someones payment more doesn't seem logical. The drug company's do this by charging an outragious prise for drugs to people who can't afford insurance. These company's are basically raping people that can't defend themselves. Now I agree if someone goes out and buys a bunch of fancy things then cant pay, there is no reason to let them off scott free. But what about the person who can't afford health insurance, and needs surgery after surgery becuase of health problems they couldn't avoid? Then they're sitting there with $30,000 in debt. It wasn't there fault this happened.
I am glad i heeded the advice of my 6th grade teacher to never get a credit card. If Ican't pay for it in caswh I don't get it. It's screwed me up in some instances has not having the credit to buy certain things you can only buy on credit. But at least I'm not in crazy debt.
TO an earlier Anon:
Zell Miller is democrat by name only. Hey P.A. how about Zell Miller runing for president in 2008. Another Ronald Reagan?
Duke'45 says: I'd like to know the percentage of people with legitimate illness/health insurance issues compared to those who cannot wait for things and must have them NOW instead of actually EARNING them.I would bet the percentqge is VERY low
Shaft, an interesting thought but my knee jerk reaction is that I don't believe he'd garner enough support from either base. He'd need that to offset the extreme left and right that would be against him. I have to admit, I know only as much about Miller as has been seen in mainstream publication - don't know his specific views on issues. - I will however look :)
Annon - On the bankruptcy problems being solely the individual's responsibility I disagree and I'll futher Shaft's argument that many companies on the first sign of any trouble a person has - stick it to them for hundreds in fees and increase their interest rate so there is virtually no hope of recovery.
Duke - Just to clarify - you think the number of non-health/insurance bankrcy would be low or that of those slurging?
P.A. you should read up on Miller. He's got some great views. I recomend his book "Corps Values: Everything You Need to Know I Learned in the Marines".
To Anonymous: You used two very critical words--responsibility and consequences, unfortunately the majority of young people today do not have any conception of those words. I am pleased to hear that your faith in the Lord guides your financial decisions. It is my prayer for you that the Lord will continue to bless you and your family, and that you will always seek His guidance in all your decisions.
I have always felt that the ability to file a bankruptcy was always an "option" if a family fell victim to unforseen circumstances, such as a major illness/injury or job loss, but it should not be used as a way of escaping one's responsibilities because of irresponsible or frivilous decisions. Thanks for your input.
Duke'45replies to pa.:
I am saying that the percentage of boodsuckers would be very high in comparison to those who have fallen on hard times.
Bloodsuckers? - Isn't that a bit harsh
Duke'45 says: Anyone who expects someone else to pay for their overindulgences can be called bloodsuckers.
So Duke - everyone who files bankruptcy for reasons other than health or insurance is a bloodsucker? - Just want to make sure its clear what you're saying...
Duke says:Yes and that includes business failures. If they don't plan on sharing their profits if business is good, I don't think we are responsible to cover their losses if they go under.
But Duke helping those in need, for whatever reason,is what makes this country great. To quote Garth Brooks, "we don't reach for handouts, we reach for those that are down". You would hope people wouldn't take advantage of the system, I know they do, but that doesn't mean you take the help away. Because if you do, the legitimate people who need help would be lost.
OK - You're entitled to your opinion, I disagree with your assessment of bunching all as bloodsuckers (I'm sure there are some who would be offended by that over-simplification) but nonetheless its your position.
Anyone else? - We've wandered well off the topic of why we vote for a particular party or person so maybe we can go back and revisit that subject
Shaft - Your point is well made. I agree
Post a Comment