Inaugeration

[Wingnut]

Sorry that I offended you Glenn ... certainly didn't mean to offend anyone ... just a proud user of freedom - freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of religion and freedom (eventually) to own and responsibly use firearms.
I hope it's not me that you're referring to as union-bashing. If you'll re-read my missive, you'll see that I think that any rules should apply to everyone and that unions should not be exempt from the rules of politics that others are subject to. My argument is that union funds are being used for attack ads (especially here in Michigan) and therefore should be under the same scrutiny as those for corporation running ads.
I don't think the Republicans have united the country ... nor have the Democrats divided the country ... the country seems in fine shape to me ... especially when you compare it to any other. But ... should that stop us from trying to improve?

pete
Kuboto owner, wannabe US citizen and taxpayer (for which I get no thanks nor benefits)

too bad that common sense ain't

 

[TWINKLE_TOES]

No more phone calls folks we have a winner./w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

I'm still rolling on the floor Bird.

Al

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Wingnut,

Speaking for myself, I have found nothing offensive in your comments. /w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif Your thoughts seem a reasonable-enough statement of your perspective on things.

I wish you the best with your efforts to gain citizenship, and I agree with you completely on the even-application of ANY laws, political or other.
Permit me to segue from that statement to one expressing a pet-peeve of MINE.

Let's say I believe that God is a frog. You believe God is a rainbow.
I happen to carry my belief quietly and privately, assuming that The Frog Spirit moves the hearts of individuals in It's own good time.

You Rainbow people think The Rainbow Spirit needs your help, and so gather in large groups to better influence others to help-you "help", ... and naturally, this gathering won't fit in your house, so you build a "bigger house" to accomodate them. And then of course, they need a place to park their cars. So it seems "right" to obtain more land for a parking lot.

I think you can see where I am going with this train of thought.... I don't think that "freedom" of religion means "subsidizing" or "favoring" of religion. The fact that you hold certain "beliefs"(let's remember that this is what religion consists of) which differ from those held by your neighbor (and fellow CITIZEN) should not free you from obligations with which he is saddled. I refer, of course, to "belief-based" property-tax exemptions. If a "church" imagines itself to be gathering-in-numbers to do "good work", then I suggest that such work could begin with the paying of the same proportion of the community-operating-expenses (taxes) as is paid by all other citizens. Otherwise( and sadly "otherwise" is the norm), other-believers subsidize the activities of the "church" members, in that the not-paid-for-tax money is available for the "churches" chosen purposes. The "unpaid" tax is of course no-such-thing. It is "paid" alright, out of the pockets of the other citizens.

That such an inequity can be accepted by a people who claim "fairness" as an ideal is interesting, to say the least. And that a government professing to treat it's citizens "equally-under-the-law" will "enforce" this favored/unfavored distinction, based solely on the thoughts people have in their heads, is beyond me. /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif

This very-real discrimination against those among us who have not aligned themselves with a "recognized religion" has money-out-of-your-pocket (food-out-of-your-kid's-mouth?) consequences.... and yet receives less vocal objection than a manger-scene on the courthouse lawn.

And so, with my usual subtlety, I cast my vote solidly with the "separation of church and state" camp. Believe whatever you choose....but don't ask the rest of us to pay you for believing it. And if you are so convinced that believing that the-earth-is-flat(or whatever) makes you worthy of "privileged" status, I expect the U.S. Government (of ALL governments!) to disabuse you of such a notion... in the interest of "justice for all". ( It seems we're back to "subspecies" of Americans,.... Frog-Americans and Rainbow-Americans. We shouldn't acknowledge these distinctions when discussing citizenship. We are simply Americans. And all Americans should pay their fair share of any taxes. That is the COUNTRY'S "business". The thoughts anyone has concerning any religion is THEIR OWN business. There is a difference. It should be kept that way. /w3tcompact/icons/mad.gif

This little tirade, appropriate, I hope, since we seem to be discussing inequity in the Government's treatment of it's citizens, is meant to support the basic tenet "question authority". For it is with "authority" that power resides. And "power corrupts", almost(sadly) without exception.

Obviously, I don't believe that a good citizen is a "quiet' citizen.

Wingnut, ...about "making it better": Absolutely!!
One of the most asinine reponses to constructive criticism ever to become popular in this country (70's anyone?) was "Love it or leave it!". How much better to love it enough to try to make it better. I think we're back to blind obedience again. Blindness serves no one, I think,...and I prefer deserved-cooperation to obedience.

Hey... sometimes the emporor is NAKED! And our best-of-the-lot-in-many-ways country is not perfect. I hope "political-correctness" never succeeds in closing the mouths that speak for the continued pursuit of ideals, and which offer "course-corrections" as they believe them necessary. /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

I'll close (finally) with some remarks resposive to your "union" postscript:
I think there is a very fundamental and inescapably-adversarial conflict of interest in the business-owner/workforce rtelationship.
The owner "wins" to the degree that he pays the workforce less (in simplistic terms). The workforce "wins" if they are paid more. There is a balance of power, in the ideal scenario, that results in a satisfactory "compromise" between these conflicting interests. The owners "power" lies in his control of the keys to the factory gate, ...in whether or not the worker has access to the means to provide for his family... the owner "permits" work.

The worker's power lies in the ability to "refuse" to do the work the owner requires,... unless the means-of-providing for the family are the reward. This power is completely negated if another (more desperate? or less needy?) is willing to work for less. This dog-eat-dog "sustenance" struggle offers no hope of a "decent" standard of living for the "working class" (the rest of the world provides ample evidence of this fact).

The workman's answer is simply to join with his fellows and "stand" united, rather than "falling", as individuals. In this "union", and ONLY in this "union", is the power-to-refuse effective.

There is no mystery here. Both sides fear the power of other. Much struggling is done to achieve the "balance" that, ideally, good will and reason should make possible. But greed and callousness are as much a part of the scene here as elsewhere, and so the "struggle" is constant,...the mauevering-for-advantage on-going.

The Democratic party is seen, rightly most workers believe, as one which is more favorable to the workers interest... the "working man's party".
The Republicans are popularly seen as the "Capitalist" or businessman's party.

This distinction... real or imagined, makes the "union" choice an obvious (to them) one. To help the owner ( with union-busting legislation) is to hurt the worker. And to help the unions (with favorable legislation) diminishes the relative power of the owner. One can not have it both ways.

If one party is seen as being the best hope of a given body of citizens, it should be no surprise that they will will give what support they can to that party. This means MONEY, when reduced to the essence. And so, the union members(taken as a group) give their money to the Democrats.

And likewise, the "capitalists" (again, taken as a group) support their "champion" party, the Republicans.

In relatively-good times, when the wolf is not "at the door", the lines are less well-defined. The "threat" from "them" seems lessened,...and other issues may move to positions of "priority" in voters' minds. And thus such things as the 2nd Amendment (for example) may seem more at risk than the family income, and "party-lines" may be crossed to go to it's defense. It doesn't surprise me that a "starving" man may feel unable to afford-the-luxury of voting "principle-above-self-interest". With that in mind, I am glad relatively few are "starving" in this land. Being well-fed myself, I voted for Bush (who I really don't want for president)instead of Gore ( whom I really don't want for president either), because I view an armed citizenry as THE fundamental guaratee of all other freedoms. It isn't about target-shooting. It isn't about hunting. it's about the fact that the government of a powerless people will allow them only the freedom IT wishes them to have (usually not-much), rather than the freedom the PEOPLE wish to have. It really is just that simple. If that one right is lost, all the rest can be TAKEN!

In any case (back to political-contributions), when looking at the whole picture, I find it no-more-difficult to understand/accept large political contributions by the "unions" to the Democrats, than to understand/accept large contributions by "businessmen" to the Republicans.

Good thing the title of this forum is "off-topic", huh?!

I'm sure talking "tractors" is more fun /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif!(but I'm not sure it's more important/w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif )

I've enjoyed this thread! Interested in your opinions,
Larry

 

[cowboydoc]

Well said Pete. I'm glad that we got another opinion on the racketeering of immigration. Folks like yourself are just the people I think should be US citizens, not the freeloaders and people that want to change Amercia. They don't want you in here because you think for yourself.
Richard

 

[Anonymous Poster]

>>>We, in western Canada, always admired the melting pot theory practiced in the US and thought it was far better.<<<

Hi Wingnut,...just re-read your post. Had a thought about the melting-pot.

If something in the melting-pot doesn't melt and "blend" ...you throw it OUT, right? /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

Larry

 

[ddl]

your defination of dems and reps is an old one. The dems used to be that way, now they are onlyspecial interest groups because that is where they can get the money. Reps are changing to more local control type of control. I used to be a dem until I decided that I didn't support all the special groups such as enviromental wackos and such. MOHO
Dan L

 

[WVBill]

Larry:

I was with you 100% - until you got to
<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>

It isn't about target-shooting. It isn't about hunting. it's about the fact that the government of a powerless people will allow them only the freedom IT wishes them to have (usually not-much), rather than the freedom the PEOPLE wish to have. It really is just that simple. If that one right is lost, all the rest can be TAKEN!

<hr></blockquote>

This is the line of "reasoning" the NRA uses against efforts to control assault rifles and other such firearms. It is the same line of "reasoning" that kiddie-**** promoters use to protect their "first amendment right" to spew filth. I simply do not buy the "slippery slope" theory that if one "right" is lost the rest can be taken. Not here, not in this day and age. Maybe in a country where the populace enjoys less freedom of thought, where they simply "believe" what they're told and do not have the capacity, due to lack of exercise, to UNDERSTAND. I hold the American people in higher regard. I believe that we control our government ("of the people, by the people and for the people"). I think that Amreican citizens are far from powerless. I believe that I will continue to have the right to bear arms long, long, long after I am prohibited from bearing assault rifles and cop-killer bullets.

WVBill

 

[Knight9]

Hi Wingnut,

Re: >>>We, in western Canada, always admired the melting pot theory practiced in the US and thought it was far better.<<<

...apparently this is changing...can you believe they just started a new political party here in Alberta called the "Alberta Independence" party!!!! Looks like between the Bloc in Quebec and this new party....Canada can't seem to get together on political issues either.

Kevin

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Dan,

I agree that the definition "is an old one"/w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif. And that the lines between the parties has become blurred considerably. That is why the candidates try so hard to pont out "differences' between themselves and their opponents.

But too often when they are finally in Washington(DC), you can't tell one from the other...It is "(no)business-as-usual". So for many union members, the "old" definition is the "working" definition.... Any "new" definition has not yet "solidified" into a known-and-trusted one.

Let me re-emphasize that most of my (union or other) friends don't really like the way the system works anymore...regardless of WHO the players are.
Kow-towing to special interest groups has made the whole business of, politics a "dirty" business, and sometimes it seems that "good-guys" who won't "go-along", are quickly shut out.

Blue-collar types often believe they are the common-sense, hands-on people, who deal realistically and effectively with everyday and extraordinary problems as a-matter-of-course.This type of bull-by-the-horns style requires that straight "scoop" be the basis for decisions and acts. Few think straight scoop comes from any politician's mouth. Every pronouncement is poll-based and tailored to please everyone. Since this "can't be done", most of what they say is meaningless. It takes a hard look at their voting record to get a glimpse of what they really think or do. /w3tcompact/icons/mad.gif

But most people(with exceptions, of course) do not take the time to do this looking. The pols know this...and hope that saying the "right" thing (depending on which way the wind is blowing), in front of the "right" camera, "right" before the polls open, will turn out "right" for them.

So most people ask their friends/union officers/ etc. what "they" think ...and ,maybe with a newspaper editorial or the latest media-slant fresh in their mind, cast their vote, and hope-for-the-best.

This means that the old definitions, being long-established and familiar, even if inaccurate today, still serve. It is simply easier to fall-back on them, than to make sense of the jumble of conflicting "pitches" being made every day.

Replacing them would require CLEAR AND MEANINGFUL new ones. These will exist (if ever) when the voices of competent leaders give them clarity, and a "track record" makes them meaningful.

If it seems that I am not giving "most people" credit for caring enough to-get-involved in these matters, It would be interesting to know what percentage of TBN readers spend their time with this particular thread.
I'd guess a small number.
And there are "reasons" , besides disinterest, of course, such as lack-of-time, etc.
But these "reasons" reflect the prioritization we all do, in deciding how to invest "ourselves". And where we invest little, we can expect little return.(In case anyone wonders, I give myself very low grades here /w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif )

My own opinion is that until we re-establish "the educated citizen" as the foundation of this country's hope, we will have very little.
When our schools turn out kids who can hardly spell cat, and they-in-turn too-quickly become parents themselves; when the 2nd 0r 3rd generation of these ignorant kid-parents who have-been-taught/can-teach next-to-nothing of social responsibility or ideology proudly wear their team-jacket of some overpaid and glamourized (and too-often petty-criminal ) "sports figure" into the voting both,>>> what do we expect as a result?

I can't escape the cynical view that we may well get what we deserve, as a nation, for setting aside the obligation we have to put some-of-ourselves into respectful understanding of just what things have made this nation what it is (or at least was). /w3tcompact/icons/blush.gif (It seems that "strength" has become a bad-word. defined for us by the media as "violence" and "cruelty"... and "kinder-and-gentler" has been transformed, in practice, into "more permissive" and "apathetic".)

I think schools and parents should see that our next generations are familiar with/understand the constitution. They should also know what were the thoughts of its framers. And have an understanding of the meaning of historical documents such as the Magna Carta, and the experimental "republics" in Rome and Greece. (if you can call cultures that endured far longer than ours may , "experimental"). The idea of freedom was not "born" in the U.S.... but the highest expression of that idea had/(has?) its greatest chance to flower here.

Did anybody "cringe", reading this, at the thought of such subjects in school? /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif (...and I mean really TAUGHT, not just being given a passing-nod!) Does it not-sound like "fun"? Would kids today "like it"?
That's why we don't let kids decide what is important for them to learn. That's what parents are FOR. Kid-parent-voters who can barely spell cat are not going to take this nation anyplace but down. Shame on us if we let this happen! /w3tcompact/icons/frown.gif

So if educated citizens are the key to "straightening out" the nation's political system (and its politicians) why are we not producing them?

I don't think the answer is "Not enough money!", as the school-boards always cry. I am from the "old-school",...literally. I sat in classrooms with usually 30 or so students (too-many, they tell us today), WITHOUT every convenience/technological advance/program that could be dreamed-up to spend money on. And, by and large, we came out WITH AN EDUCATION. I will put the results of respectful students at desks with decent texts and a competent teacher up against any so-called "modern" facility with all the bells-and-whistles (and usually looking like a palace, comparatively! ).

Of course I did sneak that word "respectful" in front of "students"... so maybe I'm not being fair /w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif. And "why" they're not as respectful today is another can of worms that would best be opened another time. But safe-to-say uncontrollable kids got that way by not-being-controlled.

It takes a strong parental-will to guide a child.
It takes a strong national-will to guide a nation.
If we lack one, we won't have the other!

Larry
PS: Hope my tractor is ready soon. Maybe when I have less time-on-my-hands you guys will be spared further exposure to my infinite wisdom /w3tcompact/icons/laugh.gif

 

[ddl]

The question I have is why do you think the press likes McCains ideas of reform. If it was inacted, they would become the only voice in the election process. Some may think Dan Rather or Tom B. can tells us what to think, but I think we would really be jumping into the fire.

The election process should be harder to do and harder to vote, that way only people who educate themselves can vote. We make it much too easy and the things that happen Fla. occur.

The best reform is that the only people that can give to a canididate is those who vote. No companies, no unions what so ever. If a union or company wants to educate their people fine, but leave the cash donation alone.

Dan L