> Naturally, every side sees itself as the defender of
> liberty, keeper of freedom, defender of truth. It's a given.
So you mention "sides" so where is a libertarian and what is their belief based on your comment....what do they (you?) defend?
> Sounds good but laws against theft and murder are grounded
> in the ten commandments. Libertarians will tell you those
> are valid laws because to violate them takes life, liberty
> and/or property from another. Many conservatives will tell
> you that "this is a Christian nation" and our laws should
> reflect it. Many liberals argue against legislating morality
> but what are government programs that take from one group to
> give to another but a government run charity where giving
> isn't voluntary?
I think many of us with some time know that many of our laws come from several sources including ten commandments...thats not a surprise..but you know as well as I do...that most "christians" and "fundamentalists" want their beliefs to trump all others despite all the laws and the rights laid down as part of the core beliefs of the government....ive heard the words of many regarding this type of belief and unfortunately if you listen to some of these "christians" or ask them do people who do not share their beliefs really have any say here or in life..the answer would be no....and if we didnt have rules like we have guaranteeing religions freedom...no telling what these people would do...
My basic problem with religion is that many religions feel that there is no co-existance period....you know this so i wont rehash it...but government should not cater to any religion....christians (as of late - if you listen to Tony Perkins, Falwell, Richard Land...and others...mostly southern baptists so far) keep saying that the USA should be run their way and by their beliefs..well government caters to all ...all have the freedom to worship and all should live under the same laws...no exceptions for christians....or buddists....no religion gets the advantage...if you follow what was intended...and reasonably interpret it
Throughout your post, you mention about government programs that take from one group and give to another....do you believe social security (which is no wealth transfer program) and welfare/medicare (which are safety net programs) are a transfer of wealth...well the government now has programs that marginally address some of the issues for the poor....i would hope that a reasonable person would agree that these programs are not perfect but that there does need to be a way to have some protection for the poor, sick, etc... Yes, there has been fraud and abuse...but there is abuse in defense..there is abuse in the treasury..etc..
Reform is always needed but that should the focus...any one i think would agree that taking care of fellow Americans is a good thing...or are you leaning in the Ayn Rand direction...... I think its nuts when you call these plans "entitlements"...its just right to try to attend to the needs of all Americans not just the rich...or the "haves". I hope you arent one of those types who think that non-whites are the only ones who are using government services and that does not fuel your "transfer of wealth" belief. Im counting on you to be a reasonable type..but i do hear that and if you check some of the conservative sites ...you would be shocked at how people blame non-whites for welfare/medicare issues...
You complain about taxes and distribution of wealth, but dont (maybe?) blink when Bush gives 5.6 trillion to 1% of the population...thats not wealth redistribution. You complain about Social Security....while 100% of your salary is taxed (@6%) up to 90,000 while those who make millions more dont pay 1 cent more. I always find it crazy that when lifting the cap is mentioned...this Administration says its a tax increase. 99% of America wouldn't be affected by raising the cap because most americans don't make 90,000 and raising the cap fixes social security without cutting any benefits for anyone...and people continue to pay in as before and businesses still kick in 6% too. You don't blink when its proven that the Estate Tax affects only the 1% ...while bush claims it hurts farmers....and regular people....most people dont even have the $$$$ to be affected....
Raising cap => http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05060/464453.stm
(BTW: Pittsburgh post is very conservative paper - not the "liberal media" conservatives and (some) libertarian people claim)
Annenberg Center => http://www.factcheck.org/article328.html
(Annenberg Center is non-partisan)
NY times => (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0B1EFC3E590C738DDDAE0894DD404482
(if you register for free account you can read older articles)
> I oppose abortion on the same grounds that I do murder and
> capital punishment but a detailed response would be too
Abortion has been debated to death ..i wont say we agree...but we can leave it there...i think we have an idea about each others ideas now..
> Some people think it's fine. Some not. But either way, I
> don't think there is a government role to play. The
> libertarian acid test is: Is it infringing on someone else's
> life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? Gay marriage is not.
I don't think the government should ever try to legislate marriage...and i agree that life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness is not infringing....
> Well.. I don't know that I'd agree that marriage as an
> institution is in good shape. What's risible is to blame it
> on gay marriage. We don't HAVE gay marriage for the most
> part and out-of-wedlock births are 30% of all births. The
> Britney Spears of the world are doing far more damage as far
> as setting a bad example.
I wish more people would see it...cause that is the truth..marriage has its own issues that Gay Marriage isnt causing ...lol
> I tend to avoid the word because it is inflammatory (a
> counterproductive ingredient in serious political
> discussion). However, I think you can see the grounding in
> the definition(s)of socialism. Of course, the govenrment can manage and provide healthcare without "owning the means of its production" so it's a lazy argument.
Most people don't know exactly what socialism is....again i accept your reasonable look at the issue...again conservatives spew this a lot...and its just not true....(spew is correct...again watch some of the conservative articles or google....)
I oppose it but again, unless you want to wade through three pages of text, I'll move on. (Hint: It's an economic argument, not a social or moral argument.)
We disagree but don't need to "wade" as you state - i think its a little of both...but I will say its shameful that most countries don't have many of the problems we have re:healthcare or they have some answers that we choose not to even investigate.....its also a greed issue...ill add that one in as well..
> Frankly, when you use words like "parrot" you fall into the
> trap of trying to win an argument through sarcasm, ridicule
> and putdown. I'm not immune to the problem myself but it is
> a trap I try to avoid.
I enjoy having discussions but lets not get into a delivery issue...lets just skip this one...i dont think i have to respond to that....
> Interesting. I hadn't read that. I'll have to research it.
A press release covering the issue belowhttp://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/press/108nr17.htm
> That's not a liberal versus conservative issue. Pat Buchanan
> is one of the biggest foes of NAFTA and CAFTA. I'm for them
> (economic theory again) but allowing China to buy our oil
> companies might well be a national security problem.
Buchanan (yes i agree with him) as well as Perot in the 90's...Bush and Clinton were wrong about these plans....i think its nuts that we have no manufacuring facilities any more (or a devastating reduction) and we don't have fair trade...things would be right if China, India, etc...were forced to deal the way the US and other countries deal with its labor force.....pay, working condition,etc.....its not right
> I won't comment extensively. Let's just say I see my opinion
> to the contrary as incontrovertible.
Not trying to change you but i disagree
> I agree that Republicans have done a 180 in the last twenty
> years on deficits.
> And where Clinton was an ineffective liberal (no national
> health care. Gave in to welfare reform) Bush is an effective
> politician of mixed (unknown?) political orientation. Under
> him Education outlays increased from $36 billion to $61
> billion in just the last three years.
Your comments about Clinton versus Bush belie one important things...Bush has had a much easier path to getting his legislation through...except for the limited time Dems controlled the senate....Bush has had both houses...and still is not the best at getting bills in and out....all these guys did was pass tax cuts ....NO child left behind isnt funded....there are a littany of bills that had to be pushed into "Ommibus" bills because of the lack of still in getting legislation passed....you may need to rethink that comment....this has not been a good 5 years of legislation......check out CQ.
> No need to counter an argument I have not even advanced!
> This was a war of Bush's choosing. I reservedly support it
> because decisions have to be made with imperfect
> information. I believe it was the right position but I don't
> know it. I think we agree that indecision is deadlly and now
> that we are there, we must see it through
I accept your view and state again..that i think the evidence is mounting on how we got there....
> I would agree that it is a "mess" except that I've come to
> realize all wars are messy and chaotic. It appears to me
> that the democratization of Iraq is proceeding better than
> that of Germany after WWII.
apples and oranges......but was interesting take on it
> I love science and technology too. And I agree that only
> government can effectively manage the environment. I view
> with disdain the certainty on this issue of Rush Limbaugh
> "It's not possible for us to destroy the ozone" as well as
> those on the other side who seek to dismiss opponents as
> ignorant rather thad admit uncertainty. Scientists are, as a
> group, willing to turn on a dime when proven wrong. Steven
> Hawking made a bet in 1991 backing his own black hole
> theory. "After supercomputer simulations by M. Choptuik
> showed how a naked singularity could exist, Hawking was
> forced to concede the bet." Can you even imagine a
> politician making such a concession?
on the chiotuik/hawking bet....nahh never...thats the problem...no one is ever wrong....great analogy