Your Vote, Your Reasons

[RandomGuy]

Very true. That's a theme I support 100%.

Heh, type in your own bit, and I will add it in an edit.

It might be an interesting topic of discussion in and of itself.

[JoeChalupa]

I support civil unions.

[Findog]

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.co...-award--5.html

"On the one hand, Barack Obama is a true wolf in sheep's clothing. On the outside, he's nice, pleasant, handsome, well-spoken, has cute little kids, dresses well, looks like someone we would all like to know. But underneath, he resembles an anti-American Marxist who believes the following: ... Murdering innocent babies - through abortion - is an inalienable "right." (I think Adolf Hitler supported this same position. That marriage should be redefined to include sexual relationships. (Inner-city poverty rates correlate with no father in the home. Imagine what it will be with no mother in the home.)... Now is the time to focus on ideology! And now is the time for everyone to vote in the candidates who support our ideology - at all levels of government," - Walker Johanson, Washington Times.

[RandomGuy]

My wife is in a Union. It DOES NOT exist to give the employees power; it exists to give the union leaders power. She is far more beholden to them than she ever has been to an actual employer; however, this thread has been hijacked enough, that's enough for that subject; I'll start a thread when the law comes up early next year.

That is the problem with unions. It is, however, a problem that can be overcome.

Given the chance to resturcture a union, how would you build one that was more representative of workers interests?

[RandomGuy]

Might have mislabeled, but the gyst of your post suggested to me that you were voting against radicalness (Republican - McCain), and FOR Moderation (Democrat - Obama). Obama's lifetime voting record is more outside the mainstream of US citizens than that of McCain - not even close. Their platforms, frankly, are within a whisker of each other. Obama has some new en lements that McCain doesn't - but tax rates are w/in 3% at every income level.

As I said, if Obama ACTUALLY governs as his platform says he will; we'll be alright. Frankly, however, that will make him far more moderate than he has ever actually been.

I would like to think he is more of a centrist than you seem to believe.

Hmm. I guess we will get to find out.

I am a pragmatist at heart. I am for what works, and a lot of things seem to be broken to me now.

[Tully365]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

[RandomGuy]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

Yup. Things are getting a bit hysterical.

Hopefully we as a nation will take a giant chill pill, and find some civility somewhere.

[LnGrrrR]

Might have mislabeled, but the gyst of your post suggested to me that you were voting against radicalness (Republican - McCain), and FOR Moderation (Democrat - Obama). Obama's lifetime voting record is more outside the mainstream of US citizens than that of McCain - not even close. Their platforms, frankly, are within a whisker of each other. Obama has some new en lements that McCain doesn't - but tax rates are w/in 3% at every income level.

As I said, if Obama ACTUALLY governs as his platform says he will; we'll be alright. Frankly, however, that will make him far more moderate than he has ever actually been.

Yeah, we totally see how non-radical McCain would be by picking Palin. How'd that ditty go? Bomb bomb Iran?

[nkdlunch]

But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man."

I don't think the media portrayed this at all. At least not the media I been watching. CNN,ABC,CBS,NBC

[JoeChalupa]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

I concur.

[101A]

That is the problem with unions. It is, however, a problem that can be overcome.

Given the chance to resturcture a union, how would you build one that was more representative of workers interests?

Good question, and one I am not versed enough to answer. My wife's experience in hers (she's a professor, it is a union of professors of all things), is the extent of MY experience. I lived in Texas until 3 years ago, and that is still where I have my job; will have to study on the subject. Have to learn more about the law I've been ranting on, as well; somebody in the thread has already taught me something about it.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

Let's be fair. First of all Joe asked Obama a question based on a lie and specifically designed to put forth a worst-case scenerio of Obama's proposed policy. Obama answered him honestly and Joe has every right to ask Obama any question he wants - based on lie or not. And the incident could have ended there as an interesting footnote.

McCain then made Joe a household name and the press vetted him. Joe has held more press conferences than Palin.

I get you, but Joe's situation is largely of his own and McCain's making. How was the press supposed to give attention to McCain's soundbites without vetting?

[timvp]

Damn, every time I want to respond to something I refresh the thread and it has headed in a new direction

[101A]

For me, a simple crystallization of the political climate came last week with the Joe the Plumber situation. Joe asked Obama a totally fair question, and Obama answered him honestly, being respectful towards him the entire time, admitting that their opinions were different on the topic, and doing his best to explain his side of it. But somehow this very civil and instructive interaction went through the meatgrinder of media, blogs, internet forums, etc., and became "joe the plumber disrespected and disenfranchised" and "obama hates the working man." I don't see how anyone with a shred of objectivity could watch that interaction and come away from it thinking that anything mean-spirited or conspiratorial had transpired.

"We need to spread the wealth around" - frankly is divisive language to me, and inflammatory. I understand it is just his side of it. Unfortunately it is a gut reaction to that kind of language. Kind of like when somebody says, "Jesus is Lord" to several of the posters on this forum - they just HAVE to react to it.

McCain picked up on that - he got a little traction, so he tried to milk it (give the guy a break - he's getting his ass kicked).

oooops, misunderstood you.

[LnGrrrR]

On a somewhat related note, I really wish that every person who says that America is going to be destroyed under either McCain OR Obama, or that the Apocalypse is coming, or that we'll be turned into socialists, be required to post again online four years from now about how wrong and stupid they were.

[Findog]

"We need to spread the wealth around" - frankly is divisive language to me, and inflammatory.

What do you think taxation is? Progressive, Regressive, even flat tax, involves taking money from one tax bracket and spending it elsewhere.

[DarkReign]

The problem with doing everything at the state level is you get an explosion of burocracy.

Can you imagine 50 different FBI's? 50 different sets of aviation rules? Drug regulation?

What happens if you, say, get rid of the FBI, and a large international drug cartel infiltrates and dominates a thinly populated state like Wyoming, Alaska, or South Dakota?

The US economy depends on uniform rules that allow companies from Texas and New York, to set up in say, Kansas, and know that the laws apply evenly for the most part.

You exagerated that statement I made. I only stated I believe Unions to be a state's-rights issue. Nothing more (yet), nothing less.

To address the two points you brought up (FBI, FAA), of course they should still exist. There has to be a tenable balance to the organization of the Federal government that allows it to excercise the law across state borders, to regulate trade and travel across state borders that doesnt put the federal government in a position to decide every, freaking detail of our lives.

Here is a slopped together list (that is subject to change) of the role of Federal government as I see it.

1. National Security from all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic (ie military and intelligence agencies)
2. The Coining and Regulating of Money, of Free Movement and Trade (ie transportation included)
3. A Federal Law Enforcement Force (ie FBI, US Marshalls, etc)
4. Taxation for the above purposes and the above purposes ONLY (with a pre-ordained surplus %)
5. A Court of Law System
6. To Insure the Rights of American Citizens are not Impinged, in any way

Thats like a barebones list, but it is exactly what limited government should be. Do I have additions to the list I would like to make from a personal standpoint? Sure, who doesnt? But I would be more than happy if this were the entire scope of the Fed.

There needs to be more responsibilty given the lower portion of our government, on down to its citizens. States should be able to balance their respective budgets for education, healthcare, welfare, housing, etc.

Obviously, the last item is broad, but its meant to be. I would write it as..

To make no Law unto the Country that is outside the scope of the protection to personal freedom and our rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Simple. No morality laws at the Federal level. No laws for funding of national programs, or state reimbursement, pet projects and the like. The Federal Government is nothing more than a representative to the capitulant 50 states.

Anyway, Im dreaming here, so I'll stop. I honestly wish I could articulate this better, but that would require an immense amount of time to do so for a forum post.

[Tully365]

Let's be fair. First of all Joe asked Obama a question based on a lie and specifically designed to put forth a worst-case scenerio of Obama's proposed policy. Obama answered him honestly and Joe has every right to ask Obama any question he wants - based on lie or not. And the incident could have ended there as an interesting footnote.

McCain then made Joe a household name and the press vetted him. Joe has held more press conferences than Palin.

I get you, but Joe's situation is largely of his own and McCain's making. How was the press supposed to give attention to McCain's soundbites without vetting?

Sweet jesus you are an ignorant !! Hee-hee, just kidding...

Whatever happened after the "incident" with McCain or inquiries into Joe's personal life are different from what I'm talking about. I'm focusing on the fact that a civil dialogue became known to many out there as a contentious rumble, which in fact it was not. My point being that extremism of the temperament tends to look at everything as contentious and difficult, even a conversation that clearly wasn't. This ties back to our initial conversation about name-calling in discourse, no?

[RandomGuy]

Damn, every time I want to respond to something I refresh the thread and it has headed in a new direction

That's kinda why I broke out what I thought seemed to be a interesting discussion here:

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=107651

Unfortunately, I have got to go.

Cheers all.

[RandomGuy]

You exagerated that statement I made. I only stated I believe Unions to be a state's-rights issue. Nothing more (yet), nothing less.

Sorry about that, it wasn't quite intentional. I have had a run-in with the occasiona uber-libertarian who wants to get rid of all federal regulation, and wanted to head off that off at the pass.

[DarkReign]

Sorry about that, it wasn't quite intentional. I have had a run-in with the occasiona uber-libertarian who wants to get rid of all federal regulation, and wanted to head off that off at the pass.

Fair.

[101A]

You exagerated that statement I made. I only stated I believe Unions to be a state's-rights issue. Nothing more (yet), nothing less.

To address the two points you brought up (FBI, FAA), of course they should still exist. There has to be a tenable balance to the organization of the Federal government that allows it to excercise the law across state borders, to regulate trade and travel across state borders that doesnt put the federal government in a position to decide every, freaking detail of our lives.

Here is a slopped together list (that is subject to change) of the role of Federal government as I see it.

1. National Security from all Enemies, Foreign and Domestic (ie military and intelligence agencies)
2. The Coining and Regulating of Money, of Free Movement and Trade (ie transportation included)
3. A Federal Law Enforcement Force (ie FBI, US Marshalls, etc)
4. Taxation for the above purposes and the above purposes ONLY (with a pre-ordained surplus %)
5. A Court of Law System
6. To Insure the Rights of American Citizens are not Impinged, in any way

Thats like a barebones list, but it is exactly what limited government should be. Do I have additions to the list I would like to make from a personal standpoint? Sure, who doesnt? But I would be more than happy if this were the entire scope of the Fed.

There needs to be more responsibilty given the lower portion of our government, on down to its citizens. States should be able to balance their respective budgets for education, healthcare, welfare, housing, etc.

Obviously, the last item is broad, but its meant to be. I would write it as..

To make no Law unto the Country that is outside the scope of the protection to personal freedom and our rights to "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness".

Simple. No morality laws at the Federal level. No laws for funding of national programs, or state reimbursement, pet projects and the like. The Federal Government is nothing more than a representative to the capitulant 50 states.

Anyway, Im dreaming here, so I'll stop. I honestly wish I could articulate this better, but that would require an immense amount of time to do so for a forum post.

I am now FOR same sex marriages.

You and me, DR, going to Hawaii.

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

Sweet jesus you are an ignorant !!

I killed Jane too

Whatever happened after the "incident" with McCain or inquiries into Joe's personal life are different from what I'm talking about. I'm focusing on the fact that a civil dialogue became known to many out there as a contentious rumble, which in fact it was not.

Ahhh. You mean the day is night syndrome? Yeah, I'm with you on that.

As confessions go, I have to admit I'm exhausted with the childish McLame/nObama type stuff. It's just so silly.

[Tully365]

Ahhh. You mean the day is night syndrome? Yeah, I'm with you on that.

As confessions go, I have to admit I'm exhausted with the childish McLame/nObama type stuff. It's just so silly.

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892, Act III

[MaryAnnKilledGinger]

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars."

Oscar Wilde, Lady Windermere's Fan, 1892, Act III

You mean Tennessee didn't make that up for Summer and Smoke?