I love it, too! Coke is the great uniter!! Beats down Pepsi for taste, carbination, and the real McCoy factor, to boot! It's got my vote! lol
What's really sad about this commercial, though is how many people don't know who they are; it completely defeats the entire purpose of the message. =/ I mean sure, democrat and republican, but... They're James Carville and Bill Frist!
You're going to be surprised who I'm actually voting for, this year, though... ;)
Hm. I can't see you going for the Dems, though! Are you going to write in?
Shocking about Romney, isn't it? I figured he was the sort who couldn't back down and that if anyone was going to drop out before the next round, it would be Huckabee!
Shocking, but half expected. I really wish he'd held on, though; Texas would have gone for him. Of that, I have no doubt. Huckabee would have been forced to drop out then.
Of course, this IS the reason that Huckabee stayed in in the first place: to pull votes away from Romney and give McCain the lead. Huckabee should have been gone long ago.
You know that Romney has 4 million votes to McCain's 4.7 million? And 11 states to McCain's 13. This is a race in which the democrats who voted in the republican primaries played a HUGE part.
The truth of the matter is that the Republican party is split three ways, and the only conservative that we had left in the race was Romney, and he was moderate. Now Romney's gone, so there are a lot of different options open now - but none of them involve me voting for McCain.
My opposition to McCain is beyond "Anyone But." My opposition to McCain is "Crush Him." Veteran hero he may be, but has no respect for the core values of Conservatism nor any respect for the Republican - that is Conservative - Base, and I have no respect for him as a politician. I cannot vote for him.
I'm not in favor of McCain at all except I applaud him for his stance on anti-torture and anti-Guantanamo Bay. But I don't actually know what you're talking about because I haven't researched him thoroughly -- his war stance alone turns me completely off of him. I can't support a pro-war candidate, that's the biggest issue for me of this election.
McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform (http://www.opensecrets.org/news/campaignfinance/index.asp) - you'll be surprised this guy even claims to be a conservative.
"The crux of the McCain-Feingold bill was a ban on soft money -- unlimited contributions to the national political parties for "party-building" activities. The bill also placed restrictions on outside groups airing so-called "issue ads" that tout or criticize a candidate's position on an issue, but refrain from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate."
Basically, it limits how much you can support a candidate and what kinds of political ads you can have. There's a bunch of other garbage in it, as well. It completely ignores the right to free speech.
Um, on reading on it, it actually limits lobbyists and corporations which are good things in my book. Nothing against individual right to free speech. So I guess there's a point for McCain from me, lol.
Oh, it sounds great - most liberal ideas do, as they usually have the best intentions - until it's put into practice, and then intentions don't matter. You realize you've given up freedoms you didn't sign up to lose. Whether they affect you personally..... Well, that's never hindered my opinions on the way things should be; corporations and lobbyists have rights to free speech, as well.
Oh, it sounds great - most liberal ideas do, as they usually have the best intentions - until it's put into practice, and then intentions don't matter. You realize you've given up freedoms you didn't sign up to lose.
Hm, I can think of a lot of conservative ideas this describes perfectly.
corporations and lobbyists have rights to free speech, as well.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want. Corporations buy and pay for candidates and that's why we're in the mess we're in. Corporations look out for corporations, not people or the American ideal. It's all about profits and government becomes a business. That is immoral to me.
Hm, I can think of a lot of conservative ideas this describes perfectly.
If we're talking about keeping a sense of morality in the country, yeah, I can as well. For instance: Sodomy. But I can also show where the liberal ideology has failed, and not only on issues [im]moral. Repeatedly.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want.
It is an issue of free speech! Corporations have just as much interest in who runs our country as individual citizens, and they have a right to support those interests! Or are you implying that corporations don't have a right to free speech? If a corporation has no rights, then how can they even exist within the US? And how are we to deal with people like George Soros who is an individual and does the exact same thing? Should we introduce limits on people with a certain dollar amount to their name, too?
A person is a person no matter how small OR how large. Just on the legal basis, a person can be defined as an individual, partnership, or legal entity. Corporations are legal entities. The Constitution covers the rights of all legal persons residing within the US. So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Individual people can have just as much impact as corporations - especially if they have a high net worth. Government being run as a business, as you say, has nothing to do with the actual corporations and everything to do with the citizens who do NOT get involved. It has to do with the politicians that are in office. It's a problem, but the way to get past problems is never to abridge the rights of our citizens! Never ever!
I will never understand class envy. I thought America was about opportunity and realizing the American Dream - achieving success. But it seems more and more that we as a nation are more concerned with our own woes and finding someone else on whom to place the blame. Someone else to fix it. Someone "higher" to penalize because we're jealous. "Stick it to The Man. Stick it to Big Business. It's all their fault."
If we're talking about keeping a sense of morality in the country, yeah, I can as well. For instance: Sodomy.
Homosexuality has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it anything the government should be controlling. What someone does in their bedroom is not my business. The government doesn't moderate sex before marriage, or extramarital sex, so if you're going to push for one thing, you have to push for all of the above. And if you do push for all of the above, then we're back to a puritan society and The Scarlett Letter Maybe you want that but I sure don't; it's not so far away from Islamic extremism.
And frankly the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, either. People shouldn't get special benefits just for being married. We don't need the government regulating it. It should be a church thing like it was before the 1920s.
But again it has absolutely nothing to do with limitations on soft campaign funds.
So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Corporations do get representation -- because every individual gets his/her own vote. Individuals can support candidates and bring up their own concerns any way they want. But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
I will never understand class envy.
It's not class envy; it's that the wealthy shouldn't be the only ones who get to speak, and let's face it, the wealthy do get to say more because they can pay more. And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
But again it has absolutely nothing to do with limitations on soft campaign funds.
I wasn't saying it did; I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life. It was just an example: laws against sodomy. ;)
As for morality, I believe we have a right to exist in a moral society; I, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy. Regardless of my rants on it in the past, I do believe the rights do exist:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people. What the people want. And should the government back that? Ohhhh yes! Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
So they get representation, but they just can't say anything? Again, I'm left wondering where in the Constitution it says that.
And again, there are some individuals who are just as or even more rich than some corporations. Do we abridge thier rights, as well? Because they have interests, and many of those interests are about their businesses and/or investments. There's also the fact that the definition of Corporation within the bill includes nonprofit organizations, which are entirely different from business corporations. They have an entirely different set of retirement plans, even, and for a reason! Because the ACLU is absolutely nothing like Fidelity: they have entirely different purposes!
And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair. As for that last bit... you realize you have just contradicted yourself? You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
I agree with the principle, obviously, but I do NOT believe that it is the government's right nor place to enforce the rich to be generous. Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted. We don't have a right to tell people that they can only be so rich until they have to start sharing. Special interests exist; we regular folk assemble, petition, write letters, etc. For business folk and political relations, it's already illegal to accept bribes: what more can we do? It is wrong, no matter what the intentions, to abridge the rights of our citizens!
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
Lol We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that. ;) I enjoy the debate and the difference of opinion; best way to learn, in my book. :)
I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life.
I was thinking more along the lines of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches and wiretapping that everyone signed the dotted line for in the wake of 9/11 before anyone said, "Um, hey, wait a minute, this grants the president unconstitutional powers and violates core rights"...
, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy.
But public indecency is infringing other people's rights. And that's what I mean -- of course I want to live in a moral society -- but you can have a moral society without it being rooted in any one religious doctrine.
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people.
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld (and obviously this was something the founding fathers were not even in agreement, given what a diverse religious -- and nonreligious -- representation they were) would be in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
No, we wouldn't. In some places, sure -- but as long as the government isn't making a law that requires nude billboards all over, the core values of the American people themselves would keep those billboards largely out of sight by protesting and boycotting and complaining. And that's what I'm saying: the federal government shouldn't have to make these laws -- that's local government!
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair.
No, I never said that it's unfair for some people to have more money! And my argument is that corporations buy and pay for politicians, who ignore individuals to keep the funding of a corporation. The politicians give in to the corporations who want big profits, and meanwhile corporations are screwing over people. This is particularly abhorrent in sectors such as, oh, pharmaceuticals, who have the US patent office by the balls and are responsible for so much of the health care crisis in this country. (And no, I have not watched Michael Moore's documentary, nor do I intend to, lol.)
You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
Should have phrased it differently. Generosity is a universal human moral...that the Bible happens to agree with. ;)
Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted.
What about the early Church who came together and shared all they owened? True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
A little off-topic, but ideally I believe it's the Church who should be providing welfare and healthcare to the people. If the Church would do its job instead of building megachurches, then the government wouldn't have to concern itself with these matters. But unfortunately the Church is distracted, and the government is picking up the slack for it. I think that's tragic.
We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that.
Oh, nothing personal taken and I hope you know I'm not worked up at you; my blood pressure raises because I care so much about all these issues myself and they've been ones I've been wrestling with a lot over the past four years.
Four years ago, btw, I would have agreed with you completely on all your stances. ;)
There are some things I don’t agree with in the Patriot Act, but the Warrantless Wiretaps aren’t one of them. I wish sotous.org still existed. :( I had a friend there who did a ton of digging on the actual process of the WW & WS, and I was originally against them until he actually laid it all out. I can’t remember any of it, but I can (rather worthlessly) remember that the only thing that was missing from the process was an actual warrant. There was always beyond probable cause in order to have the wiretaps, and the government wasn’t even listening/recording. It was a computer program that listened for random words.
Anyway, WW have ALWAYS existed since phones have, and no President has ever not used them; it’s not something new. That’s liberal spin. JFK, of all Presidents, used it on MLK Jr to see if he was cheating on his wife – no joke! For something so insignificant: talk about privacy violations! So I understand disagreeing on the basis of what it is, but don’t think that GWB & the GOP invented it. There’s not a single President that hasn’t used it since it’s been available. Which is why, in general, government SUCKS! ;)
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld…
Unless we’re talking about moral rights, I don’t see what rights it’s infringing upon as far as public indecency. Fundamentally as a Christian, I don’t believe morality can exist without God as all morality flows from God. ;) But that’s my religious belief. As for the Constitution, this is what I meant by it being meant for the people to decide, to be based on what the people want, because it changes, and that’s why it wasn’t expressly defined in the Constitution. Back in the day, women wearing pants was immoral and men could beat their wives, and see how the laws have changed to reflect how we believe now.
We are a Christian nation, and that is to say that 87% of US citizens (last stat I checked a couple months ago…) claim to be Christians of some sort. Therefore, it is only right that our morality stem from the Christian religion. – Or rather what the people find to be moral which is based on their religion. So it doesn’t have to do with people wanting everyone to be Christians; it has to do with how we citizens want our country to look. If we were 87% Muslim, the country would and should look different. If we were 87% atheist, well… it would be scary, lol (*points to John Adams & FF*), but again, we’d be very different.
in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Having laws that reflect our morality – or rather not allowing certain laws – doesn’t do so, either. Because again, we have citizens that want a level of morality in which to live, and so long as that doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s rights, that’s fine. Marriage is not a right; it’s a privilege.
that's local government!
THERE’S the Libertarian! LOL Capitalist principles through and through. ;) I believe that we should have checks on morality because it’s too important not to. Too many people would take advantage of having nothing in place, and having laws that reflect our morality does nothing to infringe upon our rights. It’s also the government’s job to protect our rights, and as I believe we have a right to a moral society…
As for local governments, I agree and don’t. I mean, I want to. I want the federal government to be tiny and woohoo for States Rights! At the same time, there’s this thing called the 4th Amendment… lol It makes some moral issues a little more blurry in the States Rights vein. ;)
O snap. Work is over. ;) I may or may not get back to you before Sunday. Valenship for Sam/Jack SG-1 starts in less than an hour, and I still haven’t finished my ficcy! (Regardless of the fandom, one thing is always the same: Procrastination!) I’ll catch ya’ laterz, though. ;)
And sweet about the whole not personal thing! That always worries me in debates since I can detach so easily and I’ve been… ah… banned in the past for not being more understanding... ;)
We are a Christian nation, and that is to say that 87% of US citizens (last stat I checked a couple months ago…) claim to be Christians of some sort.
But I think the key phrase here is "of some sort" -- which ranges from Fundamentalists to Unitarian...The sheer number if denominations there are indicates that even Christians aren't all on board about what's moral and what isn't. So if 87% of the population are Christians "of some sort" that leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation -- unless you want the government in on settling the 2000 year-old dispute of Which Denomination Is Correct. And considering churches deal with that problem by splitting... ;)
Marriage is not a right; it’s a privilege. ? No, it's human nature. We like commitments to life-long monogamous relationships to care for someone and be cared for. And why should the government decide who the privileged are? Personally I think it's stupid that I had to have the government's permission to get married! That's between Mr. Tater and me. Not a government issue or anybody else's business.
At the same time, there’s this thing called the 4th Amendment… lol It makes some moral issues a little more blurry in the States Rights vein.
Not if the federal government isn't acting out of bounds!
Good luck with your Valenship fic. ;)
True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
And I said Paul but it was not Paul, it was James!
So if 87% of the population are Christians "of some sort" that leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation
Lol I think we agree on the issue. The interpretation is going to be loose: obviously, what we as a society think of as being suitable on television is not in line with Biblical principles. I may not like all the decisions of the nation, but so long as they're achieved Constitutionally through the correct channels, I'll accept them. :) Because we're not a theocracy, so my personal morality cannot be absolutely enforced, but that doesn't mean that the decisions we make need to be bereft of God.
And why should the government decide who the privileged are?
Because we give that power to the government.
The simple difference between a right and a privilege is that rights are inalienable whereas privileges can be revoked and/or exclude people. Driving is a privilege. Selling securities is a privilege. Anything that requires a license of any sort is a privilege because it can exlude people based on certain standards. In order for there to be standards, they have to be set and maintained by someone, and we have deigned that person to be the government.
I understand you not wanting marriage to involve the government, but at the same time, how would that work? Just legally... there would have to be so many contracts. And what about kids? And property? And taxes? (Not that I'm not in COMPLETE favor of the Fair Tax!) I mean, if you take the government out of marriage, it just has to be inserted in a million other different ways, which defeats the whole purpose. Yeah, they're mostly monetary concerns, but that's how we run our societies today. Maybe in the future, the government won't have to be involved. For now, though, it's too idealistic.
Not if the federal government isn't acting out of bounds!
How so? Because the conflict would be on a state-by-state basis, wouldn't it? The federal government wouldn't have to be involved until say Texas started saying they wouldn't approve something from Massachusetts. - But then, I'm not sure what the actual legal procedures are. That was the whole thing with slave and non-slave states in & before the Civil War.
Good luck with your Valenship fic.
Lol I ended up scrapping it completely and writing a new one all in one day. Which worked out well... for the first 3/4ths of the new one. ;)
True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
And I said Paul but it was not Paul, it was James!
Hate it when that happens! ;) (He's not the only one that talks about widows and orphans and the giving to, though, so I didn't even notice!)
The sin of being rich is overindulgence, having an idol before God; it's not having riches, and laws never give God man's heart. It's not the government's job to demand the rich to to give everything to us just as it's not right for us to ask that. They have what they have and we have what we have: coveting has always been a sin.
Just because rich people and businesses use their influences doesn't give us the right to take away their right to influence. Sticking it to The Man sticks it to the men and women underneath him, too. Without big businesses, we wouldn't have an economy, we wouldn't have jobs, we wouldn't have an infrastructure. I'm pretty okay with them getting their way so long as it doesn't take away or add rights to other people. (ie illegal immigration) Big business is GOOD for America; we wouldn't be who we are without them.
Sheesh. That took ENTIRELY too long to write between calls. =/
Driving is a privilege. Selling securities is a privilege. Anything that requires a license of any sort is a privilege because it can exlude people based on certain standards. In order for there to be standards, they have to be set and maintained by someone, and we have deigned that person to be the government.
A relationship with another person isn't remotely the same thing as being able to drive a car or sell securities.
I understand you not wanting marriage to involve the government, but at the same time, how would that work? Just legally... there would have to be so many contracts. And what about kids? And property? And taxes?
It would work the same way it did right up until the 1920s.
I never said being rich was a sin or that big business was bad. I said that the wealthy have a responsibility and that big business should not rule the country. Big difference.
I do firmly believe that the American Church today has substituted big buildings and big programs for giving to the needy and the government for teaching the Gospel. But that's another ball of wax.
If only ALL politicians could get along like that... Actually well not to turn this into a political debate but I think my vote is going to Obama. At least tentatively that's who I'm going to vote for. It might change and it might not but as for as I'm concerned, the vote is going to be spilt between Obama and Clinton. Eventually everyone else is going to either drop out or still be there but no one's going to be paying them any mind in favor of Obama versus Clinton. At least that's what I think... And if I have offended you then I had absolutely no intentions of doing so.
Fwaha! I debate for fun! It takes a lot more than you expressing your beliefs for me to be offended! In fact, I want you to express your beliefs. And I want you to vote for your candidates, too. - Even when I don't have a vested interest.
Open debate needs to be encouraged, and I can't stand people who are too afraid to state and stand what they believe in. :)
You know, I actually really wish it was that simple. Life might be more boring, but it'd be pretty nice considering where we are now and where we are headed. :)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 01:38 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 07:32 pm (UTC)What's really sad about this commercial, though is how many people don't know who they are; it completely defeats the entire purpose of the message. =/ I mean sure, democrat and republican, but... They're James Carville and Bill Frist!
You're going to be surprised who I'm actually voting for, this year, though... ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 07:34 pm (UTC)LOL Who?? (Is that an allowed question?)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 08:35 pm (UTC)press releaseLJ post. ;)I'll give you a hint, though: I have no faith in my own party.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 08:37 pm (UTC)Shocking about Romney, isn't it? I figured he was the sort who couldn't back down and that if anyone was going to drop out before the next round, it would be Huckabee!
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 09:41 pm (UTC)Of course, this IS the reason that Huckabee stayed in in the first place: to pull votes away from Romney and give McCain the lead. Huckabee should have been gone long ago.
You know that Romney has 4 million votes to McCain's 4.7 million? And 11 states to McCain's 13. This is a race in which the democrats who voted in the republican primaries played a HUGE part.
The truth of the matter is that the Republican party is split three ways, and the only conservative that we had left in the race was Romney, and he was moderate. Now Romney's gone, so there are a lot of different options open now - but none of them involve me voting for McCain.
My opposition to McCain is beyond "Anyone But." My opposition to McCain is "Crush Him." Veteran hero he may be, but has no respect for the core values of Conservatism nor any respect for the Republican - that is Conservative - Base, and I have no respect for him as a politician. I cannot vote for him.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 10:02 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 12:16 am (UTC)And sorry for the length on my announcement; I didn't mean to have it sit for so long!! But I've been away from my desk all day. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 01:18 am (UTC)"The crux of the McCain-Feingold bill was a ban on soft money -- unlimited contributions to the national political parties for "party-building" activities. The bill also placed restrictions on outside groups airing so-called "issue ads" that tout or criticize a candidate's position on an issue, but refrain from explicitly telling viewers to vote for or against that candidate."
Basically, it limits how much you can support a candidate and what kinds of political ads you can have. There's a bunch of other garbage in it, as well. It completely ignores the right to free speech.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 01:45 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 02:21 am (UTC)http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 02:24 am (UTC)Hm, I can think of a lot of conservative ideas this describes perfectly.
corporations and lobbyists have rights to free speech, as well.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want. Corporations buy and pay for candidates and that's why we're in the mess we're in. Corporations look out for corporations, not people or the American ideal. It's all about profits and government becomes a business. That is immoral to me.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 06:30 am (UTC)If we're talking about keeping a sense of morality in the country, yeah, I can as well. For instance: Sodomy. But I can also show where the liberal ideology has failed, and not only on issues [im]moral. Repeatedly.
It's not an issue of free speech; that's just an excuse to get the funding and ads you want.
It is an issue of free speech! Corporations have just as much interest in who runs our country as individual citizens, and they have a right to support those interests! Or are you implying that corporations don't have a right to free speech? If a corporation has no rights, then how can they even exist within the US? And how are we to deal with people like George Soros who is an individual and does the exact same thing? Should we introduce limits on people with a certain dollar amount to their name, too?
A person is a person no matter how small OR how large. Just on the legal basis, a person can be defined as an individual, partnership, or legal entity. Corporations are legal entities. The Constitution covers the rights of all legal persons residing within the US. So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Individual people can have just as much impact as corporations - especially if they have a high net worth. Government being run as a business, as you say, has nothing to do with the actual corporations and everything to do with the citizens who do NOT get involved. It has to do with the politicians that are in office. It's a problem, but the way to get past problems is never to abridge the rights of our citizens! Never ever!
I will never understand class envy. I thought America was about opportunity and realizing the American Dream - achieving success. But it seems more and more that we as a nation are more concerned with our own woes and finding someone else on whom to place the blame. Someone else to fix it. Someone "higher" to penalize because we're jealous.
"Stick it to The Man. Stick it to Big Business. It's all their fault."
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 01:35 pm (UTC)Homosexuality has nothing to do with this issue, nor is it anything the government should be controlling. What someone does in their bedroom is not my business. The government doesn't moderate sex before marriage, or extramarital sex, so if you're going to push for one thing, you have to push for all of the above. And if you do push for all of the above, then we're back to a puritan society and The Scarlett Letter Maybe you want that but I sure don't; it's not so far away from Islamic extremism.
And frankly the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, either. People shouldn't get special benefits just for being married. We don't need the government regulating it. It should be a church thing like it was before the 1920s.
But again it has absolutely nothing to do with limitations on soft campaign funds.
So how are we to determine which rights a corporation should and should not have? Because the Constitution doesn't stipulate any differences, and it shouldn't!
Corporations do get representation -- because every individual gets his/her own vote. Individuals can support candidates and bring up their own concerns any way they want. But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
I will never understand class envy.
It's not class envy; it's that the wealthy shouldn't be the only ones who get to speak, and let's face it, the wealthy do get to say more because they can pay more. And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 12:29 am (UTC)I wasn't saying it did; I was referring to the aforementioned ideas that look great on paper but don't work out in real life. It was just an example: laws against sodomy. ;)
As for morality, I believe we have a right to exist in a moral society; I, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy. Regardless of my rants on it in the past, I do believe the rights do exist:
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, October 11, 1798
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people. What the people want. And should the government back that? Ohhhh yes! Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
But just because corporations have more money than individuals does not mean that they should get to have more impact on who is elected to office. Corporations aren't always corrupt -- but this country isn't just about big business.
So they get representation, but they just can't say anything? Again, I'm left wondering where in the Constitution it says that.
And again, there are some individuals who are just as or even more rich than some corporations. Do we abridge thier rights, as well? Because they have interests, and many of those interests are about their businesses and/or investments. There's also the fact that the definition of Corporation within the bill includes nonprofit organizations, which are entirely different from business corporations. They have an entirely different set of retirement plans, even, and for a reason! Because the ACLU is absolutely nothing like Fidelity: they have entirely different purposes!
And I believe the wealthy have a certain responsibility to those who are not so wealthy. That's a biblical principle.
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair. As for that last bit... you realize you have just contradicted yourself? You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
I agree with the principle, obviously, but I do NOT believe that it is the government's right nor place to enforce the rich to be generous. Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted. We don't have a right to tell people that they can only be so rich until they have to start sharing. Special interests exist; we regular folk assemble, petition, write letters, etc. For business folk and political relations, it's already illegal to accept bribes: what more can we do? It is wrong, no matter what the intentions, to abridge the rights of our citizens!
Wow, my blood pressure's up too early in the morning. Must go do something relaxing like write fanfic. ;)
Lol We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that. ;) I enjoy the debate and the difference of opinion; best way to learn, in my book. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 02:24 am (UTC)I was thinking more along the lines of the Patriot Act and warrantless searches and wiretapping that everyone signed the dotted line for in the wake of 9/11 before anyone said, "Um, hey, wait a minute, this grants the president unconstitutional powers and violates core rights"...
, for one, am very happy that laws against public indecency exist. I think our right to a moral society is equally relevant with our right to privacy.
But public indecency is infringing other people's rights. And that's what I mean -- of course I want to live in a moral society -- but you can have a moral society without it being rooted in any one religious doctrine.
They're left out of the Constitution, though. It occured to me that the Founding Fathers had to have a reason for that, because obviously privacy and morality were high atop their lists for citizen rights. So we can assume - or at least I do - that they anticipated that it was something that would change and should with the people.
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld (and obviously this was something the founding fathers were not even in agreement, given what a diverse religious -- and nonreligious -- representation they were) would be in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Because if it wasn't illegal to be nude in public, don't you think we'd already have those billboards in our society like France?
No, we wouldn't. In some places, sure -- but as long as the government isn't making a law that requires nude billboards all over, the core values of the American people themselves would keep those billboards largely out of sight by protesting and boycotting and complaining. And that's what I'm saying: the federal government shouldn't have to make these laws -- that's local government!
It is class envy: your whole argument is that they have more money than the little guy and that that's not fair.
No, I never said that it's unfair for some people to have more money! And my argument is that corporations buy and pay for politicians, who ignore individuals to keep the funding of a corporation. The politicians give in to the corporations who want big profits, and meanwhile corporations are screwing over people. This is particularly abhorrent in sectors such as, oh, pharmaceuticals, who have the US patent office by the balls and are responsible for so much of the health care crisis in this country. (And no, I have not watched Michael Moore's documentary, nor do I intend to, lol.)
You want the government to enforce a Biblical principle? A principle of morality?
Should have phrased it differently. Generosity is a universal human moral...that the Bible happens to agree with. ;)
Robin Hood may have been a hero, but he was also a socialist - in a time when a socialist was needed, granted.
What about the early Church who came together and shared all they owened? True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
A little off-topic, but ideally I believe it's the Church who should be providing welfare and healthcare to the people. If the Church would do its job instead of building megachurches, then the government wouldn't have to concern itself with these matters. But unfortunately the Church is distracted, and the government is picking up the slack for it. I think that's tragic.
We can stop at any time, you know; I don't even mind giving you the last word. I grin while I debate and never carry it to a personal level, honestly, but I know that everyone's not like that.
Oh, nothing personal taken and I hope you know I'm not worked up at you; my blood pressure raises because I care so much about all these issues myself and they've been ones I've been wrestling with a lot over the past four years.
Four years ago, btw, I would have agreed with you completely on all your stances. ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 04:09 am (UTC)more along the lines of the Patriot Act…
There are some things I don’t agree with in the Patriot Act, but the Warrantless Wiretaps aren’t one of them. I wish sotous.org still existed. :( I had a friend there who did a ton of digging on the actual process of the WW & WS, and I was originally against them until he actually laid it all out. I can’t remember any of it, but I can (rather worthlessly) remember that the only thing that was missing from the process was an actual warrant. There was always beyond probable cause in order to have the wiretaps, and the government wasn’t even listening/recording. It was a computer program that listened for random words.
Anyway, WW have ALWAYS existed since phones have, and no President has ever not used them; it’s not something new. That’s liberal spin. JFK, of all Presidents, used it on MLK Jr to see if he was cheating on his wife – no joke! For something so insignificant: talk about privacy violations! So I understand disagreeing on the basis of what it is, but don’t think that GWB & the GOP invented it. There’s not a single President that hasn’t used it since it’s been available. Which is why, in general, government SUCKS! ;)
Exactly -- they left it out because to declare which moral standard they personally upheld…
Unless we’re talking about moral rights, I don’t see what rights it’s infringing upon as far as public indecency. Fundamentally as a Christian, I don’t believe morality can exist without God as all morality flows from God. ;) But that’s my religious belief. As for the Constitution, this is what I meant by it being meant for the people to decide, to be based on what the people want, because it changes, and that’s why it wasn’t expressly defined in the Constitution. Back in the day, women wearing pants was immoral and men could beat their wives, and see how the laws have changed to reflect how we believe now.
We are a Christian nation, and that is to say that 87% of US citizens (last stat I checked a couple months ago…) claim to be Christians of some sort. Therefore, it is only right that our morality stem from the Christian religion. – Or rather what the people find to be moral which is based on their religion. So it doesn’t have to do with people wanting everyone to be Christians; it has to do with how we citizens want our country to look. If we were 87% Muslim, the country would and should look different. If we were 87% atheist, well… it would be scary, lol (*points to John Adams & FF*), but again, we’d be very different.
in contradiction with "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion."
Having laws that reflect our morality – or rather not allowing certain laws – doesn’t do so, either. Because again, we have citizens that want a level of morality in which to live, and so long as that doesn’t infringe upon anyone’s rights, that’s fine. Marriage is not a right; it’s a privilege.
that's local government!
THERE’S the Libertarian! LOL Capitalist principles through and through. ;) I believe that we should have checks on morality because it’s too important not to. Too many people would take advantage of having nothing in place, and having laws that reflect our morality does nothing to infringe upon our rights. It’s also the government’s job to protect our rights, and as I believe we have a right to a moral society…
As for local governments, I agree and don’t. I mean, I want to. I want the federal government to be tiny and woohoo for States Rights! At the same time, there’s this thing called the 4th Amendment… lol It makes some moral issues a little more blurry in the States Rights vein. ;)
O snap. Work is over. ;) I may or may not get back to you before Sunday. Valenship for Sam/Jack SG-1 starts in less than an hour, and I still haven’t finished my ficcy! (Regardless of the fandom, one thing is always the same: Procrastination!) I’ll catch ya’ laterz, though. ;)
And sweet about the whole not personal thing! That always worries me in debates since I can detach so easily and I’ve been… ah… banned in the past for not being more understanding... ;)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-09 04:46 am (UTC)But I think the key phrase here is "of some sort" -- which ranges from Fundamentalists to Unitarian...The sheer number if denominations there are indicates that even Christians aren't all on board about what's moral and what isn't. So if 87% of the population are Christians "of some sort" that leaves quite a lot of room for interpretation -- unless you want the government in on settling the 2000 year-old dispute of Which Denomination Is Correct. And considering churches deal with that problem by splitting... ;)
Marriage is not a right; it’s a privilege.
? No, it's human nature. We like commitments to life-long monogamous relationships to care for someone and be cared for. And why should the government decide who the privileged are? Personally I think it's stupid that I had to have the government's permission to get married! That's between Mr. Tater and me. Not a government issue or anybody else's business.
At the same time, there’s this thing called the 4th Amendment… lol It makes some moral issues a little more blurry in the States Rights vein.
Not if the federal government isn't acting out of bounds!
Good luck with your Valenship fic. ;)
True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
And I said Paul but it was not Paul, it was James!
I'm back! (FINALLY)
Date: 2008-02-12 01:36 am (UTC)Lol I think we agree on the issue. The interpretation is going to be loose: obviously, what we as a society think of as being suitable on television is not in line with Biblical principles. I may not like all the decisions of the nation, but so long as they're achieved Constitutionally through the correct channels, I'll accept them. :) Because we're not a theocracy, so my personal morality cannot be absolutely enforced, but that doesn't mean that the decisions we make need to be bereft of God.
And why should the government decide who the privileged are?
Because we give that power to the government.
The simple difference between a right and a privilege is that rights are inalienable whereas privileges can be revoked and/or exclude people. Driving is a privilege. Selling securities is a privilege. Anything that requires a license of any sort is a privilege because it can exlude people based on certain standards. In order for there to be standards, they have to be set and maintained by someone, and we have deigned that person to be the government.
I understand you not wanting marriage to involve the government, but at the same time, how would that work? Just legally... there would have to be so many contracts. And what about kids? And property? And taxes? (Not that I'm not in COMPLETE favor of the Fair Tax!) I mean, if you take the government out of marriage, it just has to be inserted in a million other different ways, which defeats the whole purpose. Yeah, they're mostly monetary concerns, but that's how we run our societies today. Maybe in the future, the government won't have to be involved. For now, though, it's too idealistic.
Not if the federal government isn't acting out of bounds!
How so? Because the conflict would be on a state-by-state basis, wouldn't it? The federal government wouldn't have to be involved until say Texas started saying they wouldn't approve something from Massachusetts. - But then, I'm not sure what the actual legal procedures are. That was the whole thing with slave and non-slave states in & before the Civil War.
Good luck with your Valenship fic.
Lol I ended up scrapping it completely and writing a new one all in one day. Which worked out well... for the first 3/4ths of the new one. ;)
True religion is giving to widows and orphans in their distress, sayeth Paul.
And I said Paul but it was not Paul, it was James!
Hate it when that happens! ;) (He's not the only one that talks about widows and orphans and the giving to, though, so I didn't even notice!)
The sin of being rich is overindulgence, having an idol before God; it's not having riches, and laws never give God man's heart. It's not the government's job to demand the rich to to give everything to us just as it's not right for us to ask that. They have what they have and we have what we have: coveting has always been a sin.
Just because rich people and businesses use their influences doesn't give us the right to take away their right to influence. Sticking it to The Man sticks it to the men and women underneath him, too. Without big businesses, we wouldn't have an economy, we wouldn't have jobs, we wouldn't have an infrastructure. I'm pretty okay with them getting their way so long as it doesn't take away or add rights to other people. (ie illegal immigration) Big business is GOOD for America; we wouldn't be who we are without them.
Sheesh. That took ENTIRELY too long to write between calls. =/
Re: I'm back! (FINALLY)
Date: 2008-02-12 04:17 am (UTC)A relationship with another person isn't remotely the same thing as being able to drive a car or sell securities.
I understand you not wanting marriage to involve the government, but at the same time, how would that work? Just legally... there would have to be so many contracts. And what about kids? And property? And taxes?
It would work the same way it did right up until the 1920s.
I never said being rich was a sin or that big business was bad. I said that the wealthy have a responsibility and that big business should not rule the country. Big difference.
I do firmly believe that the American Church today has substituted big buildings and big programs for giving to the needy and the government for teaching the Gospel. But that's another ball of wax.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 10:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 12:14 am (UTC)Open debate needs to be encouraged, and I can't stand people who are too afraid to state and stand what they believe in. :)
no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 05:28 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-02-08 06:32 am (UTC)