How am I Doing?
Welp, I've been doing this for a few days now. I've made a few posts. I seem to have raised a few hackles, which is fine by me. I've had quite a few visitors to the old blog in this short of a time, so don't be shy! How am I doing really? I mean if you feel your visit to my blog was a waste of time, I'd be glad to hear it. If you think any of my posts were interesting or boring, or good or bad or whatever, let me know. Drop a comment, I look forward to hearing from you!
posted by G-Man at 10:07 PM
You blog sucks you facist ass!
Mr. G,
Thanks for commenting on our blog. Please feel free to continue to do so, since we are under-represented in the radical conservative department.
I respect and appreciate your point of view, but it so closely resembles what I see and hear in the conservative press, that I don't think it could really be yours. Have you been brainwashed? It doesn't do any good to ignore facts. For example, John Kerry didn't vote "for the War" as you and those to whom you have professed unwaivering faith like to say. It is so peculiar how your only answer to that statement will be to shout "4 more years!". It's like arguing religion with a true believer - their mind is a steel trap.
Mr. Cheney during the V.P. debate suggested you read "www.factcheck.com", which is George Soros' website. I suggest you go to www.factcheck.org, which attempts to present some of the realities behind the soundbites that appear to be a large part of your daily life.
In the end, I think you really know that you are just pushing your religion. We could talk all day long and the debate would certainly come down to a fundamental difference in philosophy and a core opposition in our motivations: Your desire to spread Christian values and beliefs at all costs VS. our desire to live in a democracy, not a theocracy.
quit posting your boring us to death
to many big words
Interesting that Matt would believe that all I want to do is spread Christianity when I've very clearly stated up front on this blog that I'm an atheist. Hm, I'm a little new to this, perhaps I should wear my lack of religious beliefs on my sleeve and post it to my profile.
I believe what I do because I find the liberal entitlement issues extremely distasteful and self-serving. It is my belief that a man should be measured by the steel in his spine and not the amount of money he can bilk with no investment of sweat or effort. I believe very strongly in the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, enough so that I've served in our nation's military and put my life on the line. So tell me Matt, have you served your nation?
"It is my belief that a man should be measured by the steel in his spine and not the amount of money he can bilk with no investment of sweat or effort."
Then how can you be in favor of Bush who has had everything handed to him (and still seems to lose)? Bush, who used his connections to 1) get into college 2) get into the National Guard 3) to get into business school 4) to start his first company 5) to be able to sell that company 6) to sell his stocks in that company with inside information and get away with it (unlike Martha Stewart) 7) to get a sweetheart deal in buying the Rangers 8) to get into the presidency. This man has earned NOTHING yet he feels entitled to EVERYTHING. I too have problems with "entitlements" though I do believe that a functioning democratic-republic can sustain a minimal safety-net (greater than the minimalist one we have now) without jeopardizing progress or its institutions.
As for all the gutless "anonymous" posts, come on people show some backbone and tell us who you are.
If you wish to start down the trail of observing one candidate's "silver spoon" then by sheer weight of fairness, we must likewise observe the other's and certainly your candidate his his fair share of entitlements as well.
None af the candidates in this election are what I would call "regular Joe's". Personally, I'd like to see a normal person make it into office, but, a normal person has an ice cube's chance in hell of ever succeeding. Let's face it, none of us are lily-white enough to pass the sort of scrutiny that is levied on a candidate today.
I will however mention that there is a distinct difference between receiving entitlements from one's family and receiving entitlements from everyone. When a man works to amass wealth it is done so that he can provide entitlements for his children. That is his intent.
The question here is a question of personal responsibility. Should it be the government's responsibility to provide a safety net for those who for whatever reason need one? I would contend that it should not and here's my reasoning.
When the founders of this nation designed our government, they purposefully built inefficiency into the system. This inefficiency is called "checks and balances" and its purpose was to ensure that the government could not burden the citizenry with hastily enacted laws or policies. Anything the government does is therefore saddled with that inefficiency. So, when the government acts as a charity, that charity is saddled with that inefficiency.
You will hear democrats talking about entitlements often using the the words "social morality". As if to not support these inefficient beaurocracies would in some way be immoral. You see I have a different take on the whole thing. I volunteer. If I see a need, I try to pitch in and alleviate that need. I don't simply sign my tax check and expect the government to pick up the mess for me. That's the difference. Have you volunteered lately? Or are you too busy to be bothered with true "social morality"?
I’ll remind you that there is a distinct difference between having financial advantage under law versus having supra-legal advantage, which is the case for W. Outside of his legacy advantage (yet legacy is not hard work with sweat and tears either) he has gotten special deals all around. Case in point would be his walking away from criminal prosecution after selling shares in Harken with insider information (the insider information BTW is that Harken sold 80% of a subsidiary, Aloha Petroleum, to a partnership formed by Harken executives, who got most of the money for the deal by borrowing from Harken itself. The transaction allowed Harken to reduce the amount of debt on its balance sheet and to claim the proceeds of the sale as income. Sure makes Bush seem like a swell guy, eh?) “My candidate” is not pretending to be other than he is, W is. W’s life has been a cakewalk (other than an overbearing father) relative to the common man. (OK this could be argued among educated people. There are difficulties in everyone’s lives wealthy or not and difficulties in being wealthy, but try to sell that to the everyday man, which is why we are sold “down home everyday Joe” Bush.)
His administration has many people who have made a living (killing?) from deceit (companies that sell goods to a fake company that they’ve set up etc.) and bilking the government. It comes as no surprise that we now have record deficits under this administration. To see this administration as being conservative in anything other than social policy one truly needs to have very thick ideological blinders on.
Now we could go on about the need for a social safety net. That of course is a completely different conversation. You think we don’t need one I think we do. Outside of the idealistic world of the “free market” there are real needs for government. You say that government is “less efficient” yet Medicare is actually more efficient than HMOs. (Medicare’s overhead costs ran at 2 percent, while Medicare HMOs ran at 15 percent. Private plans were higher, since they deal in profits, have extensive paperwork and relatively high salaries. (Newsweek, June 9, 2003) ) There are some things for which government does a better job than the market. Health care is one of them.
Nope, haven't served in the military. One year of ROTC was enough for me to see that I didn't fit into that crowd. Since then, I've just been enjoying watching the welfare checks rolling in...
I shouldn't have confused you for a fundamentalist Christian, I do see now that your inaugural post mentions you are an atheist. However, you did post Edwards' voting record on abortion as a judgement against him... (although I see that you have since changed that).
I read where you say you believe in the Constitution. I question if you truly appreciate and value your religious freedoms. You're voting for someone who not only wears his religion on his sleeve, but has been working diligently to erode the ideas set forth in the First Amendment that offer you this and other fundamental privileges.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
...But health care is not a right. Our rights are broadly defined by the Declaration of Independence as: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. These general terms are then further defined in the Constitution in the Bill of Rights. Nowhere in there does it say that healthcare is a "right".
Now I'll agree with you that health care is certainly a necessity. I also will agree that it should be more affordable. The question is, how do we do that for the American people.
The democrats have consistantly run on a platform of healthcare reform. They had the majority in the Congress and a sitting president who had promised it as during his campaign. What came out of it? Nothing! Thay certainly could have ram-rodded anything they wished down the throats of their constituency, if that truly was their desire but instead, they left you settle for a big NADA!
Perhaps I should let you in on a little fact. They're all on the take! Including your party. So we're left with deciding which is the lesser evil.
Well your candidate has already said that he doesn't have what it takes to be the prosident, so why should I choose him? I know you're going to debate what I just said, so let me prove my point in Kerry's own words:
"Those who doubted whether Iraq or the world would be better off without Saddam Hussein, and those who believe today that we are not safer with his capture, don't have the judgment to be president or the credibility to be elected president" - December 16, 2003...or are you trying to say that he didn't insinuate during the debate that we weren't safer because of this war?
The first ammendment provides all of us with the freedom of religion, not the freedom from religion. I certainly believe what I believe and I uphold the right of everyone else to believe what they believe.
I am not offended when I see others exercising their first ammendment rights, vis-avis practicing their religion. You liberals on the other hand find it offensive. I have a good many friends who subscribe to a large number of religious beliefs, mormons, evangelicals, wiccans, etc... and I'm glad that the sacrifices of our soldiers have guaranteed them that right.
Why do I need to be so sensitive to seeing their expressions of belief? Does it harm me to see the 10 commandments in a courthouse? The only way it harms me is if I am indeed uncertain of my beliefs and seeing it leads me to uncertainty. But I would hardly call that harm.
Now if your comment was in regards to the Patriot Act, I'll be the first to say that I don't necessarilly embrace every part of that law, but do remember that it sailed through the congress with hearty support from both parties so we have everyone in Washington to thank for that easter egg and not just the Republicans. It was a case where our constitutional checks and balances were subtroverted by a knee-jerk reaction.
I like your blog; keep up the good fight. Don't let them brow beat you with personal attacks. When you respond in kind they tend to gloat. If you bypass their attack on you and focus on your original post, they will be cowed. I am considering linking to your blog from mine. I like what I have read so far and I have linked to all spectrum of blogs. Yours definately will belong to the right set.
As you see, I've already linked to yours so a little mutual promotion would be greatly appreciated!
B O R I N G ! ! !
You've been linked!
|
<< Home