Something's Got To Give
Are you a part of it or not? Umm...not.
posted by kate @ 9:33 PM
8 comments
Out in Left Field
Where parenting and politics meet, but don't always play nice.
Friday, September 01, 2006
kate
See my complete profile
Talk To Me
Blogroll Me!
My Musings from The St. Petersburg Times
from In The Loop
from tbt*
from The Weekly Planet
from the world wide web
8 Comments:
hahahahahahaha.
Oh jes... never mind!
Fanaticism for any cause is bad. (Boston Red Sox excepted, of course)
Balance, people, balance (or in this case, "unbalanced.")
To quote Ferris Bueller: "-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus."
I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.
Chase... agreed.
Fundamentalism of any kind is the problem. But what worries me is that people seem focused more on Christian Fundies than Islamic Fundies. While the CFs are busy trying to save us from boobs on TV and cuss words in our music, the IFs are busy either plotting to or actually killing people.
And at least we can counter the CFs at the polls and at the cash register. The IFs, they're a little harder to put off if they've made you their target.
They are both a concern; however, CFs affect me more than IFs. That may change, but right now those wacky Christians pose more of a threat - and I consider our current administration, Congressional reps and more than a few neighbors in that category. (Not you, though.)
Hi Kate,
You can be concerned about Christian fundamentalism, but the previous person had a very good point. I would say, if you lived in GA, TN, AL, or some state like that, you could worry about the far right christians running things, but not in FL, and definitely not in CO. (See my post on the chicken story about the FL race)
YOu are right about the establishment of churches and religious organizations, but the people, most of them, do not follow directly with the church.
I am one of those many. I vote Rep. mostly because of lower taxes, less give-aways, and extremely strong on crime and terror. If i voted solely on social issues, which only about 35% of republicans do, i would be voting either democrat or libertarian.
I am pro-life (only b/c i believe that action directly affects the baby), but all the other social issues, i just dont care (b/c they dont directly affect anyone else).. civil unions are fine, strip clubs are fine, heck, i would be fine with legalizing drugs, as long as those socialists in Washington dont start giving welfare to those who are stupid enough to get hooked on it.
I know, that was a long rant. I want some form of traditional values in this country, but like many christians, I dont have any intentions of invading people's personal lives. Their lives are their choice.
So you're one of those evangelicals I could drink a beer with (or green tea) and you wouldn't be secretly thinking I'm going to burn in hell? You're pro-Israel but not because it will signal end times when Jews will burn in a lake of fire?
Come to think of it, I have shared many a drink with even some of those Christians who turned out to be kinda sorta fun. Who knew?
You sound all right but I'd like to know why an evangelical Christian who probably believes that we should care for our poor brothers and sisters would find fault in social service programs that actually work? Why shut them down just to save the top ten percent a few bucks in taxes?
Just wonderin'.
Come on, only southern baptists are against drinking, we are just against abusing it, for alcoholism ruins families. But we have free choice, and most smart people dont abuse it.
Caring for the poor is necessary. Government forcing us to take care of the poor is not necessary. Personally I am fine with SS, medicare, temp unemployment, and 5 year welfare including $$ for schooling (while they get on their feet).
The bible says to help the poor, but also says that 'sluggards' (people who dont work hard) will always be poor. Im not saying that all welfare are lazy, they are far from it, but there is a small percentage of the work force, probably 3%, that just dont want to work.
But our government has taken the money for poor programs to an unbelievable level. Some programs work, others dont.
My wife and I give to our church, that in turn gives 10% of their income to helping the poor. We give some more to charities, and volunteer some, but we would give a lot more if the govt wasnt already taking so much for distribution.
As for the saving the rich $$ notion, it does, but close to 98% of the rich did not inherit it, they took risks, built a company, and earned it.
Are there bad businessmen, sure, and those should be punished. But these business owners take the risks and hire people to earn more money. A rising tide lifts (almost) all boats. I say almost because some do nothing to better themselves, and thus never rise. The lower taxes are, the more people invest and hire, and that helps pull people out of poverty.
Does it create more income disparity, sure. But i would rather see more people pull themselves out of poverty with jobs than worry about the top 10% earning more, and try to take more away from them b/c they dont need it.
Some people say that there is no correlation between lower taxes and more jobs, but just look at the frequency of recessions and unemployment rate when taxes were up in the 70% category in the 60's and 70's. Then lowered to 28-38% in the 80' thru now. We usually only have recessions about every 9 years now, compared with every 4 years back then.
And the unemployment rate has been on the decline over time since 1980, with each recession having lower unemployment rate than the one before.
Whew, that was long. Sorry for that, just trying to explain in detail.
Post a Comment
<< Home