posted by:
goins007 (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (8:33 am)
the problem is that BOTH parties are out to screw us. It seems like every day our system fails us more and more. They don't care about representing the people, all they seem to care about anymore is all the perks and money you get when you hold a public office. We've got serious ass problems in this country and some that are gonna be serious very very soon, and they want me to worry about a couple of gays getting married? Well maybe I'll find time for that after I'm done worrying about how secure my job is, how much this stop at the gas staion is going to hurt me, how bad my gas heating bill is going to be this winter, how our boarders arn't secure, how our government seems fit to tap the lines of millions of americans, how our national debt is so out of control our great great grand kids will still be paying it, how bad our national health care system is. Yes maybe after all that I can spare a moment or 2 about the gay couple walking down the street.
posted by:
bawdy (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (8:34 am)
Let me get this straight...you had no problem with Bush deceiving the public in order to get support for his war, but suddenly it's not ok on an issue you oppose?
But even if they don't introduce legislation to ban it, you know they won't introduce a bill to allow it, which the Democrats could.
posted by:
Kiwi in Zurich (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:01 am)
Left of right, they're all politicians. Of course they don't give a damn about you. But grief, it is so tiring to constantly be the source of populist rhetoric. Whether you agree with gay marriage or not, isn't it just such an ungly nasty populist thing to actually actively legistlatively reduce the rights of any group of people? Shame on you GWB, what an unkind thing to come out with.
posted by:
Kiwi in Zurich (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:02 am)
That was of course meant to be 'left or right', 'not left of right'.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:17 am)
We'll welcome you with open arms over to the side of common sense where we'll be all for you not marrying two gay folks in your church of you don't want to, and we don't even care whether you think it's a sin for them to marry elsewhere, as long as you can tell the difference between your perosnal beliefs for yourself and the wrongness (sinfulness) of supporting anyone who would try to outlaw it. I'm glad you see there trickery for what it is, but lets trake it a step further: If they get to outlaw gay marriage in any legal way based on religious beliefs, does that mean that when and if the populace changes and Christians are in the minority, does the majority get to outlaw alter calls? Or a two parent family? Or marriage between a man and a woman? Sure hope not, but it's a dagerous precedent to make laws based on religious beliefs in a nation that prides itself on individual rights. Takes real thinking folks to understand that trampling on OTHERS rights could mean retaliation later from those and other "others."
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:28 am)
Goins007 writes: " the problem is that BOTH parties are out to screw us."
That may certainly be the case, but if one party has exclusive control they can actually do it. It is only when one party is held in check by the other party that our rights are protected. Unfortunately the politicians have devised our government in such a way that makes a third party virtually impossible, so our best option is to keep the two parties we have in check.
I've been saying this forever, and I'll keep doing so until it changes.
BTW, I posted a tongue-in-cheek post on this subject over at my blog.
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:36 am)
Goins007 writes: " the problem is that BOTH parties are out to screw us."
That may certainly be the case, but if one party has exclusive control they can actually do it. It is only when one party is held in check by the other party that our rights are protected. Unfortunately the politicians have devised our government in such a way that makes a third party virtually impossible, so our best option is to keep the two parties we have in check.
I've been saying this forever, and I'll keep doing so until it changes.
BTW, I posted a tongue-in-cheek post on this subject over at my blog.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:36 am)
Reply to: bawdy
I appreciate your challenge to be consistent. You'll catch me in some inconsistencies, but I don't think this is one.
I'll try to be clear on my views concerning gay marriage. I think it is sin. I believe there is a better kind of marriage. I want my church to refuse to conduct or recognize gay marriage. But, politically and not religiously, I believe two gays who want to be married should be allowed to do so. If they find a judge/mayor/minister who is willing to conduct the ceremony, then who am I to legislate against their legal right to do so? I think my view of marriage is better, but... Of course, the state has no right to force such a sinful view of marriage upon the church. I want the right to be able to seek to persuade the public there is a better kind of marriage, but if I am unable to be adequately persuasive, then I want the other person to have freedom as long as their freedom does not harm me.
I hope I make some sense. I can quote scriptures against gay marriage. I can offer social and moral argument. I think I am right. But no one should be able to use the Law as a weapon to impede the choice of another, as long as there is no harm done to me.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:41 am)
Reply to: goins007
There is obviously a cancerous corruption that enters into the man/woman who goes to Washington. Consider Randy "Duke" Cunningham, recently admitting to accepting bribes. He was a war hero, an "all American boy". He went to Washington to change things. Now, look at the pathetic animal he has become.
What's the answer?
Term limits, maybe.
Haw about a citizen legislature? Let's make congress and senate to be part-time jobs. Little pay. No perks. No retirement deals. Perhaps, combined with term limits, it just might work.
Bring back the Whig party! They were a bit more sensible than these yahoos in office today.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:52 am)
Reply to: Kiwi in Zurich
There must be some limits to political toleration. I'm thinking it is when your right to freedom tramples on my rights. NAMBLA, Child Porn, and I believe Abortion represent such instances.
George Bush knows gays are not evil persons. I've read stories of his kindness toward those very different from himself. I'm convinced a lot of these people who basically hate gays, who think they are the equivalents of animals, have never really known a good and kind person who happened to be gay. The political radicals do not help. Really, neither does the media, including Brokeback Mountain.
I think most reasonable people, of all kinds of religious and political persuasions, are o.k. with a "live and let live" philosophy. If two people want to live in a gay relationship, then fine. Don't flaunt it and be vulgar about it. Don't force it upon our schools and particularly our children. And don't call me an idiot because I do not like it. Otherwise, leave me alone and do as you will. The gays that I know and get along with basically live with that approach to life.
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:53 am)
Term Limits are tricky. We have them in the California Legislature, but they don't allow for the learning curve. The result seems to be a lower level of competance. Of course, before term limits we had people who knew how to pull all of the archaic strings to get what they wanted, which put the newbies at disadvantage.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:57 am)
Reply to: surrogate
I wish there were a political party of common sense. Right now, with my political persuasions, my options are to either vote Republican or just not vote. I'm seriously leaning toward the latter.
You are right. There is no way any laws should be legislated or enforced based upon religious beliefs. The best friend of the church, in the political arena, is the separation of church and state. Thank God for the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (10:03 am)
Reply to: drforbush
I'm not that knowledgeable about politics, since I've chosen to focus more upon matters of faith and religion. But, I wonder if there is a model in our world of a healthy political scene with more than two viable parties?
We have 2 1/2 years until presidential elections. Maybe it would be real good for our nation for the Democrats to take control of Congress. We'd still have a Republican Senate to keep them in check. Maybe it would be a sobering message to the Republicans. Then, if they straighten up, we could vote them back in.
I don't know. I'm being radical here!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (10:08 am)
Reply to: drforbush
Learning curve?
Why does there need to be a learning curve in legislative politics? Let's simplify the way things work in Washington. Get rid of the lobbyists, and simplify the tax code, and then I think a citizen legislature could handle things quite well. And, as far as preparation for governance, I would think active participation in the the real world would be best. A big problem is that we have too many representatives who have never lived in the "real" world. What does Ted Kennedy, and for that matter George Bush, know about living in the real world? Let's term-limit Ted out of there!
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (10:33 am)
There needs to be a learning curve, because we want good laws written that actually make sense and will be enforced. We want to spend money that we have, and not borrow money that we don't have. And, people in government need to know what is possible and what is impossible. Somehow they also need to learn math. :-}
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (10:58 am)
Unfortunately things are not as simply as you make it sound. Government needs to do some things, and they need money to do those things. Property Taxes used to be the easy way to raise money, but that was when property owners were the only ones allowed to vote. Then property owners certainly had the say in everything and everyone else just had to follow the laws.
Today we have given more people rights to vote. Then they want their government to do things for them as well and the property owners that used to get all of the infrastructure and assistance in the form of roads and maintenance etc... Large portions of poor people living in cities are able to demand fairness when they can vote. And, over time they have been able to get politicians to help them in return for their votes. But, the voters have also been able to get the government to give them education and a military and levies and roads and a space program and science funding for research and copyright protection and enforcement and libraries and assistance for the arts and other things that the people want from their government. When non-property owners have the right to vote they will ask for these types of things. The only surefire solution is to take this right away from non-property owners, and I don't think that that is ever going to happen.
So, property owners are never going to want to pay for everything through property taxes, so other forms of taxes are needed to get money to run the programs that people want their government to provide for them. Since these things have evolved over 200 years the methods to get money have evolved to pay for what our Democracy has voted for. Since property owners don't want to pay for everyone, income tax and sales tax have become a fairer way to pay for what the non-property owners have asked for. Of course the complexity has grown over time as a fight between those who have the large portion of property and wealth and the non-property owners who want the government to do things for them. The middle class usually loses in these battles and they pay the highest proportion of their surplus wealth. (The money they have above basic living needs.)
Of course other political system composed of multiparty systems exist and work well in other parts of the world. The problem is that the majority of the population owns little or no property, but they have the same number of votes as the wealthy property owner. A multiparty system would put wealthy property owners into one party - the conservatives. Other parties would likely be the greens, labor, social conservatives and specific issue parties that go in and out of existence over time. Obviously the property owners would loose power and they spend their money in every possible way to prevent this from happening.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (11:55 am)
i read something about marriage that gb is stating that marriage is between one man and one woman, very specifically...but, how can we keep prayer out of school, yet his stance is that marriage is "sacred", can i get a big AMEN? AMEN! he and his cronies and the rest of the politicians are so manipulative and mean spirited and like everyone else says, they don't care about me or you or the rest of the country...but i say unto you, let there be prayer in school and all the other good things we learned like respect and dignity.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (12:39 pm)
Reply to: drforbush
A big problem is when non-productive people demand more and more of the producers, and even come to demand it without just compensation. Why should a productive person work so hard just to support others with little or no personal initiative. It's tough, but maybe an across-the-board flat tax would be more equitable- with few loopholes.
I wish taxes would only be for such true necessities as infrastructure, defense, and sfety for the truly needful. But taxes buy votes, and the democrats have perfected the system.
I think I've strayed far from the original intent of the piece. Thanks for hanging in here with me.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (12:44 pm)
Reply to: mimi
My problem is that I know he does not mean what he says. He has no intention to produce legislation that backs his big mouth. It's just talk, designed to manipulate well-meaning although simple people. He will findout, in November, we are not so simple.
Prayer in schools? I believe in prayer, by individuals, but in no way led by the state. No teachers or school officials deciding what is appropriate or inappropriate. No manuals on how to pray. The church can teach all that. I think schools need to teach- soomething they currently do not do very well.
posted by:
drforbush (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (1:11 pm)
If they are truly non-productive, then the majority can demand new laws. If there are only a few and they have little impact it might not be worth the effort. But in reality this has been corrected for the most part durring the 1990s when Clinton worked with the Republican congress to reform wellfare.
And, the promiss to cut taxes has been used by the Republicans to buy votes on the other side of the aisle.
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (1:23 pm)
Hmmm. You make some very good points Pastor, I do however marvel at how long it takes some people to come to the conclusions you have. Let me state that I have voted since I turned 18 in local, state and national elections. I was thrilled when I could take my children with me to vote, to show them true democracy in action. In all the elections I've participated in I can honestly say that I have no definite political affiliation, I would guess I've split all my votes between the platforms. However, the platform of BOTH parties have been very clear to me. I consider myself to be a true oxymoron because I consider myself to be a conservative/liberal. But I learned very long ago that the Republican party would never benefit the 'average' American. Does that mean I side more with the Dems? No. There are just as many pros and cons but history will prove my belief.
My own personal problem with Wubya is the war in Iraq. I very much try to avoid the subject here and in real life because it infuriates me to the point where I can feel my blood pressure rising. I think the majority of Americans now see what his true motives were by invading and that is why is approval rating is in the crapper. No amount of legislation on any issue is going to help now. I've always tried to look at the candidate and not the party, George Jr. was not trustworthy from the get-go, his re-election was one of the biggest mistakes ever made.
posted by:
Joy (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (3:49 pm)
You seem to surprised by the ploy of politicians to gain your votes. I've always known that to be the case. Bush. Oh where to start, like his economics policies but sadly our world's current affairs kills the advantages. And his social policies are postively stagnant. Weird combo! He wishes for economic progress with outsourcing and social stagnation by trying to regulate social issues with millenias old guidelines.
Sigh, I hope the politics take a positive turn in this country soon. Or, watch out as India and China kick dust in US's face as they race ahead of the US.
posted by:
Kiwi in Zurich (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:14 pm)
PastorDave, I applaude your position.
posted by:
idiotbubble (
reply)
post date:
06.05.06 (9:25 pm)
Politicians.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (7:52 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
Please force me to proof-read my comments before I send them. The wrong "there..." incorrectly spelled words... I annoy myself.
posted by:
almsthvn (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (11:30 am)
I can't even stand to watch GWB on tv, I quickly change the channel. His posture, his face, his attempt at southern charm - all scream LIAR to me.
Gay marriage ban. Suddenly our southern border is a huge risk to national security. Why are we investing SO much in these issues when many of our citizens have no medical insurance and therefore little or no treatment, we have schools falling down, we have an entire region along our Gulf Coast still in devastation from last years hurricanes...
UGH. I can't wait to vote again!
posted by:
babe4jesus55 (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (4:09 pm)
I respect GW as a person, but not as a politician. You can't force people to not sin; it's their choice. God allowed Israel to sin for forever; there were consequences, but no force. If God's not going to force someone to leave their sins, then what business does a lowly human government have in doing so?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (4:55 pm)
Reply to: babe4jesus55
You've got that right. Can't legislate morality. And GW is not really wanting to do so- just wanting to get conservatives all stirred-up.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (4:56 pm)
Reply to: almsthvn
I imagine your understanding of a proper solution to these issues would differ from mine. But, why aren't they at the forefront of the Bush agenda?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (4:57 pm)
Reply to: idiotbubble
Did you just say a dirty word on my blog?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (5:00 pm)
Reply to: Joy
Oh, I'm not too worried about India and China. We have the genius of true democracy and free enterprise, and even bumbling politicians haven't been able to mess it up too much. Most political systems of the world can't hold a candle to the US.
But I'm far from satisfied.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (5:04 pm)
Reply to: FinalyFree
A Conservative/Liberal? I still cannot picture such!
For me, too, the War in Iraq is the defining issue. But I'm not for quitting, I'm for the proper conduct of what I see as a noble cause. Our Republicans are bumbling and impure, but our Democrats are corrupt and sometimes evil.
The discussion of politics can sure make enemies fast. I'm going to move on to other and more safe issues, like homosexuality or race relations, and fast!
posted by:
eichspeaks (
reply)
post date:
06.06.06 (6:45 pm)
Reply to: surrogate This is a fight for vote's, not mine... As I do belive that Gay's should not marry, I will not tell them how to live their lifes, and our political leaders should stay away from it as well.
It is joke for them to think they will win votes by this. They should try to get my vote, by cleaning up the mess they started, Fix My fuel cost, give us our min'wage promised 2 yrs, get out of Iraq.Don't kidd yourself our leaders are in our Churchs, Schools, and homes already our freedom was taken away 8yrs ago.
posted by:
Joy (
reply)
post date:
06.07.06 (3:51 am)
You might not be worried about the progress of China and India but the economists of your country are. It's evident from the media. And free democracy and enterprise can't substitute the educational prowess required for that free enterprise to keep ticking.
About the free democracy you speak of, I can see how well that is doing at the present moment.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.07.06 (6:16 am)
Reply to: Joy
Sarcasm understood!
You make a big mistake to gain your understanding of how well our country is going, and particularly the heartbeat of the average citizen. Our media is almost totally out of touch. They simply interpret the news from an elite and liberal mindset. Now it is true the USA is not utopia. But this freedom of the press and freedom to express oneself without fear of reprisal is a wonderful thing. I don't like what is happening is some elements of the political process, but don't think for one minute I'd trade it for the the Communism of China or the bloated beurocracy of India. We are doing quite well, thank you! Just a few things that are well with USA: Freedom to worship, Freedom to vote or not vote as my conscience dictates, free enterprise system, relative low taxes when compared with rest of the world, ability to pursue a life-dream and succeed with hard work and tenacity, an educational system/health care system/banking system/infrastructure /etc. etc. that is truly the envy of most of the world. Why do you think we are having this border debate- of course it is because the world wants to live here! So much of the problems with other peoples of the world is jealousy. We are blessed mightily, and many do not like it. At the heart, that's the problem with people like bin Laden. They just know that "jealousy" is petty and inexcusable, so they make excuses for their evil behaviour.
Our free democracy is doing quite well.
posted by:
Joy (
reply)
post date:
06.07.06 (6:57 am)
Well, most of the cogs of the country are functioning okay. However, the multi trillion dollar debt that has been incured over the past 5 years is going to be practically impossible to pay off with taxes being so low. How is government getting money into the treasury without taxes? I guess there are ways but not efficient and immediate as taxes. The average person is not benefiting from lowering taxes. You could debate that.
Freedom of Press and Expression is still there, I agree with that. Okay, I can think of a couple of nationally charged issues that are about removing freedom of expression and will. Abortions and gay marriages. Those are two things being stifled by religion. I know what your viewpoints are on that, but people are entitled to their opinions.
I wouldn't go for a communist rule of China, or the heavy bureaucracy of India. I think there is room for improvement, and needs a infusion of fresh blood. The transistion to a smoother government will be helped by the booming 8% growth.
I must say that the higher education system in the US is really good, however, the education in high school and below needs a lot of work. Without, a solid foundation, the workers can not be productive. The science and math part of the education needs a makeover.
US health is very good. But what good that does do if health care is so expensive?
Banking and infrastructure is very good, but not the best. Japan, and Europe do much better in this respect. And taxes might be higher there, but their social services are unparalleled.
The border issue is coming from Mexico. Your neighbouring country. Anything is better than Mexico. And a lot of skilled labor comes from foreign countries because the pay is good. But with the current spat of outsourcing, the trends may change. That being said, I am making a conscious decision to want to live here, even with all the shortcomings. I know that in my field, the US is still doing very well.
US is blessed, and so is the rest of the world. I hate the adage "Bless America, and no place else". However, that doesn't excuse terrorism if they feel that American is evil and out to get them.
Free democracy works if there are good canditates in the running. Last time, it was who was the best of the worst. Neither Bush or Kerry were really good..
Sorry, this discussion has veered away from your initial post..
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.07.06 (7:06 am)
Reply to: Joy
I've been thinking about my previous reply. I expressed to you the kind of attitude I sometimes run into in my dealing with families: "I can criticize my family/wife/parents/etc, BUT you had better not!" I don't want my criticism of some of our political shenanigans to give the wrong impression, and sometimes I'll get defensive to make the point.
But, your points of view, even and especially when it totally disagrees with mine, is always welcome and appreciated. After it is all said and done, I like to be challenged. There's much to learn.
Also, you need to take a few minutes and get your own blog going.
posted by:
Joy (
reply)
post date:
06.07.06 (7:37 am)
What do you mean by get my blog going? I am currently using a self hosted wordpress blog. I wonder if you are talking about my previous blogger or journalspace blogs..
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.07.06 (9:31 am)
Reply to: Joy
Here on T-blog, you come across as a "visitor". When I check my "comments", your comments are nameless. I have to search to find that you are "Joy". And then, I must type-in your name with my replies. If you had a T-blog account, which takes maybe five minutes, then your name would be included. And if you make posts, then we all could come along and comment on them.
It's not a big deal, and I like your comments and interaction. I like them so much I wish you were an ongoing blogger on T-blog.
That's what I mean!
posted by:
jesusisangry (
reply)
post date:
06.08.06 (2:31 pm)
Well I must say, this is the first time that I will agree with you. Yes, the GOP party have been in power for multiple years, and they have done nothing to advance your beliefs. I also would like to mention that the only time you hear about your beliefs are only during election years other then that you don't really hear about it during non election years.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.09.06 (5:48 am)
Reply to: jesusisangry
You've got it right. These guys truly think I am a simple-minded fool, willing to be manipulated at election time, and laughed at otherwise. After November, I hope they'll get in line to work as consultants in Washington, and watch someone/anyone else serve in their former offices.
We should try to agree again sometime!
posted by:
Maurice Reeves (
reply)
post date:
06.13.06 (2:36 pm)
Pastor Dave, I admire your convictions and your willingness to stand up and speak about what's bothering you. I think that the majority of the commenters are correct when they say that it doesn't matter whether it's left or right, politicians lie. The problem is that with both the Republicans and the Democrats they have no philosophy that drives their policies. They have no stake in the ground that determines how they act or what they say. You have the church and the word of God as your stake. It is what grounds you. The only thing that motivates politicans is the desire to be reelected, so they flap in the breeze of ideology, twisting in the wind as they try to gauge what's bothering people the most and trying to pander to them.
Pastor Dave, may I suggest that this election you turn your vote to another party, like the Constitutional Party, which is for small government and Christian values. As a libertarian I don't agree with all of their policies, but I certainly think you'd find yourself a new political home.
It is said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In this case, the insanity is voting for the same bunch of politicians and expecting something different.
posted by:
Drucillia (
reply)
post date:
06.23.06 (2:53 pm)
I like to think that, for the most part, I am a smart individual. I also chose to believe in a God who shows infinate mercy. I think that if you are born gay, and it is not a choice, then it is not a sin. That's like saying...if you are born with brown hair that is a sin.
So all I know is, when God decides whether or not to put all the gay believers in Hell, I will be right there, telling him that I want to go there too! Because you know what? My hair isn't naturally red, and if he wants to send something he created to Hell for being the way he created them, then you know what? I'll join them, because while I got to change my hair from brown to auburn with a bottle, they don't have a magic potion.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
06.23.06 (6:02 pm)
Reply to: Drucillia
You come across as quite sane for a teenager, and I say that from the context of being dad to three insane teens- two girls and a boy. Maybe it is more that they have finally pushed me over the edge.
The subject of homosexuality is quite volatile, and I have had several heated skirmishes here on T-blog. I'm not out to offend anyone, but this is an issue that some get quite passionate in their disagreement with me. That's O.K., but I hate to lose friends- even blogging friends, over any issue.
The nature-vs-nurture debate is familiar to me. I believe one is born with a tabula-rasa, an empty slate, and sexual identity is a matter of both conditioning and choice. Homosexuality is not innate. Never do I believe it to be. And I think the behaviour is contrary to what is right, according to the Bible, which is my book of guidance for life. The basis for what I say in this post is that I do not think the Bible is our U.S. Constitution. The state, being the government of the U.S., cannot insist upon religious conformity. So the state needs to leave the gay community alone. But, I believe the church has a right and an obligation to engage the homosexual community with its love and it's message of the gospel. I think we offer a better way. So let's have a healthy exchange, and see if we can convince others. Maybe, or maybe not. But such is the proper way.
