dear gwb
- Thread starter SkankinMonkey
- Start date
SkankinMonkey
Established Member
The difference between a firfighter and a policeman dying in action and a soldier is this:
Firefighters aren't considered to be dying in the line of duty if they get in a car wreck and their car bursts into flames with them in it.
Likewise, a soldier not dying defending the country, but fighting for the greed of the people that they don't represent is not in their line of duty. Ask any of them.
Right, and I think people are having a problem separating their private and mostly religious views from the matters that take precedence over religion. These being the universal issues of economy, foreign policy, and domestic policy. These are things that affect every American.
Gay marriage is not something that should decide a presidential election, especially when this issue has a strong religious basis. How this "loophole" issue is even able to be voted on is astounding. It's an issue of religion that should be left out of federal control, as the fathers of the country dictated that church and state shall be separate.
Anyone else feel like George Bush used religion to get reelected? Somehow convinced a good number of people that he's a "good, moral Christian."
Originally posted by mal+Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 08:22 PM--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(mal @ Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 08:22 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'>Heh, this is the discussion we should have had prior to the election.
[post=122702]Quoted post[/post]
[/b]
Oh, it wouldn't have done any good. See Fark for a reference. In fact, I'm kind of glad politics wasn't much of a topic here. It was the one place I could lurk that wasn't tainted. That's why I'm trying not to get too deep into it. Trying.
<!--QuoteBegin-Resident_Lurker@Wed, 2004-11-03 @ 11:50 PM
Gay marriage is not something that should decide a presidential election, especially when this issue has a strong religious basis. How this "loophole" issue is even able to be voted on is astounding. It's an issue of religion that should be left out of federal control, as the fathers of the country dictated that church and state shall be separate.
[/quote]
See, I can understand that marriage, technically, is a religious thing. It means nothing in the eyes of the government until the two people getting married sign a piece of paper. That's when they get the benefits of a civil union. Using that logic, it should be up to the church to decide who can and can't get "married." However, I know of plenty of priests and holy people of all religions that will "marry" gay people. It's the civil benefits they need. That's something the state can do without the church being involved. In short, this isn't a religious issue, it's a civil rights issue. Remember when whites and blacks couldn't marry?
Of course he did. I can't say I'm an expert, but his religious motives seem very calculated and not so genuine. He's hardly compassionate for those in need. So at the very least he doesn't much understand his own religion. After all, Jesus was a liberal Jew, right?
It becomes a religious [moral] issue when Bush parades it around as such to appeal to his evangelist friends. Its "immorallity" stems from the Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. But the fact that marriage/civil unions are being denied is, as you said, a civil rights issue.
But this should not have been a deciding factor in an election. Any ban on civil unions or gay marriage should be ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.
I believe were about to enter a period of time in which our system of checks and balances will be strenuously tested. I hope the outcome is good.
edit: No, Jesus was black, but keep it under your hat.
Actually, I hope so, in a non-specific way. What you said implied that talking about this before the election might have changed voter minds while it's too late now. This is just a friendly discussion of opinions now, not a push to move people to vote one way or another. Civil discussion of ideas. I know it's been a while since we've seen them, but I think they're a good thing. Feel free to disagree.
<!--QuoteBegin-Resident_Lurker@Thu, 2004-11-04 @ 12:36 AM
It becomes a religious [moral] issue when Bush parades it around as such to appeal to his evangelist friends. Its "immorallity" stems from the Christian belief that marriage is between a man and a woman. But the fact that marriage/civil unions are being denied is, as you said, a civil rights issue.
But this should not have been a deciding factor in an election. Any ban on civil unions or gay marriage should be ruled unconstitutional by the supreme court.
[/quote]
Oh, I agree 100%. I was basically saying something that I think falls through the cracks on this particular issue: that it's NOT a religious issue (despite people making it one). If some people want to keep the definition of "marriage" between a man and a woman, that's their business. You can even make it "official" that your religion forbids it. But there's still going to be people of your faith that disagree and "marry" gays anyway. Basically, there's no way you can stop this from happening. In short, there are priests that will marry gays. What are the rest of them going to do about it? The church doesn't give civil rights, the state does. The church shouldn't have any say in that matter.
Another problem is that this was the ONLY issue for a lot of people. Never mind anything else that's going on.
All I can hope for (aside from avoiding total disaster and self destruction of our nation) is for some serious reflection to occur. We need people to figure out what's really important and how to get there. In a calm, civil manner, of course. That's really the key. We can disagree, but we have to respect all sides and weigh their validity without immediately discounting opinions because they come from the "other side." Compromise, share, all that good stuff.
edit: No, Jesus was black, but keep it under your hat.
[post=122740]Quoted post[/post]
Okay, so he was a Black liberal Jew
The gay marriage issue was mainly brought up because the large insurance companies that make large contributions to the Republican party didn't want to have to extend benefits to same-sex partners.
This *SHOULD* have been brought up by the Democrats!!!
Estimates and polling place just over 10% of the US population in the "gay" or "bi-sexual" group. So if insurance companies had to extend their benefits, that would probably increase the number of people they cover by around 4% with not much increase in the amount of money coming in.
Another reason why healthcare needs to be socialized.
Kerry's biggest problem was that he wouldn't just come right out and say what he believed on certain topics. He was afraid to lay it on the line. He should have just said "I believe abortion is wrong. I believe this from a personal, moral, and religous standpoint. However, I believe that it must remain a legal medical procedure while we promote other forms of birth control, as well as provide funding towards developing newer and better forms of birth control." THAT is what I wanted to hear!!! Why didn't he say "I don't believe in gay marriage. That decision is based on my religous faith. However, it is unconstitutional to take away the rights of those who do not share my beliefs. The government needs to recognize same-sex civil unions. It is up to the individual churches whether or not they will marry same-sex couples." THAT was what he needed to say. NOT "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I don't think we should write descrimination into the Constitution." He wasn't flip-flopping. He was just skirting the issues. Problem was, they were issues that people care about. Iraq and terrorism weren't the be-all-end-all issues of the campaign like the Democratic party thought they'd be.
This *SHOULD* have been brought up by the Democrats!!!
Estimates and polling place just over 10% of the US population in the "gay" or "bi-sexual" group. So if insurance companies had to extend their benefits, that would probably increase the number of people they cover by around 4% with not much increase in the amount of money coming in.
Another reason why healthcare needs to be socialized.
Kerry's biggest problem was that he wouldn't just come right out and say what he believed on certain topics. He was afraid to lay it on the line. He should have just said "I believe abortion is wrong. I believe this from a personal, moral, and religous standpoint. However, I believe that it must remain a legal medical procedure while we promote other forms of birth control, as well as provide funding towards developing newer and better forms of birth control." THAT is what I wanted to hear!!! Why didn't he say "I don't believe in gay marriage. That decision is based on my religous faith. However, it is unconstitutional to take away the rights of those who do not share my beliefs. The government needs to recognize same-sex civil unions. It is up to the individual churches whether or not they will marry same-sex couples." THAT was what he needed to say. NOT "I don't believe in gay marriage, but I don't think we should write descrimination into the Constitution." He wasn't flip-flopping. He was just skirting the issues. Problem was, they were issues that people care about. Iraq and terrorism weren't the be-all-end-all issues of the campaign like the Democratic party thought they'd be.
It needs to be brought up, and not just by the Democrats. However, I have a sinking feeling that the reason it wasn't brought up is that a (hopefully small) majority of people in this country are in fact homophobic, although many of them won't admit to it. Saying that you disapprove of a certain group of people (who did NOT choose their sexuality) is bigotry, plain and simple- it doesn't matter if the belief stems from religion. This is, of course, one issue about which I held great animosity towards the Democratic candidates. In any case, chalk up another point to the Bible for holding back the course of human progress and the ideal of love and understanding.
We are on the verge of another civil rights movement breaking into the mainstream of society. I believe it will take longer for the gay movement to make progress compared to the civil rights movement... it is relatively new, the problems it faces are not as fundamental (although they are equally important from a moral standpoint), and of course, it faces the obstacle of religion. My advice to Christians trying to 'defend' their stubborn ideology -- consider what it means to be a Christian, and the tolerance that Jesus embodied. See if you can find it in your heart to accept people, rather than cast them out. Do some research regarding what is actually said about gays in the Bible, and what you think its meaning is, rather than just relying on what your priests tell you. If you're unwilling to do any of that, I suggest you get out of the way, because if you adhere to the doctrine of discrimination and hate, you will be remembered as a villian by future generations.
I can't say I've heard that reason before. This is another point to illustrate the blatent discrimination in the system. They don't have any problems extending benefits to bi-sex partners when they get married. If they don't want to cover people, they shouldn't be selling insurance.
I don't know that he was skirting the issues. He just was too vauge most of the time (I think there's a subtle difference). I was also upset that he didn't just come out and say these things. I understood what he meant, but apparently most people didn't (or at least a lot of potential voters didn't). You can be both straight talking and mindful of multiple points/opinions. Bush has the straight talking down and Kerry has the consideration of multiple and complex points. We just need a candidate that has both of these abilities.
<!--QuoteBegin-it290@Thu, 2004-11-04 @ 12:19 PM
Saying that you disapprove of a certain group of people (who did NOT choose their sexuality) is bigotry, plain and simple- it doesn't matter if the belief stems from religion. This is, of course, one issue about which I held great animosity towards the Democratic candidates.
[/quote]
Exactly. Religion was used to oppress people for multiple reasons in the past. And vice versa, to be fair. But I think one of the great shames about religion is how many people chose to use it as a weapon. Though I suppose that has more to do with the individual than with the religion itself.
I believe this as well. There is a cultural war (an uncivil war, if you will) that's boiling and stands a good chance of blowing over in the next four years.
I always hate to attack religion for anything. It has it's benefits and things that I can relate to. But from what I understand, most of this "God hates gays" stuff stems from the Old Testament. The teachings of Jesus are what most Chistians follow today, and I know of nothing that says anything against gays in the newer stuff. But I'm way out of my league in this area and could be way off. I'm not much of a religious scholar I'm sorry to say.
But I was talking with my brother about an article his journalism-major friend wrote. Basically it says there's a huge culture gap between rural and urban America. Rural Americans live fairly spaced out and take care of themselves a whole lot easier. They tend to not need the social and support services the government has. Therefore, they don't want to pay for them. It's an interesting point. In cities, we're forced to constantly deal with all kinds of people in all kinds of situations. It might be easier for us to see how all our lives are interconnected because they are more so in urban areas. Look at the county by county voting patterns. What's red? What's blue? I don't think that's a coincidence.
I take it, then, you have faith in the Government to not bring ruin to everything it touches? There are problems, but do you think you've found the end-all fix? Maybe there are other things that need to be addressed first, like medical malpractice, length that companies have exclusive rights to a drug, etc? Have you noticed how prescription drugs are often cheaper to obtain for many people than their OTC competitors? Like Claritin, for example.
Also, here's one to rock your world: Generic prescription drugs in the USA often cost less than either generic or name-brand drugs from Canada. So seeing as how roughly half of all prescriptions are for generic drugs... we're not necessarily that bad off. We pay up the wazoo for new drugs, yes, but ask yourself why before you figure out how to fix it. You need to know the source of the problems before you hand it over to the Government to fix, damnit. I think shortening the length of time they can rake in the dough would help, although you can't go too far or you risk stiffling development.
The interstate highway system still seems to be running, as does our military. I don't think government can magically solve every problem, but I do not think government involvement in something is inherently counterproductive.
Malpractice problems do need to be addressed, but I remain unconvinced that malpractice suits have a major effect on overall healthcare costs.
Don't even get me started on abuse of the patent system. It makes the DMCA look almost reasonable.
This is really a secondary issue. Personally, I'm not big on re-importing drugs from Canada; I think if we want lower prices we should take measures here instead of relying on a foreign government for political convenience.
I don't claim to have all the answers, I just get pissed at people who take the stance that we shouldn't even look for them.
Why in the hell would we go to the USA when we get REAL sick? People from all over the workld come to use our hospitals and facilities and we would skip out and head to the US for....?
Oh, and theres something i just need some clarificationon. Why are seniors coming to buy their prescription drugs in Canada for if their so cheap in the US? And why did we have to open up special border clinics for Americans to get a flu shot?
I would just like to make a note on Health Care, as some of you may know I have more then one serious illness and costs of medicine and health care visits, down to special ones like deep scanning mri's that i have to get at least once a year. For example I have to refill my 5 or so bottles of medicine at least once a month, and each billing statement on my insurance has them come back over $100 a piece easy. I have to also rely on Social Security which is going down the shit hole, and has severely done so since Bush came into office. If my wife's income combined with my money go over poverty level, they cut back severly to keep us there. If we ever manage to make the jump so we no longer require social security (my wife would have to double her income in an instant) they will cut out my medical insurance and I will be stuck with an insane medical bill bringing us back below poverty level. There is almost no way for me and my wife to get above poverty level, which I remind you is about 15,000 for us COMBINED. If Bush runs things the way he has been, I feel sorry for my wife and child because I cant provide for them and the Government no longer helps. What do you say about them? Sad day indeed.
I just had this discussion on another board.
Its the difference between socialism and capitalism. Up here our government helps peeople into the middle class. Down there its pushing people into 2 classes the high and the low.
But I like our medical system. So what if I have to pay extra taxes. I don't mind the fact that since I don't have health insurance I can go see the doctor when I am sick without going bankrupt. I can be homeless and have my health taken care of.
In alberta where they have private and public health care, the public system is cheaper and more efficient. As is when you compare our system to the completely private system you have down south. Sure the waits might be a lil longer and we might not have a machine to cure a 1 in 5 million disease that costs millions in itself.
I think Bush is going to be a war president and will plunge your country into a war.
Its the difference between socialism and capitalism. Up here our government helps peeople into the middle class. Down there its pushing people into 2 classes the high and the low.
But I like our medical system. So what if I have to pay extra taxes. I don't mind the fact that since I don't have health insurance I can go see the doctor when I am sick without going bankrupt. I can be homeless and have my health taken care of.
In alberta where they have private and public health care, the public system is cheaper and more efficient. As is when you compare our system to the completely private system you have down south. Sure the waits might be a lil longer and we might not have a machine to cure a 1 in 5 million disease that costs millions in itself.
I think Bush is going to be a war president and will plunge your country into a war.
Yeah well unfortunetely, a lot of people think re-importation is the holy grail. As I've already explained, it won't even help for generic drugs.
<!--QuoteBegin-ExCyber@Thu, 2004-11-04 @ 01:10 PM
I don't claim to have all the answers, I just get pissed at people who take the stance that we shouldn't even look for them.[/quote]Who is taking that stance? My wanting to avoid starting down that road doesn't mean I (or others) don't recognize there are problems. But there is just SO MUCH to deal with. Our cost of living is high enough that a lot of people would take a serious beating if our taxes go up significantly. The "best" solution to the new prescription drug part of the equation might well be price controls. But if we stop bankrolling the greedy drug companies, who else will finance them?
Man, how did we live before we had all these medicines... doctors seem to be trained to go for the drug solution first anyway...
I don't think anyone is saying we have to turn them into communes, we just need to rearrange things to make the situation saner. As much as their shills love to whine about R&D costs, they apparently spend much more on recklessly advertising prescription drugs directly to consumers; I'm not sure where to find authoritative figures, but I've seen estimates as high as 2.5X. Plus, a lot of the hard science work seems to be done by public universities. Drug companies like to paint themselves as tireless innovators, but what they're mostly good at is commercializing the science that comes from publically funded research and making marginally more effective clones of existing drugs (how many SSRIs are out there again?).
Anyway, one idea that occurred to me for the big picture would be to introduce reporting regulations to encourage consumer education similar in spirit to what's used to rate charities: require insurance companies to report to their customers (e.g. on their bill) the percentage of gross revenue that is paid out in claims. This is something that they certainly know internally, and at first glance it seems about as good a measure of value as Joe Consumer is likely to get for insurance. I haven't fully thought it through, but it strikes me as a good idea that's politically very feasible as it requires no changes in taxes or how the industry is run, but rather requires making it more transparent. The insurance companies would fight it tooth-and-nail, of course. But if it got into the grassroots I don't see a viable shill argument against it. Basically the goal is to keep insurance companies honest and facilitate genuine competition. I'd be interested in hearing any solid arguments against this.
Supergrom, at least as I'm reading it. Categorically ruling out a whole class of possible solutions with no supporting arguments doesn't exactly say to me "Hey, let's take a serious look at how to solve this".
