Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
pennquaker09 - there you go again, calling us "idiots" for voting against what YOU perceive to be our interests. You're asking when will the rubes realize that the statist Govt knows what's best for them - why don't the "crazy" "so-called" christians trust their intellectual betters ("the more enlightened") to run their lives.
Thanks for pointing out that you don't dislike all Christians, just those "annoying" "Bible-beaters". How typically liberal of you.
Then you go on to disparage a black candidate for Governor who has 'left the plantation': you say "as a black man, he should (support civil rights for everyone)" - assuming that Obamacare is a civil right. Then you accuse Davis of having "sold out to appeal to white people". Because a black man chooses not to vote for your liberal orthodoxy he becomes an 'Uncle Tom'. Have you no shame? Of course not, you're a typical liberal...
Enjoy Governor Chris Christie (R - NJ)!!!
Last edited by Reactionary; 05-29-2010 at 12:13 PM..
OK.. lets keep this about the AL election. You have a right to your opinions but do not start bashing others with different opinions liberal or conservative. Politics is always a 'hot' topic but keep it civil. Don't turn this into a discussion about national politics
pennquaker09 - there you go again, calling us "idiots" for voting against what YOU perceive to be our interests. You're asking when will the rubes realize that the statist Govt knows what's best for them - why don't the "crazy" "so-called" christians trust their intellectual betters ("the more enlightened") to run their lives.
Thanks for pointing out that you don't dislike all Christians, just those "annoying" "Bible-beaters". How typically liberal of you.
Then you go on to disparage a black candidate for Governor who has 'left the plantation': you say "as a black man, he should (support civil rights for everyone)" - assuming that Obamacare is a civil right. Then you accuse Davis of having "sold out to appeal to white people". Because a black man chooses not to vote for your liberal orthodoxy he becomes an 'Uncle Tom'. Have you no shame? Of course not, you're a typical liberal...
Enjoy Governor Chris Christie (R - NJ)!!!
Keeper, state politics have a direct link to national politics. You can't talk about one without talking about the other. The economy isn't limited to AL, it's an issue that affects the entire Union. Ditto for health care, taxes, and education. All of these things go hand in hand.
Ok, so, I said no such thing. And, Reactionary, I don't think you actually understood most of what I was saying or if you did, you skipped over it because you can't refute the points I made.
I don't think you or anyone is an idiot for not liking the health care bill, but I did say, the idiots refer to it as Obamacare. The sad thing is, most people that refer to it as such, don't even know why, they're just following the pack. Once it's actually explained to them, they're like, "Oh, that's all it is?"
Honestly, it's really a weak bill, it doesn't really do ANYTHING. If a person already has insurance, it won't even affect them. They might get a tax break to make it more affordable, other than that, it's weak. And, the majority actually wanted a public option.
I also never said anything about the more, "enlightened," running everyone's lives. I said that in reference to the Democrats wanting to rewrite the state constitution to change the tax laws. We can debate on whether or not taxes should be increased or decreased, but you can't refute any of what I said. The method of collecting taxes in Alabama isn't working, and leaving it alone and cutting taxes more is only going to make it worse. That's not politics, that's economics 101. It should be common sense. You have to come up with another method of collecting revenue when you cut taxes.
And I didn't say ANY of those things about Mr. Davis. I said that he was a sellout. None of my comments disparaged him. And when I was talking about him not supporting civil rights as a black man, it was not in reference to the health care bill. Go back and reread what I said. One of the things that I do is inform myself on a person's voting record. It would be rather dumb of me to comment on someone without knowing how he votes. Davis has never been particularly liberal when it comes to social issues. His votes have always been in the middle, and occasionally to the left, but he doesn't have to worry about the ACLU inviting him to a big dinner party. However, when running for higher office, politicians have to insure themselves so that nothing comes back to haunt them. It's called survival and I get that, but like the Republicans get their support from the religious citizens, Democrats get a lot of their support from minorities. I mean minority in a broad sense, race, disability, sexual orientation, etc. And, I don't think a lot of our elected officials think about that when they cast their votes. That's why a politician should separate his religion from his politics. Because our country can't seem to do that, we have extremely partisan politics. Anyway, I don't like Davis' voting record on civil rights. That, coupled with other key votes against makes him a sellout. He's voting more conservative to appeal the the religious right, which in Alabama is overwhelmingly white. And he's only doing it because he's running for governor.
Lastly, I'm not going to apologize for viewing that segment of the Republican party negatively. And, I like how you correlated my dislike of Bible beaters to being liberal. Christians can be both Republican or Democrat. I think my issue is that I've met a limited amount of true Christians. And, what really gets me are the people that use the Bible to justify their bigotry and narrow-mindedness. And the ironic thing is that the people I'm referring to are all up in arms about the government coming in and telling them how to live when they're not stopping and realizing they're doing to EXACT same thing. Pushing their beliefs off on to everyone and having votes on whether two people that happen to be the same sex can get married, or if grown people want to go and gamble with their own money. To this day, I still have no idea what in the H E double hockey sticks, a family value is. And, I'd like to think that I'm a fairly intelligent person. However, that one continues to baffle me. Christianity should be about love, but people with agendas have made it mean so many different things, and I don't think God intended for it to be this way.
Charles, I agree. Campaign signs are not supposed to be placed in the right of way and certainly shouldn't be placed on utility poles etc. I think that it diminishes a campaign when they have undisciplined workers. I like campaign signs when they are placed in yards or businesses (with permission) as a show of support.
BTW - here's a campaign tip - if you want to gain the everlasting respect of a candidate - help them remove their signs if they lose. Even a phone call saying 'good race' or 'thanks for running' will be remembered. If they decide to run again, they'll remember you as someone who was there for them in their worst days. Of course, this tip applies to many areas of life.
I will be much happier when all the ugly campaign signs are removed (if they are removed) from the streetscapes.
There's "too much" democracy. Why do we vote for every thing. Judges, coroners, board of education. There's really no way a person can know and understand every single person up for election. Many people should be hired based on merit, like, say, a technical professional working for the state or feds would be. Elections could be greatly consolidated (instant run-offs, combining various local, state, national elections). This would save tax money.
Furthermore, freedom of speech allowed to be defined by amount of money able to spend is silly. All these signs everywhere are unnecessary and utterly pointless, except to increase name recognition to those who have raised enough to afford it. This is just increases policitians being owing their political fates to various groups and encouraging hot-button issues to raise money from people's emotions. Elections need not be so long and costly. If you calculate the cost per person for each election and campaign, its a bit sad.
Last edited by bluebeard; 05-31-2010 at 10:58 AM..
As for the primary... I guess I'll vote for Sparks. He seems to not be able to say anything other than gambling, and Davis addresses issues I find most important, but I just can't help feeling that he's voting the way he does to get to the next level. And I just am not convinced that he'd actually do his fullest to press these issues as strongly as he states. I suppose politicians are politicians and that's the way it always goes, but I don't feel he's fulfilling his current job, in order that he can get a better job. Where does it stop.
As for the Republicans, hopefully Byrne's new-found religiosity and James's hot-button issues are just a function of the Republican primary. If you look at his actual platform, most of it doesn't look so horrible. Some of it is quite impressive, and if successfully enacted would be awesome. I do hate demonizing though. I think I'd only be depressed if Moore won.
But its all like choosing between the douche-bag and the turd sandwich. Especially for me. When you're admittedly far-left on many issues, and pretty much are just looking for someone that's trustworthy, competent, and not too far right on the issues, everyone looks pretty similar from my view.
bluebeard - after your post complaining about "too much democracy" I'm not surprised that you vote for the Democratic Party. You and other "admittedly far-left" people think too highly of technocrats (or worse) managing every aspect of other peoples' lives, and not enough of people who like running their own lives.
Your statement "Everyone looks pretty similar from my view" seems to have a larger message - of course people look the same to you, you're a socialist - try seeing people as individuals and not as cogs in the collective machinery. It will do wonders for your outlook on life.
If you compare the cost in money for free elections versus the cost in lives for a socialist utopia, we're getting a bargain.
bluebeard - after your post complaining about "too much democracy" I'm not surprised that you vote for the Democratic Party. You and other "admittedly far-left" people think too highly of technocrats (or worse) managing every aspect of other peoples' lives, and not enough of people who like running their own lives.
My home state of California is one of the primary examples of this "too much". And despite what people think of this state, it is quite politically diverse. Anyway, as for the voting process, everyone votes for this proposition and that initiative, relying on this bond of tax and this or that budget projection. This puts it largely out of the state government's hands. When a recession happens, and you want to balance the budget you must either cut the program (not possible with this system) or raise taxes or borrow more (not possible when you have a 1/3 uncompromising legislature that wants to rely on only one solution: cutting discretionary spending that is only a part of the state's budget). It is a politically diverse state with ideological extremes and a political structure that makes compromise and bureaucratic accountability difficult.
Anyway, back to voting on every little state official, down to the coroner, do you really think that 90% of the people vote for the coroner or state judges based on an informed opinion. More often than not, I skip judges and other of these types because of the difficulty of getting good information.
The idea that judges are accountable to campaign contributors is rather scary too me. I'd also say the current campaign financing system is actually undemocratic.
Also, the government is already in our business. Conservative and Liberal alike. Only an ideological libertarian or anarchist (in both domestic and foreign policy) has a solid standpoint if s/he's arguing for a more truly "hands-off" government.
The idea of more government and less government should be superseded by effective and smart versus corrupt and ineffective.
Last edited by bluebeard; 05-31-2010 at 12:54 PM..
If you compare the cost in money for free elections versus the cost in lives for a socialist utopia, we're getting a bargain.
BTW, this has nothing to do with what I'm saying and I'm not sure it makes sense. In addition, there is no socialist utopia (or communist, or fascist, or libertarian, or autocratic, and anarchic or democratic, or democrat, or republican, or conservative, or liberal, or progressive)
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
