|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>I'm a little confused here. Obama is the first "black" man elected as president. Let me see, wasn't his mother "white"? Does that make him the first non "complete white" person to be elected or is he the first "black" man to be elected? Is this something that society believes? If you are only half "white" then you are automatically pooled with the other half of your ethnicity? Ok, maybe a little to "deep" in thought here... time for an early morning cocktail...
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dave Hornish</b><p>"time for an early morning cocktail... "<br><br>That is the best advice I have ever read on Net54
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>I think that bi-racial people may choose what race they want to consider themselves to be. It is apparent that Obama chose to be African-American, ab initio.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>Marty, <br><br>I don't know what symantics are, but your statement is not just semantics. It wouldn't be appropriate for me to post what it actually is, but it's much, much more than semantics.<br><br>Also, I don't think either can legally marry a women. Women is the plural of woman. Or it is legal now to be extra-hetero and have several wives?<br><br><br>Steve, do you think Obama or any other dark-skinned, half-black half-white person with an afro could choose to be white? <br><br>-Ryan<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>"Steve, do you think Obama or any other dark-skinned, half-black half-white person with an afro could choose to be white?"<br><br>Yes<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Ryan,<br><br>I know you are a compassionate, nice person. However, when you become the grammar police...it appears condescending and belittles the point the other person is making, no matter if you agree with it or not. For the record, I agree with exactly one-half of your initial argument. The other half strikes me as incorrect, but am thinking it over and trying to come to resolution on it within myself. <br><br>Well spewed,<br><br>James
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p><p>Ryan,<br>My point is, all men in California have equal RIGHTS! Gay men are asking for Additional RIGHTS. </p><p>nothing more, nothing less. </p>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>More clarity...<br><br>First...For those of you that say Civil Unions are just as good and have equal rights are just plain wrong. <br><br>People who are married have several advantages. They can file joint tax returns and get tax benefits that are not allowed under Civil Unions. <br><br>Married persons are established as kin. Meaning that a gay couple must create legal contracts that arrange things like medical care, death benefits, wills, etc. that are given freely to married couples. This cost alone often precludes people from doing this. <br><br>Civil Unions are not recognized by other states. If a person moves to another state the civil union has not validity. Marriages are recognized across state lines.<br><br>Civil Unions are not equal rights.<br><br>Second...for those of you who say the majority spoke and the rest of us should just accept that are surprisingly short sighted.<br><br>Try this scenario...You are driving along your local street where you are t-boned by a truck and paralyzed from the waist down. The majority of people in this country are able bodied individuals where handicap parking, bathrooms, etc. are more of an annoyance than useful. If we go by the logic of the majority is always correct then you as a parapalegic should just have to deal with steps. Both lead to the same doors so you have the same equal rights. Yes, it might be tougher to get some things done but that is okay because the majority says you are equal. <br><br>Seperate but equal is a saying that was used often once upon a time and it seems to have come up once again. Whether you are fighting for civil rights for African Americans, people with disabilities, or gay rights you must understand that seprate but equal is just wrong.<br><br>Many other laws are there to protect people where the majority would just as well take away their rights. I think that the founding fathers created the ideals of our country so that it will aspire to help even the smallest minority gain justice and equality. This is one of the great things our country and Constitution guarentee.<br><br>Joshua<br><br> <br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>James, <br><br>The statement I was commenting on was incredibly condescending to an entire segment of our population, so I don't mind being a little condescending in my response. I'll leave the level-headed responses to Barry and Jim B. Some day I might be able to respond differently. <br><br>What is the half of my initial argument that you're talking about?<br><br>-Ryan
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Joshua,<br><br>I'm very sensitive to the feelings of those homosexuals who were defeated this election. I can imagine the majority feel angry, lonely, confused and probably many other emotions. I live in Maryland, but spoke about the pros and cons of this proposition for well over two hours last night with my wife. I do feel, and many of the African-Americans in my neighborhood feel it is quite a stretch though to equate homosexual marriages to the civil rights movement of the past decades. To piggyback on that movement does no justice to either cause.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Ryan Christoff</b><p>Steve, <br><br>Can you pick Obama out in the photo below? I'll give you a clue: He's the white guy in the middle:<br><br><img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/Barack-Obama-Punahou-basketball.jpg" alt="[linked image]"><br><br><br>Something tells me this guy wouldn't have won over the parents of many white girls if he showed up at the door in the 1970s and said, "Don't worry, sir. I'm white."<br><img src="http://i111.photobucket.com/albums/n148/vajra1/obamahighschool.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>James,<br><br>I am not piggy backing it, I am just stating that equal rights is a right of all in this country, not just the majority. Whether it is color of skin, sexual orientation, or physicallity (or anything else for that matter). Gay people in California are fighting for civil rights. Nothing more, nothing less. The same rights that other segments have fought for in the past. I was just pointing out that the legalities overlap.<br><br><br><br>Just for the record Mass. created their gay marriage laws based on Brown vs. Board of Ed.(seperate but equal ruling). <br><br><br><br>Joshua<br><br>Edited to respond to hate...<br><br>Just for the record...I have now received three emails (from three different people who I suspect are trolls anyway) claiming that I was a "homo" lover and should burn in hell, I should keep my fag-loving mouth shut, and I am a complete moron and sinner.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p><<for those of you who say the majority spoke and the rest of us should just accept that are surprisingly short sighted. >><br><br>Josh, <br><br>I agree. There was a time in our country's not too distant past, when the majority of people in the country thought slavery was OK. Less than 50 years ago at least 22 states had laws banning inter-racial marriage. In those states, this was supported by the majority. <br><br>As Joann said above, some human rights need to be protected, regardless of what the majority wants. <br><br>However, from the viewpoint of my age (50's) I see that this is a much different country than it was when I was a kid. We have improved by leaps and bounds in many areas. We still have a ways to go in some areas. I do not operate under the assumption that we will fix all these things overnight, but they will be fixed in time.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Joshua,<br><br>I do agree with you on this. Although a group of people are clearly not in the majority, that does not make their position any less important. What I'm trying to work out in my lil' noggin (scary, I know) are the concepts of perpetual redefinition of terms based on cultural more's and special rights. There are other aspects of my previously stated religious views that I'm also trying to work out. Thanks for your patience <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"><br><br>James
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>Now that was funny. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"><br><br>All I'm saying is that anyone who is half white and half black can legitimately consider him or herself black or white. Now what their appearance is may determine their choice, that's for sure.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>That I was getting from BOTH sides; At one pt; I almost sent a donation to each party with the specific instructions of PLEASE stop sending me begging emails.<br><br>Next time, I'll do that and see what the reaction is<br><br>Rich
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p>Tiger Woods is in the same position, when was the last time he was "The Greatest Asian Golfer"
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J Levine</b><p>James,<br>Thanks for a reasonable reply. I respect anyone who says they do not know it all but are willing to listen to all sides and work it out. I certainly do not know all the answers but I do arm myself with the best information I can find. This is a subject that has come up often in my tenure as Diversity Chair (and with my friends) so I do have some background knowledge on this. My girlfriend worries sometimes that I spend too much time talking about baseball and baseball cards, school, and diversity issues. She will be overjoyed that the three things finally overlapped and I can spend 1/3 the time by doing all three at once. <br><br>On another side note...I am still waiting for a compelling, cogent argument against letting same-sex couples get married. <br><br>Joshua<br><br>PS I did get one email this morning from an outraged Donruss collector who was amazed that I would call out this company. He maintains that the 1988 Donruss series was the best card set ever produced and to take my anti-Donrute sentiment and shove it. It is good to see some people have a sense of humor. I laughed hard!! That made my morning.<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Ryan,<br><br>I think you put it perfectly!<br><br>Jim<br><br><br><br><br><br>" ;Ryan,<br><br>My point is, all men in California have equal RIGHTS! Gay men are asking for Additional RIGHTS. <br><br><br><br>nothing more, nothing less."<br><br><br><br><br><br>Marty, <br><br>You have got to be joking. The equal right of a gay man and straight man to marry a woman is an equal right? What if the majority were gay and a law was passed that said marriage is only allowed between two men or two women. You have the equal right to marry any man you want, just like gay men. Surely you would not feel discriminated against, right? Or maybe we should pick another arbitrary category: White men over 25 years old are only allowed to marry people who weigh over 400 pounds.<br><br>JimB<br><br><br><br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>People are free to have any religious beliefs they want. But we do not legislate religious beliefs in a democracy. The ten commandments are not laws of the state. If someone wants to commit adultery or worship "false gods", they don't go to jail for that. Why arbitrarily pick one outdated Judeao-Christian law and try to make it the law of the state? Why not criminalize not observing the sabbath? That also comes from Leviticus.<br>JimB
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>This would not have happened if there had been just a little bit more cowbell.<br><br><img src="http://nateliston.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/cow-gets-stuck.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Jim B, <br><br>"Why not criminalize not observing the sabbath? That also comes from Leviticus." <br><br><br><br><br>Hey! Quit stealing my material! (All right. It's not mine. I think I got it from West Wing.) I said the same thing about 24 hours ago, and even added the part about "touching a pigskin."
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>"Just for the record...I have now received three emails (from three different people who I suspect are trolls anyway) claiming that I was a "homo" lover and should burn in hell, I should keep my fag-loving mouth shut, and I am a complete moron and sinner."<br><br>Incredible. I don't even know what to say about this.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Jim,<br><br><br><br>I think there are two kinds of voters, one of which votes only for their interests in mind and another who votes what they feel is best for their community, state or country. I tend to fall in the second category. As a citizen, James Feagin's Mormonism (please forgive the third person reference) will play a part, but not dictate what or whom I vote for. I tend to vote for what I think will be best for the greater good. However, on the opposite end I think that total, 100% complete secularism with an "anything goes, you must condone and accept how I am or you're a bigot" attitude is also dangerous. What it comes down to for me is that there doesn't seem to be too many people on either side of the equation who are willing to have a reasonable discourse.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p><img src="http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b288/IB2stone/wheaties_cowbell.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, stop your crying. Imagine taking a more forceful position in favor of gay marriage on the radio with 200,000 people listening. In the words of Adam's father, "that'll give you something to cry about."
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Todd</b><p>I will never understand how someone can be so enraged by two people quietly loving each other and calling it a marriage. Being married has nothing to do with religion and religion shouldn't factor into the conversation at all. There are plenty of people who get married in non-religious ceremonies.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>sagard</b><p>Let's just turn "marriage" over to the various religions and get it out of our government. If people want/need today's legal and economical benefits currently provided to the "married", require everyone (straights and gays) to apply for and receive a government endorsed "civil union."<br><br>At some point we have to decide if the purpose of denying gay "marriage" is based on the desire to follow religious beliefs or if the purpose is to deny gays the legal rights and benefits afforded to those who can marry today. If it is simply a religious beliefs issue, separate them.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Jeff:<br><br>That's where we differ.<br><br>If I had 200,000 people listening to me, I wouldn't be talking to them about gay marriage, I'd be telling them how important it is that they each give me $10. With great power comes great responsibility - you should be less Bob Grant and more Dr. Gene Scott.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- by now you are qualified to write a coffee table book on the history of cowbells.<br><br>I've stayed out of this discussion on gay rights entirely, but I will say that I never like to tell other people how they should live their lives. My opinion on gay marriage is in fact entirely irrelevant; others are free to do what they want and don't need to first run it by me.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Jim VB<br>Sorry about that. I have not read everything in this thread.<br>JimB
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Al, I like your thinking.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Barry, thanks for the compliment...you are entitled to more cowbell.<br><br>NOBODY BUT BARRY IS ALLOWED TO CLICK PLAY ON THIS VIDEO!!!!<br><br><object width="425" height="350" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/9gryYSHR4Ik"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/9gryYSHR4Ik"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><!--[if IE]><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/9gryYSHR4Ik"type="application/x-shockwave-flash"wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /><![endif]--></object>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Tom Boblitt</b><p>Regardless of how we feel............you'd better convince our new president of it too. Both candidates were/are against gay marriage as stated on more than one occasion in the election. I think Civil Unions could work but they'd have to convey the same rights as marriage from a legal standpoint. Joann's point earlier that it would be adopted much quicker is dead on. Everything I've seen is that the public overwhelmingly does not support gay 'marriage' but does support gay 'civil unions'<br><br>Like James, and like on MANY issues, I find it hard to believe that both supporers of and detractors from certain issues can ALWAYS agree with or disagree with that issue. These issues are hard. I listen to MANY different sources of information. I have liberal friends who would NEVER listen to Rush Limbaugh or be caught dead watching FoxNews. Same for conservative friends who don't like any news OTHER than FoxNews. Wow..........shortsighted on both parts. <br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Thanks Dan, but I need more cowbell than that!<br><br>P.S.- that song can really give one a headache.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Jim B, <br><br>You know I was kidding, right?
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>J.McMurry</b><p>another favorite.<br><br>You have all the freedom in the world,but your freedom ends where another's begins.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Sorry Barry, I forgot you were a hippie.<br><br> <object width="425" height="350" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/4qRTLlzP7qU"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4qRTLlzP7qU"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><!--[if IE]><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4qRTLlzP7qU"type="application/x-shockwave-flash"wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /><![endif]--></object>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Dan- I think I saw the Strawberry Alarm Clock at the Fillmore East in 1967, but I'm not 100% sure. It was a concert that featured the Doors and a bunch of other bands. I think they were added at the last minute.<br><br>P.S.- since this thread is petering out, if you want to add a cool video for people to watch, let me suggest one of my new favorites:<br><br>Led Zeppelin Lost Performances 4/5. I don't know how to post them.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>Tom,<br><br>Absolutely agreed. Those who identify themselves as liberals, indepedents or conservatives; who only associate with a select few or partake of a segmented media are intellectually lazy.<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Barry, that song hit #1 in 1967...the year I was born. Also did you know that the singer on that tune was a 16 year old kid who never recorded with the band ever again?<br><br>edited to add: If those Led Zep songs contain cowbell they are allowed in this thread...otherwise no off topics should be posted.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Barry,<br><br>When you say you do not remember if you saw the Strawberry Alarm Clock or not was it because you were flying high or you just don't remember? It was the 60's you know.... Wow, I picked you for a Peter, Paul and Mary person but there you go with the Led Zep reference. You're always surprising us. Do you like Green Day (I mean the older material from the early 90s)? <br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I was only 14 and straight as an arrow.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>The concert included the Blues Project, the Doors, Richie Havens, the Chambers Brothers, and Janis Ian. That I remember clearly. A sixth band was added unannounced and I think it was them. I just don't remember.<br><br><br><br>I like P, P, and M, but I also like classic rock. Not too familiar with Green Day, unfortunately.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Jim VB,<br>Yeah, I knew you were kidding. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif"><br>JimB
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>Joshua,<br><br>I stand both corrected and informed. When I said that the gays would be better fighting for civil unions rather than marriage, I was assuming civil union laws would confer ALL legal benefits of marriage. My thinking was that it could be called something different to get the religious component out of it and thereby make it less controversial. I honestly believe that when the term "gay marriage" gets tossed around, people think they are being asked to accept it morally or even in a religious sense and that's what drives a lot of the opposition. I assumed that, legally, a civil union approach would be identical, including recognition across state lines.<br><br>Thank you,<br><br>Joann
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim Thierfelder</b><p>You gotta have cowbell<br><object width="425" height="350" data="http://www.youtube.com/v/g-AdxjDGioc"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/g-AdxjDGioc"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><!--[if IE]><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/g-AdxjDGioc"type="application/x-shockwave-flash"wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350" /><![endif]--></object><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Guys- Go to a Mississippi State football game and listen to 50,000 people hitting cow bells for 2 hours and you will never want to hear another cowbell for the rest of your life!
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>GeorgeHC</b><p><img src="http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/3153/jitcrunchaspxfq5.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>jdrum</b><p>You left out my favorite, Caribou Barbie.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Very sad day for America(and prepare for a sad four years).<br><br><br><br>As I said before, Obama victory was a given due to state of economy. However, it is becoming harder and harder for Republicans to win giving changing demographics of the country. McCain carries white vote by 12% and still loses handily. McCain is on the very left wing of the Republican party and he loses easily to someone who has the most liberal voting record in the senate. If a liberal republican who is a war hero cannot win it is hard to believe there is hope for mainstream republicans in this country.<br><br><br><br>What it all means is higher government spending, higher taxes, a decline for free enterprise and a moral decline for America. Thank God for Sandra Palin and what she represents. The U.S. already has one of the very steepest progressive tax systems in the world--lets increase thye taxes on the wealth and job creators even more. The stock market has certainly reacted to this with its big move down in anticipation of a win by the left and now that he has won going down further.<br><br><br><br>The only positives are the big win on gay marraige in California and that the Democrats did not reach 60 senators. Hopefully under McConnell the republicans will hang tough and filibuster every step troward socialism Obama puts through or tries to put through. I for one will be supporting causes who are pledged to stopping the march toward socialism that Obama/Biden/Pelosi/Frank represent.<br><br><br><br>Jim
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p> This comment is not meant to start another different war on the board (and if you posted your email, I'd have asked you directly instead of having to post this way.<br><br> And without mentioning exactly where you work (which we have all agreed to do) -- can you explain to me (and you can send me via private email if you wish) how what the gov't did for your business is not a form of socialism itself and how did the bipartisan way it was done differ from the Democratic claim to help all citizens.<br><br> As I always say, I like to learn all viewpoints, and I did send money (not very much) to both parties this year just so I can stay on the their mailing lists to see what they would say before the elections. As an aside, I've gotten several emails from the Republican side thanking me although they lost and nothing from the Democratic (winning side). Very interesting indeed.<br><br> Regards<br> Rich Klein
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Why a moral decline? I see no reason to assume that.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>"Thank God for Sandra Palin and what she represents."<br><br>Indeed. Who is she?<br><br>I've sort of resisted posting in this thread, mostly, but I've got to say at this point that I am thrilled with the outcome of this election. As a business owner, I'm happy to know my taxes will be going down, that I'll be receiving tax incentives for hiring more employees and paying their health insurance. As an employee of said business, I am happy to know that I won't be required to pay taxes on the money that's deducted from my paycheck each period for said health insurance (as John McCain was planning to do) and that I won't be "receiving" a $5000 tax refund that would be paid directly to the insurance companies. Instead, I'll be offered responsible incentives to grow my small business, and any tax incentives will go back into my own pocket, where they belong.<br><br>As for the "socialist" banter, well, we've had a progressive tax system in this country for as long as I can recall, so I'm not sure why bringing the top tax bracket back to Reagan levels is suddenly "socialism," but at least I can agree with my friends on the right that I would prefer a flat tax system whereby the wealthy have to pay the same tax as everyone else. Unfortunately it seems that no presidential candidate has been able to make that happen.<br><br>From a foreign policy standpoint I'm pleased that we seem to be moving away from my fear that my oldest son - who will be 17 at the end of the next presidential term - seems to have a better chance of not growing into adulthood during wartime, and that our brave troops are now being led by a Commander in Chief who has an exit strategy in mind. Along the same lines I'm pleased that my children, who will reach college age during the next (hopefully) 8-year presidential term, will be better able to attend college affordably due to the tax credit I will receive for their college tuition.<br><br>I'm pleased about the jobs that will be created in the US due to a renewed investment in alternative energy and the tax incentives offered to companies that don't outsource jobs offshore.<br><br>And mostly, I'm pleased that a president is in office who seems to have a moral compass that's closer to mine - non-judgemental, tolerant, and willing to invest in education.<br><br>So yeah, I'm happy that the country is moving back to the left, which seems to be a move that more than 50% of the voting populace - regardless of their ethnicity - wants. <br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Al- "Socialist" is the term that the right wing throws at Obama to demean him. It's pretty transparent.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Barry,<br><br>You don't see a moral decline because you are a liberal. To you, I would guess the increasing number of states who allow gay marraige or the liklihood that retiring justices will be replaced by pro-abortion justices is a sign of great enlightenment or progress. To me its symptomatic of a country in decline.<br><br>Rich,<br><br>The Government let my company go bankrupt and just watched. I have not complained about this. But they jumped in and saved many others who were there. I think its uneven nhow Paulson applied the rules. Now lets see if the grewat redistributor will bail out the auto industry--my guess is yes--on the backs of the 60 percent of us who pay taxes.<br><br>z<br>Jim
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Barry:<br><br>I understand. I just figured that now that the election was over and he's won, we could put that term away.<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>I'm kind of hoping this thread will die soon, I have a feeling it could turn ugly. After this point, I will sign out. In fact, if Joshua Levine or anyone else wants to e-mail me, I'd be more than happy to respond. Barry, I think the moral decline is quite severe. In 1960, only 5.3% of children were born out of wedlock. In 2007, that percentage has risen to 37% That is not to impune single parents who work so hard at their job of raising children. However, there are quantifiable gains in a variety of social and personal areas where there is an active father and mother in the life of a child. That translates to society benefiting as a whole. That's not to say the sky is falling. I think there are many communities that are realizing this problem, particularly the African-American, and are introducing positive initiatives to combat this.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>hrbaker</b><p>The flat tax is too simple and makes it too hard for the politicians on both of the aisle to "wh*re" themselves out to their special interests.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I say let people be, and everyone will be fine.<br><br>Edited to add: Al, all the election rhetoric should be retired. We need to move on to the real business.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>hrbaker</b><p>The people have spoken, let's move forward.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>I'm going to try, very hard, to discuss your post without calling you a bigot. <br><br><br>You said: "...it is becoming harder and harder for Republicans to win giving changing demographics of the country. McCain carries white vote by 12% and still loses handily."<br><br><br>So what? As votes were being counted, there were no "white" votes or "black" ones. They were all American votes (and "real Americans" at that.) If the ideology of the GOP is out of step with what the electorate wants, they will continue to lose, handily. I don't think that will be the case. As a life-long Republican, I believe that they will adjust their views and their candidates to that of the voters. Right now, "mainstream Republicans" aren't mainstream. <br><br>In almost every national election, 45% of the people vote Republican every time. Another 45% vote Democratic. The whole fight is over the middle 10%. It's as simple as that. Those on both extremes (e.g.- the extreme part of the religious right, or the "socialist" wing of Democrats) will always be unhappy with every outcome, BECAUSE THEIR THINKING IS EXTREME! <br><br>You said: "What it all means is higher government spending, higher taxes, a decline for free enterprise and a moral decline for America."<br><br>For the last 8 years we have had all of those things except the higher taxes. We have the highest government spending ever. We have our government with their hands in the financial services industry, banking, real estate and mortgages, the auto industry, and the airlines are waiting in the wings. Why weren't you complaining then? Our tax system will revert to what it was under that great "socialist", Ronald Reagan. If we can get the government to stop spending/wasting money on stupid things (see- Iraq), then I'm all for lower taxes too. I agree that hopefully, the GOP minority can clog up the pipeline of government spending for a while, but I've been hoping that for years and am still waiting. <br><br>The stock market didn't "react" to his anticipated win with a downward move , the slide ensured his election. Your talk about a march to socialism is silly. Where did you draw that line? 36% income tax is OK, but 39% is socialism? <br><br>We've talked the gay marriage thing to death in this thread, so all I will say is that is a discussion that doesn't belong in the field of national politics (nor does abortion.) These are religious, moral, or ethical issues. These things should be addressed by our churches, and mostly by parents, not by some guys in Washington, DC. <br><br><br>Lastly, your stance on Palin continues to shock me. Everything you have ever written on this board shows you to be a pretty intelligent guy. Yet you espouse support for this, clearly, unprepared candidate. She couldn't name the countries in NAFTA (McCain's own aides said she couldn't name the major countries in North America.) She thought Africa was a country, not a continent. She thought South Africa was just the southern part of the country of Africa. This isn't coming from the dreaded "left-wing media." This is coming from the McCain campaign, through FOX. <br><br>I'm not sure any Republican could have won this election. McCain might have been the closest. Such was the damage that GWB did to the party. But had he nominated Ridge, or Romney, it would have been a fight right to the end. Instead he selected Palin, which pandered to the extreme right. Why? Was he afraid he would lose their votes? They were never going to vote for Obama. This pick guaranteed him a loss. <br><br> <br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>No moving to the left is not what all the ethnicities want. Why if McCain carried the white vote by 12 percent do they want the country to lurch towqard socialism...and if you read the NY times today you will see how the change in voting electorate toward more hispanics helped Obama win Nevada, Colorado and New Mexico. Lastly I am shocked you can support a tax increase but also favor a flat tax which is a Reagan/Jack Kemp idea and certainly the fairest tax of all--each taxpayer pays the same percentage of his income to taxes.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>"If a liberal republican who is a war hero cannot win it is hard to believe there is hope for mainstream republicans in this country. "<br><br>Jim,<br><br>I actually understand this sentence and it is a reasonable way for mainstream conservatives to feel. But I do think there is hope for mainstream conservatives and Republicans, because the person that lost this election was not a "liberal republican who is a war hero", which essentially does describe McCain. <br><br>I honestly don't feel this election was ever really about John McCain. It was about George Bush. And I am not conservative and probably can't speak for them, but in my view from over here it never seemed like George Bush did represent mainstream conservatives. He seemed much more geared to the interests of the furhter extremes of the party and a much smaller, more intolerant and more agressive group.<br><br>The vote was not just against McCain, there was a huge "against Bush" component as well. With that kind of disadvantage handed to him, it did not help that McCain did not run a good campaign. <br><br>They say that the extreme conservatives and far-right Republicans are livid with the results, but to me it seems like the mainstream conservatives should be far more p.o.'d about it. Bush denied them any true chance for their interests to be represented not only for the past 8 years, but maybe for the next 8 years as well. <br><br>When the spectre of George Bush has finally faded from voting memory, I don't have a doubt in the world that a liberal Republican who is a war hero could get elected in this country.<br><br>Joann
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>"I've sort of resisted posting in this thread, mostly, but I've got to say at this point that I am thrilled with the outcome of this election. As a business owner, I'm happy to know my taxes will be going down, that I'll be receiving tax incentives for hiring more employees and paying their health insurance. As an employee of said business, I am happy to know that I won't be required to pay taxes on the money that's deducted from my paycheck each period for said health insurance (as John McCain was planning to do) and that I won't be "receiving" a $5000 tax refund that would be paid directly to the insurance companies. Instead, I'll be offered responsible incentives to grow my small business, and any tax incentives will go back into my own pocket, where they belong."<br><br>Yeah as long as your business isnt to successful or you dont earn more than 250k a year for all the years of hard work, its a great day for business..LOL<br><br>I agree with Jim on a lot of the above except the whole gay marriage thing I could care less, if they want to get married so be it. <br><br>After all in the end its all same sex marriages you get married and have the same sex over and over and over.<br><br><br><br>P.S. It's not a black or white thing for me either Jim looses me there, Obama just isn't good for my business model plain and simple.<br><br><br><br><br><br><br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>James Feagin</b><p>OK, I will say it. I am so glad that the Republicans lost this election because this hopefully drives a nail in the coffin of the Christian Coalition. Make no mistake about this, the Republicans had a great candidate in Romney, but the anti-Mormon bigotry of the Christian Coalition and their supporters left the party with a lightweight like Palin. The fringe of the party did them in, and I'm happy about it.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>A comedian. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height="14" width="14" alt="happy.gif">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>Joann, <br><br>Whether we like it or not, this whole "war hero" thing isn't on the radar of voters. <br><br>1992 - Clinton over Bush<br>1996 - Clinton over Dole<br>2000 - Bush over Gore<br>2004 - Bush over Kerry<br>2008 - Obama over McCain<br><br>You have to go back 20 years to find an active war veteran who won a Presidential election. (Obviously, I'm discounting GWB's brave duty in the bars of Texas and Alabama.)
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Bob Pomilla</b><p>"Thank God for Sarah Palin and what she represents"<br><br><br><br>A little of what Sarah Palin represents:<br><br><br>edited URL length - 338 characters! That has to be close to the record for this forum.<br><br><a href="http://tinyurl.com/6xw6da" target="_new">http://tinyurl.com/6xw6da</a>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Jim VB<br><br>Bush was a big disappointment as he did nothing to curtail the runaway social spending of the Democrats. To me Republicans should strand for low govt. spending and balanced budgets.<br><br>Recent elections have shown that blacks and hispanics vote heavily for democrats--it is not being a bigot to note that the racial and ethnic composition of the country are changing and that soon the we will be a country of less than half whites. Given how these groups have voted the Republicans will have to move to the left as well to tryt to capyture enough of these groups so they can win an election--I think any political strategist--republican or democrat -would say this.<br><br>Ideology trumps everything for me--I have core beliefs which drive the way I think. I belive in lower taxes, reduced government spending, aggressively protecting our borders, the sanctity of life--on every one of these measurements Palin agrees with me--on every one Obama disagrees. Pretty easy decision to me who to back. Surveys show over 80 percent of Republicans love Palin--higher than McCain. <br><br>Jim
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Bob come on, take that stuff with a grain of salt ex-political advisors distancing themselves and throwing everyone under the bus after a horrible election campaignwhat a surprise. I dont believe half of that stuff just like I didnt put any thoughts into Obama knowing Ayers in the past etc. <br><br>These same political advisors if they had won would be telling and spinning a different set of lies etc.<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>"Recent elections have shown that blacks and hispanics vote heavily for democrats--it is not being a bigot to note that the racial and ethnic composition of the country are changing and that soon the we will be a country of less than half whites. Given how these groups have voted the Republicans will have to move to the left as well to tryt to capyture enough of these groups so they can win an election--I think any political strategist--republican or democrat -would say this."<br><br><br>Jim is 100% correct, Wal-Mart and other major retailers study demographics and stock cetain ethnic goods and programs to retail markets to increase sales, does that make Target and other retailers bigots?<br><br>Jim may be a lot of things and we've had or disagreements in the past but to draw bigot from that is a bit of stretch IMO.<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>JimCrandell</b><p>Joanne,<br><br>As usual excellent points. Obama succeeded in making it about Bush.<br><br>John --I have never heard another small bus owner try to claim that Obama would me good for them.<br><br>Have to run.<br><br>Jim<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>"John --I have never heard another small bus owner try to claim that Obama would me good for them."<br><br>No kidding Jim 100% correct, I just came back from a meeting with about 200 successful business owners and suppliers all pretty much not Obama supporters...
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>John, <br><br><br><br>I didn't call him a bigot. I tried hard not to. I don't believe he is in the truest sense of the word. But his post implied that it was a bad thing that the current demographics of the USA don't line up with his thinking. He implied that the fact that McCain carried the white vote should mean something more than it does. <br><br><br><br>If Obama is incompetent at what he tries to do, we will have a chance to vote him out in 4 years. If he succeeds, he gets another 4 years. Simple as that.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>David McDonald</b><p>For your consideration:<br><br><img src="http://www.network54.com/Realm/June08/bluemap.jpg" alt="[linked image]">
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>"Yeah as long as your business isnt to successful or you dont earn more than 250k a year for all the years of hard work, its a great day for business..LOL"<br><br>If I ever earn more than 250K per year, I'll be able to afford the slight increase in my taxes. Since I don't, I'm happy to know that at my current income levels, I'll be getting slightly more of a cut than I would have under McCain. Slightly.<br><br>I would imagine that if small business owners aren't fans of Obama, they're not real clear on what the differences are between the two candidates. To my knowledge, McCain offered no new incentives for me as a small business owner. Aside from the fact that he wanted to tax my health insurance money, and send the refund to the insurance companies. <br><br>Obama wants to offer me tax incentives for hiring employees, he wants to offer me cheaper small business loans, he wants to give me a tax break on the health insurance costs I cover for my employees, and he wants to lower my personal income tax without touching my corporate tax. Sounds like a good deal to me, and will certainly outweigh the increase from 36% to 39% that I'd theoretically have to pay if I ever let my income eclipse 250K.<br><br>So John, or Jim, can either of you give me a concrete reason - besides "socialism" or a three percentage point increase in my theoretical income tax - why Obama is bad for my business? A negative that will outweigh all the tax advantages he's proposing for adding employees and paying their healthcare?<br><br>-Al
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Al, not everyones business model is as simple as hiring more employees some small businesss dont need lots of employeesand health care..<br><br><br><br>Second Im not sure why in this country we are so comfortable with the he can afford it mentally. Folks who make over 250k a year arent millionaires they are people who worked hard to get to where they are doctors, lawyers and even risk takers and small business owners. These folks also employee other people. <br><br><br><br>Why should anyone have to pay more because of his or her success when this country is built on risk taking and being successful, not penalizing it and passing it on?<br><br><br><br>It cracks me up people will line up and protest about some guy who started a business and makes 250-700k a year and make him out to be a bad guy or vilan who can afford it. But those same folks idolize celebrities like Oprah and Paris Hilton and the thought never crosses their mind about those folks and the money they make and dont pay into taxes due to loop holes.LOL<br><br>Perfect example..the TV ad with Obama the one that said supported by Warren Buffet and Colin Powell how many millions upon millions of dollars does Warren Buffet get out of paying in taxes and creative loop holes. Its the really big guys that get to avoid the Obama issues its those middle of the road wealthy that foot the bill, but that never crosses anyones mind I think.<br><br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>hrbaker</b><p>I think Al said earlier that he actually favored the flat tax but that it wasn't going to happen. The fact of the matter is when you spend more than you have the bills come due. You have to get the money from those who have it and can spare it (that's the thinking anyway). Besides the political math works better; tell the 80 you'll take it from the other 20 or whatever the breakdown is.
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>John</b><p>Al I'd like to answer your question but I'd rather not get into all the reasons because my business is a bit more complex than your avg. small business owner. Perhaps over a beer and some cards sometime ok?<br><br>But Al there was many things that Obama hinted at during the race that would have direct impacts on my business and income.<br><br>And lastly I've busted my tail for 5yrs to get to where I'm going and it really bothered me to hear someone say you need to pay up and help others...nobody helped me during those 5yrs I did what anyone can do in this country. I took risks worked hard and made something happen.<br>
|
Vote!!!
Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>John:<br><br>In this discussion, we're both ignoring the distinction between advantages offered to me to help grow my business and increases in tax on my personal income. Those are two entirely different things. Somebody made a statement in this thread about Obama being a bad choice for me as a small business owner, and I'm not sure why. There are very concrete reasons why he's a GOOD choice for me as a small business owner. I was not aware of any concrete reasons why McCain was a better choice.<br><br>As for my personal income tax and the 250K break point, you asked: "Why should anyone have to pay more because of his or her success when this country is built on risk taking and being successful, not penalizing it and passing it on?"<br><br>That's the way it is NOW. We have a progressive tax system that is, theoretically, based on ability to pay. Right now, under Republican President George W Bush, someone making over $250K a year pays more tax than someone making $40K. Obama wants to take that tax level from 36% to 39% - an increase of three percentage points, which puts it back to the level it was at when Republican Icon and Definite Non-Socialist Ronald Reagan was president.<br><br>Now I can see how someone would be unhappy about that, for sure.<br><br>But I can't see how someone would tell me that for that reason, I should be unhappy about Obama's $250K tax increase as a small business owner. One has nothing to do with the other. First of all, in my case, Obama's tax advantages would outweigh the increase in taxes I'd have to pay if I allowed myself to make more than $250K a year. Second of all, as a small business owner, there are dozens of things I can do to keep my income levels under $250K and still reap the benefits of earning a lot of money.<br><br>More to the point, I don't see anyone lining up and protesting, or making a wealthy (or semi-wealthy) small business owner out to be a villain (your words). I believe that a successful business owner is what makes this country tick. I'm not demonizing small business owners, or even large business owners. I'm not demonizing anybody. I'm telling you that I feel that Obama's plan for small business appeared more advantageous to me than McCain's, and thus far, while plenty of people have told me I'm wrong, nobody has told me why.<br><br>I realize it's moot at this point, but I'm just sayin'.<br><br>-Al<br><br><br>
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08 AM. |