Filed under The Public Square
Tagged as blogging, common man, communicate, discuss, free thinking, Populists, Progressives
I found this tidbit of truth in my ‘Quote of the Day gadget.’ Boy, do we see proof of this every day!
“A conservative is a man who believes that nothing should be done for the first time.”
– Alfred E. Wiggam
A Religious Right Social Conservative is also is a man/woman who believes that others should pay for their way because, after all, if it were not for ‘them’, God would not bless our country.
Taxes are okay if it is only for the ‘that heathen man/woman over there’.
I read someplace where true Christian people — the ones who live it instead of talk it — are upset with Beck. They take exception to him telling them to leave churches that preach social justice, and are telling him that is what Jesus taught. Beck may have stepped over a line this time! Let’s hope so anyway, because true Christians practice the love and humility that doesn’t see a person’s political philosophy but recognizes their needs.
I agree and I hope the real Christians are upset with Beck. But I’m not holding my breath. Being upset with someone and actually having the cajones to stand up to him are two entirely different things.
I think it is about time the real Christians stand up to their phoney counterparts and start kicking some ass.
Might I suggest going after Pat Robertson and Rick Warren next?
I can’t disagree completely, but will point out that being upset isn’t something Christians do well. Often they take their concerns and problems to prayer and quiet reflection to gain a loving attitude and approach adversaries with peace. Active involvement in judging others usually isn’t their first choice of how to spend their time, and when they fail, as all humans do, they try harder to get it right, not to be hateful and bad examples. Plus, they’re often busy actually helping someone who needs help.
I agree that is what ‘real’ Christians do.
Unfortunately, the real Christians are not the ones on the front lines of Fox News Cheerleaders yelling the loudest.
I think this should be read by everyone! Robert Reich on education. He thinks U.S. public education deserves ‘a bailout,’ and says, “We’ve got our priorities backwards. Our schools are the engines of our human capital, and if we don’t bail out public education we face a bigger economic Armageddon years from now.”
I know you couldn’t been responding to my email (out of the tens of thousands), but your comments at Pueblo Poltics nonetheless responded to what I said.
I read in the AZ Star that one of the health-care protestors held up a sign says you should “show some spine.”
Well, I don’t like the Senate bill either-I don’t like the lack of the public option or the excessive premiums for older Americans. I want to see a bill passed this year. I want to see a good bill passed.
We’re being told by too many pundits that it’s gotta be one or the other. The question is: why?
Dealing with issues with that level of specificity and intelligence–when you probably have people putting Hitler moustaches on you sitting next to Joseph Stalin–is showing some spine. Standing up for a good bill is what a representative is, ya know, supposed to do. I’m impressed.
While I am glad the White House–finally!–came up with its own guidelines for a plan, I am less than enthralled at the details. Is it possible to reject either foregone conclusion we’re getting, i.e., either the bill is dead or we have to take whatever the process will LET us have?
Please tell Nancy, Steny and Jim not just no but “Hell,no!” to that conclusion. This is supposed to be a democracy.
And please inform the president that leadership is not setting the process go nearly unguided for a year (nearly killing the public option until grassroots activists put it back on the table), until–finally, in 2010–producing his own “position” that is conveniently close to the Senate bill. I’m very disappointed in him, but I’ll get over it. It’s the result that matter.
We need a good bill, and Stupak amendment notwithstanding,(which will almost certainly be struck down by the courts), the House bill isn’t the turkey the Senate bill is. More, the “lower” chamber, by it’s very nature (smaller districts, proportional representation, and frequent elections), has always more accuraately reflected the will of the people.
No matter how ugly the process has been, or will be, we need a good bill to come out of it. It’s only March, we don’t need to “start over” and, honestly, I think the best politics for this year is to rise above politics, and do what’s best for the country.
cc: some of my old Kansas friends.
Note: I proofread one last time before hitting “send.” You guys got the typos. 🙂
Typos? We don’t see no typos. 😉
I called today. I received one of those notices asking me to call, and it made me feel guilty for letting up.
It’s hard in Kansas. Our Senators and Tiahrt are all useless. As backwards as we are today, putting either Tiahrt or Moran in the Senate and Brownback in the gov’s office will just set us back another hundred years or so. I always try to remember what Paula told me once — don’t give up, someone surely has to at least make a mark in a column, or pick up the ringing phone and know there is a world out there outside those narrow Republican constraints.
It may be inappropriate, but Gabby has been deluged with protests from out-of-state. They know she is in a nominally-Republican district, and want to scare her into voting for nothing.
If anyone with a saner perspective wanted to weigh in to her office–very briefly–I certainly wouldn’t object.
I am interested in the conflict between Stupak and the rest, he states that it does provide tax payer dollars for abortion. Everyone else is saying no it does not, but never addresses the part the Stupak points to where it does?
I am not sure of the factuality of the explanation, Rachel explained it this way.
What Stupak wants it an amendment that states if you get any federal aid, food stamps, cash for clunkers,
any program or assistance from the federal Government.
Then you can not purchase an insurance policy that covers abortion.
The reasoning being that that federal money is your money and it mixed with the money you have that is not federal money provided.
Therefore without it you would not have the money to buy that insurance.
So that is tax payer money going to abortion!
If Stupak doesn’t want federal money going to pay for killing babies (ie abortions) then why is this same okay with federal money going to pay for killing civilians in the Iraq War?
I have to agree that it is a sorry excuse for a bill, certainly not what it should or could be.
And the motivation is no long for the good of the people it is now simply to have any kind of bill passed.
For the Political benefit of the party.
That stance is one that the Republicans adopt shouldn’t the Democratic be better?
Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.
Sign me up!