Give to Caesar What is Caesar's...

Comments

First, me waving a flag I like to wave: OBAMA ISN'T A SOCIALIST. Economic "socialism" (in quotes, note the quotes) has been happening SINCE THE FOUNDING OF THIS COUNTRY. It's something that people like, hm, THOMAS JEFFERSON and GEORGE WASHINGTON believed in.

Anyway, on to your actual post: McCain has had a values transplant. 8 years ago he was a very different person. And the bitterness and cynicism I see from both he and "but I had to spend the money to be pretty enough to succeed" Palin is just... unnerving. I don't like it.
I totally agree! Thanks Shush. We're in the same boat.
[this is good]

Firstly, I agree with Shush Now. McCain was, indeed, a different person eight years ago. He's never been a true conservative. When I used to read National Review, they couldn't stand him, going as far as to put a characature of him on the cover of their magazine, ready to blow up the White House.

But that's not really what I want to say. When I read this post and others like it, all I can say is, "Yes, yes, yes! This is the chick I married!" You always find your God-given voice when you're pissed off, and I'll never tire of hearing that voice. I could defend your ideas here, but I see no need to do that. Your thoughts stand on their own. You are a very worthy opponent for any of your naysayers.

[this is good]
Thank you for writing this truthful expose. I was despairing that any political comment from within the USA would include a global perspective.
"I am ashamed right now of this country because of our greed, and because of that greed other countries are feeling the weight of it too".
Your election is not just about the US and its domestic issues, but every other human on the planet will be affected in some way by the outcome. All developed countries will need to urgently correct their fiscal irresponsibility and culture of greed as you so clearly point out.
That you chose to vote Republican last time is adequate indication to me of your unbiased impartiality as a commentator. Those who have traded their intelligence for blind, unthinking lifetime loyalty to one party or another, have, in my estimation little credibility.
You are officially my personal US political correspondent. Thank you.
[this is good]
A well thought out and written post.
[this is good]
Dude, it's shit like this that reminds me why I like you so much. You are freaking AWESOME!
Thanks, that means a lot to me dwarfy. You're pretty awesome too!
Thanks Emjay for your continued support ;)
I read this blog and thought you were angry but I thought I would try to not think about that and just read the words. Then I saw Dave's reply and saw that you were evidently pissed off. My post wasn't aimed at getting you angry, but I guess it did. I agree with one of his posts where he talks about this medium and its failure to transmit tone and attitude. I wasn't angry when I posted earlier and I'm not angry now. If you want only cheerleaders responding to your posts, that's fine, just say so and I'll refrain from posting anything contrary to your views on your page.

As for giving to Caesar what is Caesar's, I'm fine with that too. But giving more and more is what I object to. The U.S. Constitution spells out the enumerated powers of the federal government and what they are to collect taxes for. The problem is that the people have allowed the government to go so far beyond their bounds that there is no turning back, only hopes of curbing the spending to some extent. The states are also guilty of allowing the feds to take their rights away and infringe upon the freedom of the people.

Whether we like it or not, taxing corporations and those who we deem to be wealthy does in fact hurt everyone. Corporations don't pay taxes from their profit. They set the desired profit and mark up the prices from their costs to produce. One such cost is the tax burden. We pay the tax in the higher prices. Those we call wealthy are the same small to mid-size business owners that create many of our jobs. Raising their taxes or mandating benefits they have to pay to employees reduces their capital to expand and create jobs. In fact jobs will be cut. Trickle down economics works negatively also.

Greed is an attitude in a person and that person can be needy as well as wealthy. Wealth doesn't mean greed. Capital is needed for expansion and for research and development. Why is the government assigned the task of determining what limits of wealth are allowable. $250,000 in the Midwest may be wealthy, but on either coast where the cost of living is quite a bit higher, it may be just doing well. That's also assuming the number stays that high. And I find the whole Joe the plumber thing odd. The man asks a simple question and his life is trashed rather than looking at the spread the wealth answer to the question and the theory behind it. And Joe's not alone. The Obama campaign doesn't appear to like tough or pointed questions that challenge their points and the press sure doesn't challenge them.

I also didn't say that I had some insider knowledge based on the fact that I am a conservative. I identified myself as a conservative to be up front in the discussion. I said I knew what the average American could afford because I think I am one economically. My household income is far, far below the $250,000. I live check to check and have debt to juggle like most households that I know of.

I agree that corporate greed exists. Looking at the "golden parachutes" for one example speaks loudly. But it has existed long before Bush. I don't defend Bush anymore than to say it has been here much longer than he has. The mortgage crisis has triggered the financial crisis and it began back in the 70's when politicians began involving themselves in the banking system and telling financial institutions to relax their requirements and get people in houses who couldn't otherwise qualify for them. The Community Reinvestment Act is at the heart of the problem of which Barney Frank and Chris Dodd were front and center while this problem blew up. There is plenty of blame and criticism for both parties in this mess. And that's the issue, that government gets involved in the free market and messes it up almost every time.

I don't expect you to apologize for your views or what you write and I don't believe I ever implied as much. I simply have an opinion that evidently doesn't agree with yours. I find it quite boring to only respond to those with whom I only agree. I like the challenge of opposing views to help me evaluate, and at times, rethink my position or reaffirm my principles. If that's not what you want here, I can move on. And it is for me personally that personal attacks, whether a politician or a celebrity, seems to never deal with an actual issue. I simply state that as my opinion, not to tell you that you don't have the right to do it. So appreciating it or not has nothing to do with whether or not I support McCain, which I do not. I oppose Obama and McCain will be the beneficiary of it since there is not a conservative candidate to whom I can give my vote. In our state the requirement is to declare a party in the primary and vote only on that side of the ticket for the primary. I have been a registered Democrat and I have been a registered Republican. I do not believe I owe allegiance to either party, but I do claim to be conservative which today is closer to the Republican candidates in my opinion.

My closing thought, other than being glad the election is only a couple days away, is that if it wasn't economic issues to sway me, it would be Obama's horrific record on abortion, an issue that has cost this country greatly in many ways.


I'm glad you brought up the abortion issue, Sarge. I agree with most of what you've said regarding taxes and economics, and while those things are important to me, Obama's position on abortion is the real deal-breaker.

I don't want to make it seem like abortion is the only issue for me, but his stance in this area puts his entire decision-making process into question. His stance is left of most pro-choice politicians in this area, who are mainly concerned with a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body. Let's draw the line once a child is removed his/her mother's body, ok? Any child that survives a late-term abortion attempt must be given rights. To intentionally let a child die at this point is infanticide, and in my opinion, is a completely indefensible position for anyone to take. Just read nurse Jill Stanek's first-hand account from 2001. It's a matter of record that Barack Obama led the charge to kill the Born-Alive bill in the IL senate. I've read his explanation, and frankly, it makes me sick. Apparently, protecting abortion doctors from legal liability is more important than protecting living infants from death. How Obama can claim to have a "righteous wind at his back" is beyond me.

Also, please don't take my comments as a personal attack, Hetta. It wasn't meant to be one. Everyone has strong feelings about these issues.

This election has really taken its toll on me personally, and I'm very much looking forward to its end. I've gotten into a number of heated conversations with family -- and with people I consider friends (as I consider you) -- which I hope we can put aside once this election is done. I don't consider myself an "outspoken" person, but for whatever reason I've found myself in that role recently.

If the deluge of polls and media reports we read on a daily basis are correct, it'll be a landslide for Obama. If the yard signs in my own neighborhood are any indication, they may be right. Who knows? I'm hoping for a little bit of election night drama, as I'm sure the TV pundits are as well.

I only have to read Sarge's first paragraph to know it's more of the same. You just don't get it. Hetta doesn't want cheerleaders, she wants courtesy. And you, sir, convey arrogance.

Oh, and I'm sure that Christ is relieved that you're "okay" with HIS mandate to give to Caesar what is Caesar's. God forbid you might have disagreed with that one. The bible might need to be changed to comply with your self-appointed authority.

I was angry. Now I'm bored. Where's my unicorn? Uni...uni?

Yeah...nothing personal. I think you're sincere.

Bleh...anyway, I've got some sort of flu...so, things are lookin' kinda slimey here right now.

I'm disappointed in Obama's stance on abortion too. I really am weak here on this point and what to think or say about it, no one has done anything about it...not even George and he supposedly rode the abortion issue's coattails during his own campaign.

I have to say this election has taken its toll on me in some ways too. I think all Americans are fed up right now with a lot of different things. But hey! On the brighter side, have you guys welcomed that new one yet?

Yes, GW has really turned out to be a disappointment for me as well. He's really veered off the map when it comes to his original promises. I know... a politician reneging on promises?!? Seriously though - he's greatly increased the size of government, along with huge increases in federal spending - both big no-no's for someone claiming to be a "fiscal conservative".

McCain's no conservative either, and hence, I'm really torn in this election. I took one of those "who should you vote for based on your views" surveys just for fun, and while McCain was the choice, I was amazed at how close I was to Bob Barr, a Libertarian candidate. So I guess that puts me somewhere in the middle of those two guys. I dunno - Whatcha gonna do when you can't find someone to vote for? Find the closest match, I guess. You won't agree on everything. There are some deal-breakers for me though, and I mentioned one.

As for the newest arrival, he's being stubborn! He's two days late now - nearly three - which is new territory for us. Maybe he'll be an election baby. :-)

Oh I hope Tunde has an easy birth!

Last election, I wanted to flip a coin and choose. But this time around, I just can't make abortion my main thing. It is serious though, no doubt. We as voters can vote the person in whom we think will do something sensible. However, whether that issue comes into play after the election? I just think that abortion is serious enough, on the one hand, when it comes to voters and in some ways it's a kind of bait to get certain voters. Nothing is ever done about it.

Sigh...

Post a comment

Already a Vox member? Sign in