"The Few, The Proud, Oh Whatever!"

["shazbat"]

Sonrisa, Though I respect your beliefs, I respectfully beg to differ with your implication of us calling one another names.
After some initial worry about mud slinging I believe that we have shown remarkable restraint and respect for each other here.
Though many of us here are passionate in our personal beliefs, which often leads to heightened discourse, the repartee here has been surprisingly civil.
I commend all here for helping to maintain this environment of civil forebearance.

["shazbat"]

Some comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbat
Little has changed under any admin to affect control of states rights since the War betrween the States.

Nelson: Here I disagree, and think that this conflicts with your above statement. In my mind, slowly but steadily, through federal legislation, every year the power of the states has further eroded and folded into the federal government.

Can we agree it began with the "WBS" sparked by what has been portrayed as Federal encroachment on States Rights. The Union won so the Federal trumped the States then. Perhaps there has since been reluctance on the part of the States to contest too far? Also the Federal government does hold the threat of tightening the purse strings on highly desired earmark spending projects that the States so dearly want. But that is not legislated control only coercion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbat
My wife and I make enough that our $300 a year tax break would be better used helping some retired cogger on limited income get a better deal on prescription drugs.

Nelson: The "conservative" approach would deem that giving this help ought to be your choice.

Might the conservative aproach also involve controlling the cost of prescription medicine? (more below)

Quote:
Originally Posted by shazbat
You can still be profitable and socially concious.

Nelson: Absolutely agreed, shazbat. In my mind, the question is.. who should decide exactly how, where, and to what degree one will be socially conscious? The individual, or the government?

The Government doesn't legislate "social conciousness" never did. (though this could perhaps be successfully argued to be the premise of the welfare system) I do believe that it should be the decision of the individual or more appropriately the corporation. And I also believe that US corporations share as much responsibility to keeping the nation strong as they do to make resasonable profits for their share holders.

Actually Nelson we'll probably agree on principles of fiscal responsibility in government. Especially those that require a culture of responsibility and self policeing without the creation of yet another agency to watch over things.

[nelson]

Guess I can't really welcome you to the forum, shazbat, since you currently have a higher post count than I. :) But I'm glad you're here.

shazbat: Little has changed under any admin to affect control of states rights since the War betrween the States.

nelson: Here I disagree, and think that this conflicts with your above statement. In my mind, slowly but steadily, through federal legislation, every year the power of the states has further eroded and folded into the federal government.

shazbat: Can we agree it began with the "WBS" sparked by what has been portrayed as Federal encroachment on States Rights. The Union won so the Federal trumped the States then. Perhaps there has since been reluctance on the part of the States to contest too far? Also the Federal government does hold the threat of tightening the purse strings on highly desired earmark spending projects that the States so dearly want. But that is not legislated control only coercion. We agree that today the federal government holds the taxpayer checkbook over the heads of its states. I think our massive federal tax revenues have been realized over time through the passage of rate increases, and that as a result our government is too large, too powerful, and funds too many programs.

shazbat: My wife and I make enough that our $300 a year tax break would be better used helping some retired cogger on limited income get a better deal on prescription drugs.

nelson: The "conservative" approach would deem that giving this help ought to be your choice.

shazbat: Might the conservative aproach also involve controlling the cost of prescription medicine? (more below)Definitely not! Although it would be difficult to elect one -- the constituency has been trained to expect a New Deal from government for each of its woes -- I'd love to see a truly conservative administration replace the current one, and wipe all that away. :)

shazbat:You can still be profitable and socially concious.

nelson: Absolutely agreed, shazbat. In my mind, the question is.. who should decide exactly how, where, and to what degree one will be socially conscious? The individual, or the government?

shazbat: The Government doesn't legislate "social conciousness" never did. (though this could perhaps be successfully argued to be the premise of the welfare system) I do believe that it should be the decision of the individual or more appropriately the corporation. And I also believe that US corporations share as much responsibility to keeping the nation strong as they do to make resasonable profits for their share holders.[/I]In my opinion the progressive tax rate is an example of the government mandating social consciousness. You rightly anticipate the welfare system as another. Our tax revenues also fund many special interest programs. I agree our corporations ought to choose to be socially responsible.

shazbat: Actually Nelson we'll probably agree on principles of fiscal responsibility in government. Especially those that require a culture of responsibility and self policeing without the creation of yet another agency to watch over things.I couldn't agree more. Ok sorry I agreed with you too much this time, we'll have to start a fight later to balance things out. :)

[Teiwaz]

Fight fight fight

[Sonrisa]

No fight on my part. I don't remember the part where I implied anything and if you took it that way, I am sorry since I never intended that.

That's not why I logged on this evening. I was wondering if anyone could share how they document some of their beliefs, i.e., say I see something from Michael Moore and it is clearly anti-Bush and someone else gets something from a right wing source and we both believe what we hear. Other than listening to other media sources which we can't actually prove, how do we find a solid source? Because if we can't it looks like we are all having semi-educated guesses based on our natural inclinations.

One of the criteria for me is:

1. Does what I hear said jive with what I see happening around me?
2. Does it coincide with the values I hold?
3. Part of it is instinct - i.e., being able to read people by their mannerisms, facial expressions, tone of voice, bearing in mind of course some people are good actors. In other words street smarts.
4. Many times I have looked at "the other side" and tried to see what other people see in it. I try to discount media hype and deliberate attempts to pit one side against the other (on both sides), but I always seem to end up on the same side. Is it possible or even wise to fight your nature?
5. It is not class envy; as Roz says, "I've been rich and I've been poor, and all things being equal, rich is better".

None of my philosophies or choices are based on what my family always thought or believed in, but I doubt that is always the case with everyone. How much influence does family, upbringing, friends make in our political choices?

Example:

I watched Michael Moore's accusations against the Bush family concerning their alleged liasion with the Saudi royal family.

How do I find an impartial source of news that I can check to see if it is true.

What usually comes into play are:
1. Allegations I've heard before from different news sources.
2. My natural dislike of his persona and having lived in Texas when he was governor.
3. An incidence when he was governor when I wrote him a letter asking for his help in stopping Texas A&M from putting fawns in a pen with fire ants for an "experiment" and the letter I got saying it was not his function to do anything about it, to write Texas A&M.

OK - all that has nothing to do with the original problem......but I am being very honest here - I actually said out loud on getting the letter, "It figures". See?

It does not solve the problem of whether to believe MM's accusations. I could get affirmation from practically any left wing group and denials from practically any right wing group, but it does not help me to get at the truth.

As far as whatever you think I meant earlier that makes you think I am trying to start something -- how to you determine what fanatacism is? I think that's a civilized question? I did note in the beginning a reference (not aimed at me or anyone specific) where the term "bleeding hearts" was used.

I have no problem with either one. If I am a bleeding heart, great - that shows I have one. People of all beliefs and philosophies DO usually refer to people as fanatics when they are diametrically opposed to their beliefs - yes, sometimes including me.

I did not expect to find anyone who thinks just like me in here or anywhere else. I am sure we are all different in some ways, and perhaps me even more because I am not a man. Our life experiences are bound to be very different. To be honest, I don't see what all the fuss is about or why you think I am trying to start something, because I'm not. Believe me right now I've got a lot going on and time to fight with people is NOT on my to do list.

Sonrisa

[Teiwaz]

As buddha said:

'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."

[nelson]

As buddha said:

'Believe nothing, no matter where you read it or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense."A very wise approach, Sir Teiwaz!