Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

A&E Declares War on Christian Values

jasonQ42 Wrote: Dec 19, 2013 4:23 PM
"A&E is apparently run by a bunch of anti-Christian, bigots." This is - if offered in good faith rather than as fear-mongering propaganda - silly and naïve almost beyond belief. A&E is a for-profit business - whose primary source of revenue is advertising dollars from other for-profit businesses - which is making a business decision based on the perceived interests of its paying customers: the aforementioned advertisers, not the viewers of their programs. Christian faith or morality does not enter into it one way or the other.
Actually, MSNBC asked for and received Martin Bashir's resignation. It is interesting how the world view of conservatives is being carefully engineered by their "news" media through the deliberate exclusion of particular facts.
The problem for Republicans is this: The actual provisions of the law, apart from the individual mandate, are quite popular. In the polls that show that 60% of the population is opposed to it, you have to take into consideration that about 15% of that are liberals who don't believe Obamacare goes near far enough. While a relative handful of people might see their premiums rise (Brief aside: If Kirsten Powers was only paying $160 a month with a $2500 deductible, her insurance was practically worthless anyway), a much larger number of people will get affordable quality insurance for the first time. That is going to be popular, and the apocalyptic bent of the commentary in conservative circles is going to work against them in the long run.
This is the crux of the disagreement I think: You begin with a fundamental belief that life begins at conception and must, as a moral imperative, be protected as a matter of principle. I, on the other hand, while uncomfortable with abortion, am equally uncomfortable with declaring that I know with any certainty when life begins; it is a question, like many, that seems well above my pay grade. You feel my uncertainty should be resolved in favor of the life of the fetus and legal enforcement , while I feel my uncertainty should be resolved in favor of allowing other individuals to make their own decision in the matter. There are consequences either way, but they are beyond my ability to foresee. I respect your position, but I cannot share it.
Your right to your own beliefs, as well as your right to take it personally, are unquestionable. However, the question that remains is should government define exactly when life begins and use force to require compliance. This is about as personal an issue as personal gets, and as the thought experiment above suggests, many people fundamentally feel that there is a difference between a developing fetus and a baby. You, of course, have every right to attempt to persuade them to believe as you do and act accordingly, but let's leave the government out of it.
Just for the record: People who are pro-choice would deny precisely the presuppositions that are implicit in your comment. They would maintain that a fetus before a certain point is not a "person." There is a thought experiment where one is asked whether you would run into a clinic that is burning down where human embryos are stored, risking your life in order to save them. Regardless of what you may believe on principle, on a very basic, visceral, level, many people do make a distinction between a developing fetus and a baby. The only question left is what the role of government should be. Many people feel, on sound, conservative, principles of limited government, that individuals should be legally able to define the fore-mentioned distinction for themselves. People can, of course, disagree and attempt to persuade others to act in one way as opposed to another, but the force of government should not be involved.
On one hand, consider a cop who, in his professional duties was honorable and serious but who was a lousy husband and father. On the other hand, consider a cop who went to church every Sunday and was a faithful husband but professionally tended to abuse his authority (with an unflinching belief in his own righteousness, no doubt!) Human beings are indeed capable of such levels of hypocrisy and contradiction. Which one would you rather have as a public servant though?
People are not commodities to be bought and sold. Period. If you disagree, then there will not be much use in continuing the conversation. There is certainly a fundamental disagreement on basic principle between us.
My point is that people whose job it is to determine the credit-worthiness of borrowers have determined that our "our financial house" is in order. There are long-run deficit problems, but long-run projections are really just a type of really boring science fiction; not completely useless or irrelevant, but speculative and to be taken with a grain of salt.
4) Just the contrary, people in general today are cynical to the point of nihilism about government. Additionally, any “weakening” of the dollar makes exports more competitive; there is an upside as well. (5) There are institutions whose job is to determine the credit worthiness of potential borrowers. These institutions across the board consider the US to be the safest possible investment that they can make, as reflected in the fact that the US can presently borrow money at a rate below that of inflation.
I don’t disagree with everything here, but here’s some food for thought for anyone who cares: (1) Is the problem too much or too little democracy? H seems to imply that there is too much, but then also implies that a handful of elites have too much power. (2) The professional political actions of a professional politician are of far more importance to the practice of actual governing than their (sometimes admittedly sordid) personal lives. (3) Human beings are not things. Is it moral to apply “the law of supply and demand” to the needs of human beings in exactly the same way we would to Ipads?
Previous 11 - 20 Next