The lesser of 2 evils

What did Kennedy do that you liked?
Click to expand...
I can think of 4 things that he did that I approve of, with 20/20 hindsight.

> He decreased the marginal tax rate to something that resembled sanity.
> He did stand up to the Soviets when push came to shove.
> He at least acted like a leader. He made leader-like noises, and at least attempted to rally support from all segments of the political spectrum.
> He was no socialist wannabe, like the current crop of Dems.

Add to that his support of the "Space Race" (which directly influenced me, my parents were contractors to NASA) which greatly increased technology across the board. Yes, I know that it was a massive spending project, but in the long run it paid off. Now it's time for private industry to take over.

2) I understand the faith based initiative thing. It's the idea that private organizations can tackle problems in society much more efficiently than the Federal government. It's the truth. It works. Most things are more efficient than the Federal Government.
Click to expand...
I understand your point of view, and I understand that it was part of the "Compassionate Capitalism" platform that he initially ran on. Yes, it is true that private organizations do operate more efficiently than any .gov operation. But my agreement stops there. I oppose it on 2 ideological counts:

> I think that it is unconstitutional based on the separation of church & state in the 1st Amendment. It would have been better for the money to have gone through private SECULAR organizations. I also think that it brings an unhealthy "Golden Rule" influence to religious organizations. You know -- "He who has the gold, makes the rules." Government money means government oversight. And religious organizations do NOT need government oversight. As an analogy, think about what happens with federal highway funds and the states: States are coerced into kowtowing to the federal government's wishes by the threats of withholding federal highway funds. That is fundamentally wrong when applied to states, and is even worse when applied to churches. That Bush hasn't really leaned on churches in that manner doesn't mean that his successors won't.
> I still think that the whole concept of government "charity" is wrong. It may be called charity, but it isn't -- it is income redistribution based on the monopoly of force that government is able to bring to bear. Income redistribution like that is just stealing, albeit indirectly by way of the ballot box. Davy Crockett has been credited with a concept that pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter. In short -- It isn't the government's money to give.
 
> I think that it is unconstitutional based on the separation of church & state in the 1st Amendment.
Click to expand...

Read the Constitution. There is no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution.

1st amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That first part means the Government will not become a theocracy in the way that Shariah law is a theocracy or the Church of England is a theocracy. Basically that the head of the State will not be the head of the Church.

The mention of God was everywhere in the Government, but they were followers of a religion or belief, not the heads of the religion. Read George Washington's Thanksgiving Address.

It would have been better for the money to have gone through private SECULAR organizations.
Click to expand...
The problem with that is the Federal government is then discriminating against organizations based on religion. If the organization is the best at curing the social ills, then why would it matter if they were religious or secular? Most places don't have secular organizations to deal with homelessness, drug and alcohol addiction, soup kitchens, etc. Most are run by churches because religious people are fostered to help each other. It's one of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian living.

I also think that it brings an unhealthy "Golden Rule" influence to religious organizations. You know -- "He who has the gold, makes the rules."
Click to expand...
The churches can decide what they follow. The government doesn't make the churches follow rules through money, but through the imposition of laws requiring the churches to do things which go against their beliefs. The churches have the freedom to reject the money if they don't want to be controlled. It happens. There are several examples of Catholic orgs shutting down because of government imposed laws.

> I still think that the whole concept of government "charity" is wrong. It may be called charity, but it isn't -- it is income redistribution based on the monopoly of force that government is able to bring to bear. Income redistribution like that is just stealing, albeit indirectly by way of the ballot box. Davy Crockett has been credited with a concept that pretty well sums up my feelings on the matter. In short -- It isn't the government's money to give.
Click to expand...

I strongly agree with this, but from a different point. There's a difference between charity and getting the job done. FEMA dropped the ball, so they hired Wal-Mart to supply food to the people in New Orleans. If you're trying to rehabilitate criminals in prison, and religious organizations are able to do that, then why is it a problem? That's more people being truly rehabilitated than without, and the Federal government isn't able to rehabilitate with simply keeping criminals in a cell. It's not charity because the organizations are helping solve problems in our society. I have a MAJOR problem with vote buying, or when government gives money to churches to build a new parish center or church building.
 
What is the link or source for your article? Kennedy is lucky that Castro didn't retaliate, but it still resulted in a bunch of dead American soldiers. (blah blah, so did the Iraq war, blah blah). Would the Bay of Pigs be considered a preemptive strike like the Dems always attack President Bush over?
Click to expand...

Cuban exiles not American soldiers

Wasn't Kennedys plan, It was Isnhower's plan Kennedy kept American troops out and first when he learned about it. He said no to the invasion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D22Nv6nnfAI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imiZapfY0y0&feature=related
 
The churches can decide what they follow. The government doesn't make the churches follow rules through money, but through the imposition of laws requiring the churches to do things which go against their beliefs.
Click to expand...
BS. What about the Federal Highway Money thing I used as an analogy? The feds have a long history of doing just that -- using the threat of withholding of money as a carrot to lead an organization to do what is in the feds best interests, not the recipient org's.
 
Wasn't Kennedy's plan, was Kennedy's execution.

Wikipedia? Really? Come on.

You're right. They were mostly Cuban exiles. There were at least two Americans. Either way, Kennedy's execution of Eisenhower's plan resulted in 1,000+ prisoners and 100 dead. That's not really considered tactical success. They failed at their objective.
 
Boring Accountant,
Help me understand how "its worth it" What do you mean? How does doing that help the country, try to steer it in any direction at all and be worth it? Maybe if I understood that rationale it would be more clear to me.
Click to expand...
Well, if everybody that doesn't like McCain votes for McCain just to keep HillBama out, that sends a message to the Republican party that it should be more McCain-like in the future.
If, OTOH, everybody who does not like McCain chooses to vote a protest vote and McCain loses as a result, that forces the party to rediscover it's roots.
And in the short term that sucks, but in the long term it can benefit the party and ultimately the country.

Think about it for a second: Everything that Dubya has done to drive down his popularity is stuff that Republicans normally don't endorse. I don't think this is a trend we want to encourage.
 
There's a difference though between what a state government will do and a religious org will do.

Example. The state of Massachusetts required that adoption agencies must not discriminate against adoptive parents based on sexual orientation. The Diocese of Boston adoption agency closed because they would not adopt children to homosexual couples.

Another example is that of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance laws which threaten the tax-exempt standing of any religious organizations which endorse political candidates. Many political orgs do endorse candidates, and nobody loses their IRS status.

You're trying to make a connection between moral compromise and highway funds. There's a big difference. A 55mph speed limit is not more or less moral than a 70mph speed limit. A Catholic hospital being forced to provide abortions is an attack on the moral beliefs of the Catholic Church. The comparison isn't apples to apples.

@GoSLASH

It would suck in the short-run, but with 5 (more or less liberal) Supreme Court justices over the age of 70, we could face 40+years of one or more Clinton or Obama appointees on the SC, which could continue to attack American freedoms far longer than either of them will be in office.
 
I agree GoSlash.

I think his main nose-dive is the support for amnesty, and his unwillingness to secure the borders while building fences for Mexico's southern border. I guess you could call it his globalist mentality.
 
None of the three candidates represent me, I voted for Bush however In my opinion he has been poor for America, it would appear his focus has been aimed at being president of large corporations and the world at large, open borders,cheap labor and spending that will damage this country for years and I see very little change with any of the big three now running for the office so it seems rather pointless to say your man is better then my man, etc, etc.
 
I don't think any of the candidates represent my political convictions either, but I know one that is closer than the other two.

What's wrong with big business? Have you ever seen a poor person create jobs? No, because they don't have the money or knowhow to do it! Name a president who hasn't been a "big business" president.

I agree with you on open borders. Most change away from the president by either of the three will be a more liberal change than the current president (with the exception of John McCain's fiscal policy).
 
GPossenti,
It would suck in the short-run, but with 5 (more or less liberal) Supreme Court justices over the age of 70, we could face 40+years of one or more Clinton or Obama appointees on the SC, which could continue to attack American freedoms far longer than either of them will be in office.
Click to expand...
True. There's also a long laundry list of bad things Clinton or Obama might do while in office that would carry on beyond their tenure.

Now on the other hand, if McCain did (by some miracle) actually become president, his actions could cause the next 5 or 6 administrations to be heavily liberal. Can you picture President Boxer? Or President Pelosi?
It can happen because McCain could destroy the last vestiges of respect for the Republican party for decades to come.

The Republican party is kinda like a junker with a ruptured radiator hose. Picking McCain is like choosing to press ahead knowing that you will wreck the engine in hopes of winning the race. A protest vote is more like conceding defeat in this race, but making the necessary repairs so you can race next time.
 
I view McCain as an afront to the Republican party, not an asset. Though he holds some Conservative positions, he has swayed to the liberal side enough for me and others to worry about how he would govern as a President. I believe that if McCain is accepted as a viable Republican, then Conservatism as we knew it under Reagan will be dead within the Republican party. Of course, many younger people have no idea what Reagan meant to this country and that is sad. But friends, he meant a lot and he governed as a Conservative, not a middle of the road guy like McCain who is all too happy to "work with democrats" to achieve his goals. IMO, any Conservative who works with a democrat is simply sacrificing their principals because democrats rarely sacrifice their principals when dealing with a Conservative.
 
So GoSlash, explain to us exactly how Ron Paul as, or would, increase the respect in which the Republican Party is held. And while you're at it, why not explain exactly how McClain would cause the Republican Party to be held in disrespect and how his actions could cause the next multiple administrations to be heavily liberal.

And Firemax, it's the nature of politics that different sides of the aisle must work together to some extent. That's how government works. And BTW, the word is spelled "principles."
 
fiddletown
And Firemax, it's the nature of politics that different sides of the aisle must work together to some extent. That's how government works.
Click to expand...

It's quite simple. When a liberal and a conservative compromise, it means honestly that the conservative has sold out his principals and the liberal has gotten what he wants. If you don't see that, fine. I see it constantly. Maybe that is how government is supposed to work in your mind, but not in mine. I would prefer that no legislation is passed if it has a liberal bend to it.

fiddletown
And BTW, the word is spelled "principles."
Click to expand...

<Yawn> Does it make you feel better about yourself when you correct my spelling? :cool:
 
fiddletown,
So GoSlash, explain to us exactly how Ron Paul as, or would, increase the respect in which the Republican Party is held.
Click to expand...
Well, #1 Ron Paul will not do this because he's not the nominee. #2 this isn't really about him. So having said that...

He would have governed in accordance with strict adherence to the Constitution. All the stuff that Bush has done to make the general public hate Republicans is the opposite of what he would do. So he would have cleaned up the mess (as best he could), he would have been fairly popular, and people would say "oh... so that's what this "conservative" stuff is supposed to be about". And maybe they wouldn't have to suppress their gag reflex before pulling an "R" lever next time.
But of course, this isn't about him actually being president. It's about us voicing our preference for a Republican candidate who's more like him ( or Barr or Huckabee) and less like McCain.
It's about us saying that we endorse the rule of law as set forth by the Constitution, personal freedom and responsibility, fiscal restraint, border security, transparency of government... you know. Republican stuff.

And while you're at it, why not explain exactly how McClain would cause the Republican Party to be held in disrespect and how his actions could cause the next multiple administrations to be heavily liberal.
Click to expand...
Take a look around. Look at the current landscape at the Federal and state level. Look at what's trundling down the pike this cycle.
You want to blame it on anyone, blame it on Bush. A dumbass war that has hobbled the economy. Ambivalent about illegal immigration. Shredding the Bill of Rights. Deceit. Corruption.
As a result, his disapproval rating is the highest in modern history.

None of this is conservative, and it's all the same crap that McCain is for. So do the math. People who don't like Republican presidents don't vote for Republicans. He's not gonna improve matters.
 
GoSlash, everything you say is vague and speculative and unsupported.

Exactly how would Ron Paul have cleaned up what mess? And what makes you believe that were Ron Paul the President, the public at large would have some sort of revelation about the merits of a conservative philosophy and cast aside their previous beliefs to join some conservative renaissance? What evidence do you have to support that vision? In the primary campaigns, Ron Paul wasn't able to inspire enough voters. What makes you think that he'd be more inspirational as President? (It's too bad. I liked many of his ideas. But it's over, and he's out.)

And what's this business about the "current landscape." The world is as it is. It's a question of functioning in the world as it is and trying to achieve at least some worthwhile goals in a contentious, hostile and sometimes evil environment. Society is not one person and his vision. It's a collection of divergent, contradictory and conflicting personal beliefs and agendas.

And if you value the Constitution and the rule of law (as I hope we all do here), kindly explain to me how Obama or Hillary (as the case may be), will better adhere to the Constitution and the rule of law. I fear for the Constitution and rule of law much more under either of the Dems as President (not to mention the Supreme Court Justices and other Federal Judges they may appoint) than under McCain.
 
They are all willing and able to violate the constitution, so from that standpoint it just doesn't matter. There are reasons for having a Dem rather than a liberal Republican. These have been stated previously in this thread, and in others, I'll not repeat them here.

Go Dems!
 
FireMax, so you would perpetuate error as a matter of principle? Interesting!

Yes, miboso, we've heard those reasons, but we still haven't seen anyone offer any evidence that putting a Dem in the White House is likely to bring about any meaningful change to the Republican Party or otherwise further more conservative ideals. Splitting the Republican vote in 1992 only gave us 8 years of Clinton, and I didn't see any significant reinvention of the Republican Party as a result. What makes you think it will be different this time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top