Fweethawt

The strange origins of the GOP ideology that rejects caring for the poor

Recommended Posts

Racism is bad.  Ageism is bad. Some of you people who are commenting in this thread are straight fucked in the head and by definition are just plain bad human beings as is defined by nearly every widely accepted standard of morality on the planet.  That is all I have to say about this matter.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you for your support
Buy Ex-C a cup of coffee!
Costs have significantly risen and we need your support! Click the coffee cup to give a one-time donation, or choose one of the recurrent patron options.
Note: All Contributing Patrons enjoy Ex-Christian.net advertisement free.
 

Racism is bad.  Ageism is bad. Some of you people who are commenting in this thread are straight fucked in the head and by definition are just plain bad human beings as is defined by nearly every widely accepted standard of morality on the planet.  That is all I have to say about this matter.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kind of like people saying "I want Windoze on my PC instead of Linux, I want something that just works."

Yeah it does work... kind of. Now as soon as you question how it works however... :)

 

Bhim admits " I'm not a fan of British colonialism" so he knows that wasn't a perfect rule either. Whether British rule was better than Indian self-rule in some aspects may well be a matter of perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Are you actually saying that only white people in general, and old white men in particular are capable of running a successful government?  All others are incompetent?  Are you really saying this?  Wow.  Just.  Wow.

 

No, that is not what I am saying, but the level of outrage at my suggestion that there is nothing intronsically wrong with a country being governed by old white men is indicative of the problem I hope to highlight. I am opposed to racism, including racism against whites. Furthermore I believe in equal opportunity, not forced equality. If a government that happens to be formed of mostly white men happens to govern well, I have no desire to replace it simply to fill a race or gender quota. And if a non-white or female politician expects my vote, they must submit to precisely the same level of scrutiny I apply to a white male politician.

 

The tendency of others to mistake belief in genuine racial equality for racism on the grounds that it doesn't discriminate against the majority concerns me greatly. Many of you seem expectant of me to cry racism and white privilege, otherwise I must be racist and self-hating. Do you not see that your sense of social justice has given way to racism? This borders on self-righteousness, which is something I hope we all, as ex-Christians, can eschew.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Kind of like people saying "I want Windoze on my PC instead of Linux, I want something that just works."

Yeah it does work... kind of. Now as soon as you question how it works however... :)

 

Bhim admits " I'm not a fan of British colonialism" so he knows that wasn't a perfect rule either. Whether British rule was better than Indian self-rule in some aspects may well be a matter of perspective.

 

Indeed. People in the West know about Gandhi and the peaceful independence movement in India. They generally don't know about the armed uprisings and military violence against Indians. The British did truly horrendous things, the effects of which are still felt today (and yet I am strangely not asking for affirmative action). It is without doubt that India would be far better off had they never conquered the subcontinent. The British were also excellent governors. These two facts are not in conflict. By way of analogy, Hitler was also a good governor. Hopefully that underscores my point that effective government isn't an indicator of morality.

 

In America we have a government that is both moral* AND effective. It is also run mostly by white men. I see no reason to upset a system that works well for everyone simply to satisfy an arbitrary race quota.

 

 

*someone will likely object to my comment about governmental morality by citing police brutality against African Americans. While the claims of brutality are true, I would submit that spending even an hour with police officers from the city of Chennai will give any white American a new standard for police corruption against which to compare the law enforcement system we all enjoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

No, that is not what I am saying, but the level of outrage at my suggestion that there is nothing intronsically wrong with a country being governed by old white men is indicative of the problem I hope to highlight. I am opposed to racism, including racism against whites. Furthermore I believe in equal opportunity, not forced equality. If a government that happens to be formed of mostly white men happens to govern well, I have no desire to replace it simply to fill a race or gender quota. And if a non-white or female politician expects my vote, they must submit to precisely the same level of scrutiny I apply to a white male politician.

 

The tendency of others to mistake belief in genuine racial equality for racism on the grounds that it doesn't discriminate against the majority concerns me greatly. Many of you seem expectant of me to cry racism and white privilege, otherwise I must be racist and self-hating. Do you not see that your sense of social justice has given way to racism? This borders on self-righteousness, which is something I hope we all, as ex-Christians, can eschew.

 

I'm not outraged, merely curious.  My guess is that you are opposed to racism "including racism against whites," because you haven't, personally, been a target of racism by whites.  If that isn't so, please correct me. 

 

Equal opportunity is GOP-speak for "your poverty is your own fault,"  even though the socioeconomic system is set up to benefit those that already have, usually WASP's (see Trump).  Those that don't have...not so much. 

 

I do agree with you that equality can't be forced, that's a good and valid point.  Until people can see the potential in others not like them, nothing can change.  Based upon your posts, however, I don't get the feeling that you're open to that, since you seem to tend to view a truly representative government as meeting a "quota."  Since you have benefited from the status quo, you're cool with things the way they are, with a "let them eat cake" attitude. 

 

To say that you would submit a female or non-white person running for office to the same scrutiny as a white male politician is a bit questionable, since the majority of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Justices, et al, are, in fact, white male, and run for office ubiquitously, and usually win. So...to what standard are you, personally, holding others to?  I submit, you hold them to the white, male, standard, because that standard permeates the whole of United States politics and government.  Always has.

 

In addition, why would I expect you to cry racism and white privilege, when, from what I know of you through your profile, you aren't white, but rather Indian. And, again, I'm guessing, you really, really, want to consider yourself white, with all the privileges thereof bestowed upon you. 

 

As to my sense of social justice; I'm in no way self-righteous, just wary and alert.  Why?  Let me speak plainly.  You have never been, nor will you ever be the nigger.  I clearly remember seeing water fountains in the south labeled "whites only."  I doubt that you have ever been called a nigger.  I have.  Please understand, I'm not trying to be crass here, nor am I reaching for any shock value.  I'm merely stating that I have seen and experienced, first hand, blatant discrimination, denigration and outright hate because I am a black man in these United States. I experienced this in the US Navy, and in the business world after I left the service. It's real, and getting "realer" all the time.  This is not to say that all white people have treated me this way.  I have shipmates from back in the day that I remain very close friends with.  It is meant to say that white people with power, as in the power to hire and fire, give a raise in salary or withhold it, have treated me with disdain.  That is my experience, so, please, don't lecture me on quotas, morals or accuse me self-righteousness.  Please don't presume to do that.

 

Eight years of a black man in the white house seems to have offended a whole lot of people to the point that they swallowed, whole, the empty promises and bold-faced lies with the end of making America great "again."  Pfft.

 

First, for this country to call itself "America," is presumptuous.  There is North America, Central America and South America.  That should tell you just how "privileged" this country sees itself.

 

Next, the cry of "we are a Christian nation," is ushering in a theocracy.  Legislating from a religious point of view is the reality now.  All of the progress in equality over the past eight years, hell, over the past 60 years, is being undone.  BY THE GOP.  Sharia Law ain't got nothing on us.

 

Lastly, if your future. Bhim, looks promising, that's wonderful, really, I'm all for progress and a comfortable life.  Quiet as it's kept, my life is comfortable.  My grandchildren?  I really fret over the world that they will inherit.  My message to those hearts of my life is; never, ever trust anyone in power, especially if they're old and white; never, ever let anyone have power over you, especially if they're old and white, and lastly; be true to yourself, trust yourself and never betray yourself, and never turn your back on your own heritage for perceived comfort and imagined acceptance.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some interesting perspectives here. As for my 2 cents, I grew up poor, and I am now in the middle class. Given my occupation and the average wage we can garner, I'll probably be upper middle class in a few years. I am somewhat conflicted being in the position that I am in. You see, on one hand I grew up poor and I know that very few poor people have what it takes to take themselves out of poverty.  It takes a very strong person to be able to do it (and I realise how that sounds with me saying it, so do forgive me if I come off very self congratulatory).

 

These are people I think we should give a lending hand, and by that I mean give them an affordable minimum wage because not everyone has what it takes intellectually to work a white collar job. Australia for the most part does this, and I am thankful for it. I also believe in free education, and that's partly why I am where I am today. I don't know if I'd have ever gotten to this point without it. Equal opportunity can mean a lot of different things. For some people to be given the opportunity to do certain things, you have to have a lot of government involvement to help boost people up - but most people who say equal opportunity vs equal outcomes don't want that, as another poster said it's usual code for "fuck the poor".

 

For example, are we interested in children having equal opportunity to be able to thrive at school - or just equal opportunity to attend a school and they're on their own from there? One involves a lot of intervention, the other is essentially a goal that means nothing.

 

Anyways, when you are poor it's very easy to say let's tax people to help support all these initiatives. You haven't got much anyways, and the rich are going to get taxed more and for you the cost/benefit analysis looks AMAZING. It's basically nothing but perks all the way up. HOWEVER, now I am in the position where I am earning a quite decent amount of money it's a bit of a tougher pill to swallow. A third of my pay goes to income tax now. I am paying more in taxes a week than what I was earning for many years on a weekly basis. It seems somewhat dreamy to live in a place like the US where some states don't have an income tax. That change would have a dramatic impact on my life.

 

That said, if you were a poor person it'd be absolute shithouse. Which is my general impression of the US, great place to live if you're well off - but you're fucked otherwise. Australia is a much better place to be poor in, and it's tolerable to be more well off. Because I've reaped benefits off of the system, it feels wrong for me to now burn the bridge behind me - but it is very tempting I have to be honest.

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in the U.S., we are down to this...the president's lawyer has now hired a lawyer.  The vice-president has hired a lawyer.  The Attorney General is a wimp, from long ago, that looks, and acts, like Granny from the Beverly Hillbillys TV show.  The Senate routinely shut down voices, like Ms. Warren and Ms. Harris, for daring to ask direct questions, and expecting direct and honest answers. The nerve of them!  Women daring to question old ass white men!   Meanwhile, the GOP are outraged, outraged(!) that some "deranged gunman," has shot at them!  THEM!  The defenders and whores to the 2nd amendment!  Golly, gee, whillakers!  Holy molley!  Can you say hypocrisy?  Can you??!!

 

This is what old ass, white ass men have done to the nation that I spent years defending.  Sailing around on a submarine that had the capacity to destroy the whole freaking world.  Democracy my ass.  We're not even a Republic anymore.  Eisenhower tried to warn us.  Jack Kennedy tried to warn us. 

 

When white men landed on the shores of the new world, they would have starved to death had not the indigenous people taught them how to plant and reap something as simple as corn.  How did white folks repay them?  They shot and murdered their way across the whole middle/north american continent, talking smack about "manifest destiny," which doesn't sound so much different from "lebensraum," of Nazi Germany.

 

I said it before, and I will say it again.  Old white men should be stripped of all power, and a truly representative government installed.  Old, white men have no vision for the future, deny the past and are out of touch with the present. 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I'm not outraged, merely curious.  My guess is that you are opposed to racism "including racism against whites," because you haven't, personally, been a target of racism by whites.  If that isn't so, please correct me. 

 

 

Please don't take this to mean I've ignored the rest of what is a well-thought post, but I think this is worth exploring further.

 

You'll have to just trust me when I say that I don't mean to convey any agitation by what I'm about to ask: but do you know what it's like growing up in a mostly white town with a foreign sounding name and even more foreign religion? To this day, I am usually the only non-white person in most settings, and it is a fact of which I am made well aware. I've rarely been the target of direct racial or religious animosity (though make no mistake, I have been the target of such things), however this is not the usual form that racism takes in our modern, liberal society. Racism as it is directed towards me is usually an unconscious but definite exclusion from social hierarchies, along with a subtle disrespect towards those aspects of my culture which deviate from white Protestant culture. Oh yes, I've been called a savage, mocked for not eating cows, and been told to go back to Mexico despite not having any Mexican ancestry. But more generally, I am very obviously not accepted in white culture to the same extent as whites are. I am regularly not welcome in informal conversations, assumed to be an immigrant, and condescendingly complimented on my English. That last one is strange since I don't speak any other languages. Suffice it to say, not a day goes by when it is not obvious to me that I don't quite fit in with white people. White people are generally far less welcoming than they think they are.

 

I say this not to solicit sympathy, but to help you understand the context in which I say that I am content with a government run by white men. For all the social disadvantage I face due to not being white, I am also the beneficiary of a political philosophy which favors order and discourages corruption. If I were living in India (and if, hypothetically, I spoke an Indian language fluently), I would be around people who look like me. But I would also need to bribe someone every time I want to make a withdrawal from my bank account, I would face insurmountable governmental bureaucracy simply to renew my driver's license, and I would live among a populace that generally doesn't care about the upkeep of its surroundings. There's a reason that Indians fervently seek to enter the United States, and that no one from the United States is interested in living in India. And India is one of the greater nations. Most of the first world nations on the planet are run by white people. This cannot be denied except by willful ignorance of truth. Extract whatever causality you will from it, attribute it to the evils of colonialism if you wish. But the fact remains that old white men run countries that foster an environment in which people can not only live, but thrive. Certainly there is a plethora of terrible white countries; most of Eastern Europe comes to mind. But from my perspective, Western European culture has provided a safe and prosperous environment in which I can live. Why would I complain about the old white men governing America when they have generally been doing a good job thus far?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I am not registered Republican.  I am registered Libertarian in my state.  

 

I'm curious... why do you guys "register". Isn't it like signing up like signing up to a church/set of beliefs/ideology.

 

I agree with a party based on policy not what I'm signed up for so curious as to the reasoning behind the US method of doing things. I've heard the phrase "lifelong registered democrat/republican"... :scratch:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The party affiliation is for the primaries. You can only pick one of the three parties during primaries. Democrat, Republican, or third party. Then you can only vote for whatever party you choose. It is to vote for the candidate you want to run for whatever particular office to represent your interests. Then in November you vote for whoever you want to win. There is no party designation in november.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

https://thinkprogress.org/bad-theology-conservative-benefits-1d42ef90b387

 

The ongoing Capitol Hill brawl over health care and budget cuts is getting Biblical.

 

In recent months, GOP lawmakers have taken to spouting Christian scripture to defend conservative fiscal policy and their effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. The first example came from Rep. Roger Marshall (R-KS), who argued in early March that Jesus would support his criticism of Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, as aspect of health care reform that extended insurance coverage to additional low-income Americans.

 

“Just like Jesus said, ‘The poor will always be with us,’” Marshall told Stat News, quoting the Bible. “There is a group of people that just don’t want health care and aren’t going to take care of themselves.”

Honestly fweethawt the affordable health care act is anything but affordable. Citizens who couldn't afford insurance premiums before are now forced to pay premiums with deductibles that are so high most will never benefit from said insurance. I had to pay 3600 dollars this year before my insurance payed one red cent. The health care act did nothing to help us and more to hurt us. Imposing a fine for not paying for insurance is so un-American it isn't even funny. The only ones benefitting from this are the extremely poor and the insurance companies themselves as every one in america now has to pay their premium while their deductibles are so high they most likely won't have to spend much profit. 

 

What we need is an actual universal health care system that our taxes pay for. Something that let's every American go to the hospital and doctors when needed without having to pay out of pocket. But that dirty word taxes would have to be mentioned. I would gladly pay a higher tax for universal health care if I didn't have to pay a premium. It would be worth it. But you won't see any Democrats or Republicans promoting that because to many idiots on both sidesides would nut up when they say we will have to make a tax for it.

 

DB

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

I say this not to solicit sympathy, but to help you understand the context in which I say that I am content with a government run by white men. For all the social disadvantage I face due to not being white, I am also the beneficiary of a political philosophy which favors order and discourages corruption. If I were living in India (and if, hypothetically, I spoke an Indian language fluently), I would be around people who look like me. But I would also need to bribe someone every time I want to make a withdrawal from my bank account, I would face insurmountable governmental bureaucracy simply to renew my driver's license, and I would live among a populace that generally doesn't care about the upkeep of its surroundings. There's a reason that Indians fervently seek to enter the United States, and that no one from the United States is interested in living in India. And India is one of the greater nations. Most of the first world nations on the planet are run by white people. This cannot be denied except by willful ignorance of truth. Extract whatever causality you will from it, attribute it to the evils of colonialism if you wish. But the fact remains that old white men run countries that foster an environment in which people can not only live, but thrive. Certainly there is a plethora of terrible white countries; most of Eastern Europe comes to mind. But from my perspective, Western European culture has provided a safe and prosperous environment in which I can live. Why would I complain about the old white men governing America when they have generally been doing a good job thus far?

While I understand the contrast you're attempting to make, one needs to keep in mind that just because you don't have to bribe every official you meet to get things done doesn't mean that the system isn't corrupt, nor does it mean that it doesn't contain room for improvement. The set up in the US is seen to be pretty corrupt by comparison to other western democracies. For example, the fact that money equals speech means that you guys essentially have legalised bribery. You also see that with little exception, the candidate with the most money is the one that wins and that there is no correlation between policies and the will of the people, but there is significant correlation between policies and donor wishes. Happy to link to sources to these claims (hammering this one out at the moment and couldn't be bothered finding them right now - but they should be easily searchable).

 

Aside from the issues I've outlined above, there's a lot more to be said about having a government representative of the people. I'm sure most of us have seen an interview with some senator who was against abortion being asked why does he think women have abortions and he simply replied with "No idea". A government with a better representation of the sexes, ethnicities and classes of the people would help prevent many of the issues that occur now. I have nothing against "old white men" but if you were to class things as "good" now with them, I would say a government that is more representative of the people would be "better".

 

As for your comments about white people and their overrepresentation as first world countries: While no one would disagree with this fact - I think most would also question why. Reducing an incredibly complex situation down to people being white and having a "superior culture" is absurd.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I'm curious... why do you guys "register". Isn't it like signing up like signing up to a church/set of beliefs/ideology.

 

I agree with a party based on policy not what I'm signed up for so curious as to the reasoning behind the US method of doing things. I've heard the phrase "lifelong registered democrat/republican"... :scratch:

 

Although I am no longer much of a fan of the Republicans, and I lean more Libertarian now, I am still a registered Republican because if I registered as an Independent, I would not be able to vote in primary elections.  So as a registered Republican I can vote in Republican primaries and have some small influence on who becomes the Republican candidate in November.  I find the Republicans to be the lesser of the two evils.  I seriously considered changing my registration to Independent when Trump won the nomination though. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

I'm curious... why do you guys "register". Isn't it like signing up like signing up to a church/set of beliefs/ideology.

 

I agree with a party based on policy not what I'm signed up for so curious as to the reasoning behind the US method of doing things. I've heard the phrase "lifelong registered democrat/republican"... :scratch:

We have primaries where we elect candidates who will square off in a general election, and to get a ballot with the party you have to register so you can vote in the primary.   They don't want someone not of your party to select your candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

 

Please don't take this to mean I've ignored the rest of what is a well-thought post, but I think this is worth exploring further.

 

You'll have to just trust me when I say that I don't mean to convey any agitation by what I'm about to ask: but do you know what it's like growing up in a mostly white town with a foreign sounding name and even more foreign religion? To this day, I am usually the only non-white person in most settings, and it is a fact of which I am made well aware. I've rarely been the target of direct racial or religious animosity (though make no mistake, I have been the target of such things), however this is not the usual form that racism takes in our modern, liberal society. Racism as it is directed towards me is usually an unconscious but definite exclusion from social hierarchies, along with a subtle disrespect towards those aspects of my culture which deviate from white Protestant culture. Oh yes, I've been called a savage, mocked for not eating cows, and been told to go back to Mexico despite not having any Mexican ancestry. But more generally, I am very obviously not accepted in white culture to the same extent as whites are. I am regularly not welcome in informal conversations, assumed to be an immigrant, and condescendingly complimented on my English. That last one is strange since I don't speak any other languages. Suffice it to say, not a day goes by when it is not obvious to me that I don't quite fit in with white people. White people are generally far less welcoming than they think they are.

 

I say this not to solicit sympathy, but to help you understand the context in which I say that I am content with a government run by white men. For all the social disadvantage I face due to not being white, I am also the beneficiary of a political philosophy which favors order and discourages corruption. If I were living in India (and if, hypothetically, I spoke an Indian language fluently), I would be around people who look like me. But I would also need to bribe someone every time I want to make a withdrawal from my bank account, I would face insurmountable governmental bureaucracy simply to renew my driver's license, and I would live among a populace that generally doesn't care about the upkeep of its surroundings. There's a reason that Indians fervently seek to enter the United States, and that no one from the United States is interested in living in India. And India is one of the greater nations. Most of the first world nations on the planet are run by white people. This cannot be denied except by willful ignorance of truth. Extract whatever causality you will from it, attribute it to the evils of colonialism if you wish. But the fact remains that old white men run countries that foster an environment in which people can not only live, but thrive. Certainly there is a plethora of terrible white countries; most of Eastern Europe comes to mind. But from my perspective, Western European culture has provided a safe and prosperous environment in which I can live. Why would I complain about the old white men governing America when they have generally been doing a good job thus far?

No, Bhim, I didn't grow up in a mostly white town, have a pretty common name and came from a christian home.  I did, however, serve on a submarine, the only black kid on the boat, and there were those that really had a problem with that.  I should have been a steward, not a radioman.  Bets were taken that I would not be able to qualify ships and earn my dolphins, which I did on my 1st patrol.

 

I have spoken with potential employers on the phone, who were then a bit taken aback upon meeting me in person, marveling that I "didn't sound black" on the phone. So, yeah, I get it.

 

Beneficiary of a political philosophy which favors order and discourages corruption.  Ummmm.....no.  Corruption is expected in politics here, even praised and rewarded, a career in politics would never get off the ground without it.  And that isn't hyperbole, that's a fact, and a shame.  This is why I say that all old white men should be removed from office.  A truly representative government is needed in these days.  Teachers, fire fighters, police officers, postal employees, nurses, nurses aides, black, white, Asian, Indian, native Americans.  Inclusive of all that live, work and pay taxes here. 

 

The white men that founded the U.S., I'm convinced, had no idea that their revolutionary statement that all men are created equal would eventually apply to slaves, or non-land owning white people, or women.  But this is now the case, and we need to run with it and bring it to true fruition.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

than a majority in a country run by people who don't know what they're doing.

Well our country is being run by a man who definitely doesn't know what he's doing, so at least you have that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

As someone who doesn't care about the poor, I have to say I'm greatly enjoying the direction that the GOP has taken. As an evangelical Christian I always found them hypocritical, and willfully ignorant of the very obvious meaning of Biblical teachings such as "sell all you have, give to the poor, and come follow me." Now that I'm free of divinely-imposed compassion, I'm perfectly happy to ally myself with people who pay lip service to their god while disobeying his teachings, just to put a little more money in my pocket (it would be nice if they didn't also inundate the rich in further wealth, but I suppose that may be asking too much).

 

Having said all that, I must admit that I don't know if it's possible to formulate a truly Biblical position on wealth and charity. A lot of Biblical teachings on the matter contradict each other. Jesus did say to give to the poor, but he also stayed at the homes of rich people and fail to make similar pronouncements to them. Likewise, the early Jerusalem church practiced a communistic way of living, but the churches founded by Paul did not. And of course we could all cite many passages from the Psalms and Proverbs in which authors associate wealth with divine blessing. Like it does on so many other topics, the Bible appears to contradict itself in this matter.

If there are ancient sentiments more pernicious than Christianity it is that of the Hindu caste system, and the blatant disregard for the poor.  A belief system which ingrains the assumption that the poor deserve their position is anti-liberal and I mean in the classical sense that it conflicts entirely with our values that each human being is of equal value.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

No, Bhim, I didn't grow up in a mostly white town, have a pretty common name and came from a christian home.  I did, however, serve on a submarine, the only black kid on the boat, and there were those that really had a problem with that.  I should have been a steward, not a radioman.  Bets were taken that I would not be able to qualify ships and earn my dolphins, which I did on my 1st patrol.

 

I have spoken with potential employers on the phone, who were then a bit taken aback upon meeting me in person, marveling that I "didn't sound black" on the phone. So, yeah, I get it.

 

Beneficiary of a political philosophy which favors order and discourages corruption.  Ummmm.....no.  Corruption is expected in politics here, even praised and rewarded, a career in politics would never get off the ground without it.  And that isn't hyperbole, that's a fact, and a shame.  This is why I say that all old white men should be removed from office.  A truly representative government is needed in these days.  Teachers, fire fighters, police officers, postal employees, nurses, nurses aides, black, white, Asian, Indian, native Americans.  Inclusive of all that live, work and pay taxes here. 

 

The white men that founded the U.S., I'm convinced, had no idea that their revolutionary statement that all men are created equal would eventually apply to slaves, or non-land owning white people, or women.  But this is now the case, and we need to run with it and bring it to true fruition.

"We have seen the mere distinction of color made in the most enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man."
-- James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, June 6, 1787

 

My suggestion to you is to look at how the issue of slavery actually unfolded at the Constitutional Convention.  Many surprising statements came out from slave owners about this contradiction and voted against the provisions, and the Committee on slavery ultimately to give in to the threat of South Carolina to not endorse the Constitution and withdraw from the union.  What ultimately happened is that the concessions were made the can was kicked down the road which eventually led to the same disagreements and fear of Northern or Southern political and economic oppression the precipitated the Civil War.  You can judge these men for their compromise, but it still paved the way eventually to the freeing of slaves. Now that doesn't negate Jim Crow South or the oppression that exists today but if you don't think the Constitution has value then I have trouble seeing why you are even in this country.  The Constitution was not designed to achieve everything they all hoped for, it was built on compromises and bargains so that a union could be established that would ensure the continuation of this experiment in freedom which has now led to the most free and diverse Republic in history.  Statements such as yours that color must again be called upon as the condition for oppression are illiberal and contrary to our values.  Don't confuse righteous indignation over wrongdoing as a justification of an even worse retribution where old white men are banned from political life.  Truly disappointed to be reading this on this site...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Honestly fweethawt the affordable health care act is anything but affordable. Citizens who couldn't afford insurance premiums before are now forced to pay premiums with deductibles that are so high most will never benefit from said insurance. I had to pay 3600 dollars this year before my insurance payed one red cent. The health care act did nothing to help us and more to hurt us. Imposing a fine for not paying for insurance is so un-American it isn't even funny. The only ones benefitting from this are the extremely poor and the insurance companies themselves as every one in america now has to pay their premium while their deductibles are so high they most likely won't have to spend much profit. 

 

What we need is an actual universal health care system that our taxes pay for. Something that let's every American go to the hospital and doctors when needed without having to pay out of pocket. But that dirty word taxes would have to be mentioned. I would gladly pay a higher tax for universal health care if I didn't have to pay a premium. It would be worth it. But you won't see any Democrats or Republicans promoting that because to many idiots on both sidesides would nut up when they say we will have to make a tax for it.

 

DB

People hate each other too much in the United States for a single payer system, this isn't Denmark with a homogeneous population.  The United States has almost always had significant regional divisions which push back against general federal provision and taxation.  Humanism won't likely triumph in the United States over more parochial values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now