ejronin's blog: "Political Penguins"

Recently I've been justifiably challenged by a fellow constructive Newsviner, Ardith. The challenge lies in front of me, as I grab that proverbial bat so eagerly handed to me. Now, it's your turn (smile). You allege that "... while the Democrats shred our rights and liberties as well.". How, exactly, are the Democrats going to shred our rights and liberties? Please reply, with documentation of Democratic legislation now in place that has shredded our rights and liberties. And, you say that you "believe in the Republican ideals." I think it would benefit this discussion for you to tell us exactly what those ideals are. I know I would benefit from a precise list, and also citations of how Republicans are achieving those ideals. You're up at bat. ;} Ardith, I do not see this a a total challenge of opinion and call for backing it, but more of a challenge to figure out if I'm fully aware of what I'm saying and in that, also determine if I actually believe what I say. Good call, and I can't fault you for that. Nothing irks me more than someone who opens their mouth with a secondhand opinion. PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY The Republican Party, has in part on it's platform the belief in "Personal Responsibility". While gutter trash like Mark Foley and his defenders are not prime examples of this ideal with regards to personal capacity, I think it is important to look at this from a political standpoint as well as a personal ethic. As far as the individual personal capacity segment of Personal Responsibility goes, I think many conservatives lack the ability to cast a critical view on their own opinions, as do many Liberal Democrats. This is why I prefer to be a Moderate, but admittedly hold some conservative ideas or at least values which stem from a religious upbringing. No one is without bias. I'm also a Moderate because I feel not everyone knows everything about anything and being a Moderate affords me great opportunity to see both conservative and liberals sides of things. It is my personal choice. Personal Responsibility is not limited to the individual, but to a group that sets itself apart from the rest of the mainstream. An example of how this is taken away is through Affirmative Action, started as an executive order in 1965 while Lindon Johnson (a Democrat) was in office. At the same time, personal responsibility should be taken by the individual as well. The Non-Discrimination Act (commonly grouped with Affirmative Action), as I said was good in that it forced employers to look beyond racial as well as sexual prejudices, but the modern Democratic platform and the misdirection of "government welfare" has greatly diminished the purpose of Affirmative Action to the point where it is no longer productive - much like how some women take a man helping them put on their coat as a covert non-verbal remark as to their weakness based on sex, it is not the man's place to assume a woman cannot dress herself without help. It is a common courtesy, but times change and this largely democratic Legislation strips the rights and power from those who have not only earned it, but weakens those who are capable of doing something on their own by disallowing them to show an action can be done independently. Now, Affirmative Action (AA) started out a a decent idea, but the problem with it is that it doesn't allow for people of a minority status to succeed on their own merits, but hands them an opportunity they have no earned at the expense of someone who has. Recently this has come under fire from minority groups. As a person I find AA oppressive, and while it is well intended it is harmful in the case of personal responsibility inasmuch as it detracts from the purpose of being responsible for oneself in all aspects of the term. Furthermore, it goes against the clause in our Declaration of Independence that says "All men are created equal". We can't really argue a point in this matter because this is the actual wording of The declaration of Independence and more often then not, the Democrats I know use that to propel the argument FOR AA.. However, Theodore Roosevelt said: "I think the authors of the Declaration of Independence intended to include all men, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moral development or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctness in what they did consider all men created equal-equal in certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean to assert the obvious untruth that all were actually enjoying that equality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should be familiar to all - constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people, everywhere." We are bound in honor to refuse to listen to those men who would make us desist from the effort to do away with the inequality which means injustice; the inequality of right, opportunity, of privilege. We are bound in honor to strive to bring ever nearer the day when, as far is humanly possible, we shall be able to realize the ideal that each man shall have an equal opportunity to show the stuff that is in him by the way in which he renders service. There should, so far as possible, be equal of opportunity to render service; but just so long as there is inequality of service there should and must be inequality of reward. We may be sorry for the general, the painter, the artists, the worker in any profession or of any kind, whose misfortune rather than whose fault it is that he does his work ill. But the reward must go to the man who does his work well; for any other course is to create a new kind of privilege, the privilege of folly and weakness; and special privilege is injustice, whatever form it takes. To say that the thriftless, the lazy, the vicious, the incapable, ought to have reward given to those who are farsighted, capable, and upright, is to say what is not true and cannot be true. Let us try to level up, but let us beware of the evil of leveling down. If a man stumbles, it is a good thing to help him to his feet. Every one of us needs a helping hand now and then. But if a man lies down, it is a waste of time to try and carry him; and it is a very bad thing for every one if we make men feel that the same reward will come to those who shirk their work and those who do it. Let us, then, take into account the actual facts of life, and not be misled into following any proposal for achieving the millennium, for recreating the golden age, until we have subjected it to hardheaded examination. On the other hand, it is foolish to reject a proposal merely because it is advanced by visionaries. If a given scheme is proposed, look at it on its merits, and, in considering it, disregard formulas. It does not matter in the least who proposes it, or why. If it seems good, try it. If it proves good, accept it; otherwise reject it. There are plenty of good men calling themselves Socialists with whom, up to a certain point, it is quite possible to work. If the next step is one which both we and they wish to take, why of course take it, without any regard to the fact that our views as to the tenth step may differ. But, on the other hand, keep clearly in mind that, though it has been worth while to take one step, this does not in the least mean that it may not be highly disadvantageous to take the next. It is just as foolish to refuse all progress because people demanding it desire at some points to go to absurd extremes, as it would be to go to these absurd extremes simply because some of the measures advocated by the extremists were wise. -source I would add that "All men are equal" doesn't not include that all men have the same personal capacity, and charging our society to serve as a buffer and pick up the slack for someone who willingly has lack of personal capacity is wasteful. Giving benefits to a minority is just as much an injustice as taking it away based on the same standard. This is where I feel Personal Responsibility lies within the Republican Party, and because of the stance that modern Liberal and Centrist Democrats have, I feel it shreds the rights of those who have come to earn With regards to personal capacity I will agree that the current administration has much to answer for and I sincerely hope that this administration doesn't follow the previous administration with continual lies and history revisions once out of office. Although, conviction to ones thoughts, ideas, scruples, morals or ethics are, regardless of how perceivably unethical, lends itself to a form of seldom understood or accepted truthfulness. Even Cindy Sheehan at one point said that she felt Bush believed what he was doing was right and that she felt he believed that it was for the greater good, despite the fact that she directly opposed his actions and beliefs. In more regards to affirmative action, there is this Op-Ed, with an amazingly ingenious plan on how the author plans to show it's failings. MEGAN'S LAW Other examples of what I feel are personal responsibility come in the form of Megan's Law.. This law was made Federal in 1996 (during the term of a Democrat, and first brought up in California in 1947 when Harry Truman was in presidential office (also a Democrat) and Earl Warren was governor for California, and eventually later in 1994 appearing in New Jersey of which the law is officially named. While again, the idea is a good one, but its current practice needs a bit of honing. So far people have had attempts on their life (illegal), and wrongly accused. So personal responsibility can go both ways here, but in the latter case the Democratic ideal of "government welfare" imposed a government enforced mandate that requires all sex offenders to register in whatever town they live. It doesn't promote vigilante activity or taking law into your own hands, but it also doesn't promote actual personal responsibility. TORTURE AND DETAINMENT To give example of how I feel that Republicans - specifically conservatives are helping with one aspect of personal responsibility and other minor parts of their plat form I'll turn it over to a different thread in which I have been debating with Jimmy Havok. The topic? Torture. Dark and perceivably evil, I understand and at first you might think that it is akin to seppuku in regards to making a case for good. I don't believe this and I hope that in reading my comments in a question by Radical Centrist "Republicans, What would it take" you'll understand my angle on this largely conservative idea. ABORTION I feel Democrats largely bungle the whole abortion argument as well. While I am a Pro-Life person, far be it from me to force a woman to give birth to something she doesn't want. In contrast I think that argument many Democrats and Liberals use to state their case is beyond skewed. None of their arguments take a pro-active preventative measure, only address things after the fact. I've debated before about abstaining from sex due to the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. I felt that people old enough to have sex, for whatever reason they choose to have sex, should abstain from sex until they are ready to take on the responsibility to raise a child. Most of this is reference to teen pregnancies. Making abortion illegal forces one person into having no choice, and making it openly legal for any reason strips responsibility at the cost of the tax payer in most cases. I feel that irrespective of the toll on a woman in this case, the effects are things that should be considered before entering sexual activity. Teaching kids to abstain has been said to do nothing in way of reducing pregnancy, and this may be true. However, it is also the only proven way ot be 100% not pregnant. Who can argue with that? I've also said that while in the past some women were mislead as to the effects of abortion (which I find deplorable and reprehensible), it should still lie with the woman to seek a second opinion in the matter if she is unsure. I still feel this way inasmuch as the case for my statement was made by Margaret Sanger - the founder of planned parenthood and subsequently the largest proponent of abortion. Margaret Sanger said: Birth control and abortion are the responsibility and burden first and foremost of women, and as matters of law, medicine and public policy second. Seeking a second opinion so that you may make an informed decision is an act of personal responsibility. Lack of personal responsibility often times makes one a victim with fault. It is not the responsibility of the government or any outside party to provide a way to clean up a mistake they had no hand in making. This is especially true if we are to be told that men and law have no say for what woman will or will not do concerning her own act of abortion. Based on that statement I do not think it is too much responsibility for a woman to get a second opinion, just as it is not too much responsibility to ask a man to carry condoms, nor too much responsibility to ask both parties to think before they act. The Democratic idea of government welfare doesn't promote this inasmuch as it commonly advocates instituting new and tax inefficient programs that freely administer services to irresponsible parties. Again, something well intended but often times abused by its users. Another aspect of where I feel that Democrats go wrong is their line of thought with equality. As discussed above, democrats want to level the playing field - unless it takes from a weaker party. In this case a woman. Roe V Wade and the outcome based on Right to Privacy is a logical fallacy in my opinion. I find it hard to believe that a woman will allow a man to willingly invade her vagina, but when it comes to give man equal say in what they had an equal part in creating, power is left only with a woman. At best this is hypocritical. Where I think Republicans go right is the short-lived question "Should a man have a vote in abortion law?", posed by Cassandra. Now before you go off and claim I'm being a hypocrite, and state that on one hand I say that equality is bullshit, and on the other it is something we need - let us remember that equality on your own merits is one thing but affirmative action is another. In Cassandras article I took the stance that yes - a man should have a vote, because it is an aspect of life that effects everyone and that not including men is discriminatory. I also made a plan on how to make that fair and just while playing upon individual personal capacity - something affirmative action does not make space for. I do not understand why the Democratic party wishes to ensure this option is always open for any reason under every circumstance. I'm also puzzled as to why the far right conservatives find it equally justifiable to impose an illegal status on abortion. If we say that killing a fetus is right, and justify it by saying that scientifically a fetus is not a person until a certain amount of gestation occurs, how do we justify not killing someone who has done a serious wrong and place their rights and wishes before those of the victim? ECONOMICS The Republicans had a great idea which I wouldn't call "voodoo economics" as it is lovingly referred to by some Democrats today. The free market advocacy economic policies of U.S. President Ronald Reagan, or Reganomics worked amazingly well much to he chagrin of many modern Democrats and Socialists alike. At the time, however, there were a class of Reagan Democrats, which Bill Clinton eventually took back. The belief by some proponents of Reaganomics that the tax rate cuts would more than pay for themselves was influenced by the Laffer curve, a theoretical taxation model that was particularly in vogue among some American conservatives during the 1970s. Arthur Laffer's model predicts that excessive tax rates actually reduce potential tax revenues, by lowering the incentive to produce. But while Federal Government tax revenues did increase significantly following the tax cuts of the Reagan years, that was mostly because of already scheduled increases in the Social Security Payroll Tax -- while in contradiction to the Laffer Curve, revenues from the individual and corporate income tax fell substantially as a percentage of GDP. The dramatic increase in spending produced the budget deficits of that era. -source HEALTH CARE I read an article online from the Washington Post a while back that argues this point MUCH better than I can. I don't know if you've heard the phrase or not, but I'll say it anyway: "If someone says something better than you can, quote them on it" - someone else. To hear the howls from Democrats and advocacy groups, however, you would never know that what all this amounts to, is shaving less than 1 percent off the annual growth rate of a program that has grown at an average of 9.5 percent over the last four years. You'd never know that most states are not expected to demand the full measure of permitted cost-sharing allowed under the proposed changes, or that it is likely to be phased in over time. You surely would never know that preventive care and acute hospital care would be exempt from cost-sharing, as would children in poverty households or their pregnant mothers. Most of all, you'd never know that these "cuts" are meant to make it feasible for states to continue offering some measure of health insurance to low-income children and adults who don't have it but may have incomes above the Medicaid cutoff (which varies widely from state to state). Democrats would have you believe that the only reason for these cuts is to pay for extending tax cuts for the rich. In a narrow sense, that's true. But in another sense, it's beside the point. You could just as easily argue that the Medicaid "cuts" are needed to pay for misguided farm subsidies or spending for Star Wars or bridges to nowhere. And even if the tax cuts were off the table, we'd still face a budget crisis and the need to control Medicaid and other entitlement spending. Although Democrats stubbornly refuse to acknowledge the political and fiscal reality that Medicaid can't keep growing faster than the incomes of the Americans who pay for it. Nor can it continue to cover every service at no cost while other Americans are being forced to accept higher cost-sharing and more limited coverage -- or have their health insurance taken away completely. And that's why this is such a missed opportunity. Rather than falling back into the political set-piece of defending the status quo and demonizing Republicans for another round heartless budget and tax cuts, Democrats might have used the opportunity to change the terms of the debate. With the governors at their side, they could have pushed Congress to take the next step in transforming Medicaid from an entitlement program for the poor into a means-tested health insurer of last resort for all Americans. Think of it this way: If you were a Democrat, would you want the debate focused on the fairness of requiring poor people to pay $5 instead of $3 every time they decide to go to the doctor? Or would you want to focus on the fairness of a health system that now leaves 40 million Americans with no coverage at all? No wonder these guys keep losing elections. -source I find it rather peculiar is that many Democrats do not ask us to vote FOR them, but only ask us to vote AGAINST a Republican. Other than that it seems that the democratic party, doesn't speak about anything other than how a Republican messes up without acknowledging their own faults. To do this they'd also have to acknowledge how they failed to fix them or even make an attempt at it. If I had to pick a person that represents the equivalent of the Republican Mark Foley - I'd choose Ray Nagin. With is lack of financial planning, resource irresponsibility as well as lack of personal responsibility - and lets not forget the two comments he made. One in regards to "chocolate city" and the other in reference to "the two gaping holes in the ground of NYC". A runner up would be everyone favorite Mayor continued re-elect - Marion Barry. Democrats have no message, this has been known for years. Sure, you know what they are against, but that's not how you move a country forward. You need to have something you are for. Democrats have focused on messengers and not the message: Antiwar voices Cindy Sheehan, former ambassador Joe Wilson and Rep. John Murtha trot out their credentials and then say their positions cannot be criticized because of who they are. Disagreeing with Murtha, Dems say, is a vicious smear and labels him unpatriotic. Murtha is unpatriotic, but not because he opposes the war. He's unpatriotic because instead of using his free speech to engage in a debate over the issue of bringing home US soldiers in Iraq, he tried to stifle debate by preemptively labeling all criticism as being out of bounds. This is why Democrats don't win elections: They try to shut up the rest of America because their messengers are beyond debate. Call it rule by the elite. Often I see the Democrats speak in the following format: * WE HAVE A GOAL * REPUBLICANS HAVE A BAD PLAN * DO NOT VOTE REPUBLICAN True, lately we've had a number of bad plans, but at least we have them. Democrats will sometimes say that they're trying to be collected and take their time in devising a great plan, but they've had just as many opportunities as Republicans have had - with more to their favor. by this I mean, the democrats should be learning what NOT to do by watching republicans, instead all they've really come up with is a finger to point followed by "see, this is why you don't vote republican". So I've got a reason given to me by Democrats (and by default the Republicans) to not vote Republican, but also not a single reason to vote Democrat. Furthermore, they never really finish telling us what their goal is or how they intend to attain that goal. Sure, one might say that they're not going to give Republicans a way out of their own problem, but what about their ideals of giving America back to the people and making it whole again. WHO follows the plan and WHO made the plan are not important if you truly feel that this country needs help. The fact is, its faulty politics that has fallen under its exposed weight. Want me to vote Democrat? Give me a reason to, rather than a reason to not vote Republican. We know what Republicans can't do, what we don't know is what Democrats can, and voting them in office on a hope is stupid. The Democratic party often instills way too much faith in their voters to make the right choice, whereas the far right conservative members of the GOP often suspects voters of conspiring against them. If there was an independent party I could totally back I would, but it is the fundamental ideals of the Republican party I ally with, and I do not completely back their practices. While my argument here may not be in an easy to read format,I have written this article based off of the many things I've said across the vine since I first got here. I stand by what I've said, and realize that in some cases my opinions may have changed just a little. I find no fault in that, as a never changing opinion is nothing more than a stagnant mind. RECAP AND SUMMARY Torture under a qualified situation promotes not only the right to defend an innocent life by using any and all means necessary. It also doesn't place the lesser right to physical integrity of a wrongdoer over the greater right to life of the victim. While finding proof that torture always works is hard, finding proof that it doesn't is even harder. The Democrats who wish this abolished seem to have lost sight of the victim and concentrated on saving moral face. Bent principles hurt a lot less then a lost life. Abortion serves to promote a lack of personal responsibility in most cases presented by Democrats. Recently they've changed their stance to include "rare", so that it now reads "Safe - legal and rare". This appears to be a more conservative medium within their party and I can't say that I totally oppose it, however more is being done in the way of offering a means to abort than a means to not get pregnant in the first place. It is a classic Democratic trait of treating the symptom and not the disease. Extenuating circumstances present themselves in cases of factual rape, incest and when eminent danger is posed on the life of the mother or the child. The sticky part is then determining who's life is more valuable. Siding with science on the question, I's claim that scientifically the mother has more right to life inasmuch as she can bear more children and the cause of the predicament will be to no fault of anyone; just some freak occurance or genetic abnormality that can sometimes occur. Affirmative action is a great idea if you want people to be equal, but the methods in which it now kept in place degrade its original purpose. By giving benefits to minorities based on the fact that they are a minority, you've taken away the chance to succeed on the their own merits. Also you've promoted the fact that there is a problem. I do not assert that racism and sexism is not in existence. I do attest that pointing out the problem without offering or working to find a more applicable solution does nothing more than perpetuate the existing problem. I can't say Republicans have much of a plan in this regards, they just wasn't affirmative action removed and to let the minorities get up on their own, since they claim they can. Democrats want everyone to look at them, see that they are different and pay special attention to how much greater their success is because they are different. Both ideas a bad. The Bush administration has no excuses coming from my mouth in reference to money matters. Spending is at an all time high while they still adhere to Reaganomics with a twist. No longer is it "trickle down", it more like "misting". democrats tend to go with the idea that they'll give all of these things to the people and make them happy, but also make them pay for it, which makes them unhappy. An example would be a government funded abortion clinic. Not everyone is going to want that, and since there is no taxation without representation, the government has to tell us whats going on with money (but we cant tell them how to spend it). We're offered two choices. The idea of the abortion clinics points to these new taxes and the people get mad. So, the government says "well, we're putting this in whether you like it or not and since you dont want to pay for a new tax, we'll just cut educational funds". The people upion hearing that get madder and begrudgingly agree to a new tax. Its a basic idea on how I've seen it work, Sex offenders have no place in this mans (meaning mine) society. Not now, not ever. Molest a child - well, I'm not too amicable when I know you've done that. Rape a woman - again I can be a raging bull. However unlikable the emotion can be, they are real. I understand a hatred for people who commit these kinds of crime and the independant actions taken by those who find sex offenders in their area - I sometimes wish I was really Elliot Stabler so that I could go get these guys and keep them locked up- but I'm not and if I was I'd be a bad cop... abusing my authority. I do feel that Megan's Law needs serious revision despite its apparent good intent. As it stands the lack of provision for the guilty, is wrong. At best, the actual address of the offender should be omitted from the listing to common private Internet users and only be available to law enforcement. Instead an approximation of distance from the Internet user based on the Internal IP address of the person doing a search would give enough information. Should a person use the information such as name to get a phone number and then look up the address in that fashion, then the person searching becomes someone with possible criminal intent. They haven't been afforded the information to immediately find sex offenders, but have had to actively search - proving to a degree - premeditation. I think vicimts need to know who is likely to rape their kid, but I also think that vengence, at times, is counter productinve. Healthcare is a big issue. Thats all there is to really say. You've got a group that wants to give to everyone, but understands that its going to cost money, and another group who wants to make it cheap to the poor and is not concerned about how many people actually get it. It looks more like a block vote fear than an actual "for the people" issue that Democrats so proudly exclaim they're all about. Now, my challenger also said: Electing Democrats who want to reclaim basic American rights and liberties, who want to reform a health care system that overcharges and underprovides, who want Americans to live together in respect with their own privacy, and who want to build for tomorrow rather than tearing down 230 years of American history, wisdom, and working models of freedom and justice, will actually help those good Republicans. I fail to see how exactly electing people of the opposite party will help. By that logic you'd also assert that putting those good upstanding Republicans in office would help the Democrats. I think electing good upstanding Republicans would help the Republicans. Oddly, I used to be a Liberal leaning person - I felt anyone and everyone could be reformed and taught to be remorseful for their actions, then one day reality smacked me in the face and I changed that outlook. I noticed that when I was a Liberal leaning Moderate the Conservative leaning respected my opinions and gave me credit for thoughts and views. Now that I've switched stances, all I get are abrasive assholes who think that becuase they have some weak ass credentials that they are undebateable. They seem to believe in freedom of speech, that is, until you disagree with them and then you're simply spouting garbage... no wonder people are so fucked up...