An American absurd

[elcorazon]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

First, I would not call either of you trolls.

Second, let me pose this hypothetical to both of you.  Suppor that that you could live in a big house, have a lot of money, but to maintain it, you would have to keep a large number of slaves, which the law of your area permits.  Would you rather be rich and own slaves, or poor and not own them?

Let me take a crack at it.

I think that J.J. is presenting a simple choice. In the first case - owning the slaves - you put economic interests ahead of moral values. In the second case - poor and slaveless - you put moral values ahead of economic interests.

That's the choice J.J. is presenting, and it is a counterpoint to the 'how can you vote Republican if you're poor just based on (insert usual liberal shuddering and condescension here) moral values'.

Am I right, J.J.?

That makes more sense.  The interesting thing is that my main reason for voting Kerry is moral values.  I just define them differently than the Christian right.

[WMS]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

First, I would not call either of you trolls.

Second, let me pose this hypothetical to both of you.  Suppor that that you could live in a big house, have a lot of money, but to maintain it, you would have to keep a large number of slaves, which the law of your area permits.  Would you rather be rich and own slaves, or poor and not own them?

Let me take a crack at it.

I think that J.J. is presenting a simple choice. In the first case - owning the slaves - you put economic interests ahead of moral values. In the second case - poor and slaveless - you put moral values ahead of economic interests.

That's the choice J.J. is presenting, and it is a counterpoint to the 'how can you vote Republican if you're poor just based on (insert usual liberal shuddering and condescension here) moral values'.

Am I right, J.J.?

That makes more sense.  The interesting thing is that my main reason for voting Kerry is moral values.  I just define them differently than the Christian right.

Glad to help. And that's a unique perspective there.

[J. J.]

That makes more sense.  The interesting thing is that my main reason for voting Kerry is moral values.  I just define them differently than the Christian right.

I would like to know how you define the Christian right?

[angus]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.  I would imagine that had I grown up in the south pre-civil war, it would be the only society I knew and I'd probably (sadly) just go with the program.  I'd like to think that I wouldn't but I'll never know.

By the way, I am actually a southerner - born and bred in Kentucky - and still a huge Wildcat fan - can't wait till basketball season, which is  just around the corner.

I wouldn't suggest that you be so hard on yourself.  There were a few pre-civil war southerners, like Robert E. Lee, who didn't think it was moral to own slaves.  You might have very well been one of them.

The Lee analogy is my point.  He probably could have increased his wealth by doing something, completely legal, that he thought was immoral.  Sometimes people put a greater value on doing something they think in morally right, even if it puts them at an economic disadvantage.

WMS is completely right.

well, in that case:  hell yeah, if I'm Amun Ra I'd rather you out there in the hot sun building my pyramid, rather than my own delicate children doing it.  Better luck in your next life, slave. 

Don't ever buy into that marxist notion that there's any innate nobility in poverty. 

Now, get your scrawny asses back to work or I'll have Isis rain locusts and piss down on your crops, and have your wives as my mistresses!

[elcorazon]

That makes more sense.  The interesting thing is that my main reason for voting Kerry is moral values.  I just define them differently than the Christian right.

I would like to know how you define the Christian right?

well I was probably too loose with my words.  The views I disagree with that I consider moral issues have to do with civil rights, free speech, fourth amendment, separation of church and state, stem cell research and the advancement of science, pro choice, etc.

[Shira]

I think that I have not properly expressed myself.
I am talking about the non-issue of gay marriage, playing such a major role.
I have never seen this topic mentioned in election campaigns in other countries.

As to the ignorance that I talked about, many of the voters, for example, (including these without health insurance) do not even know that in other countries healthcare systems are different, and that no one is without health insurance.

[angus]

I think that I have not properly expressed myself.
I am talking about the non-issue of gay marriage, playing such a major role.
I have never seen this topic mentioned in election campaigns in other countries.

As to the ignorance that I talked about, many of the voters, for example, (including these without health insurance) do not even know that in other countries healthcare systems are different, and that no one is without health insurance.

while I may have misinterpreted JJ, I'm quite sure I didn't misinterpret you.  You are correct that wedge issues are silly, just as silly as wondering aloud why folks would live in big houses with lots of servants (of course we'd rather live in big houses with lots of servants!)  But I share your concern that we're talking about gay-marriage and the like, while we should be talking economics.  Indeed you make a good point.  I make it often.

I'd only point out to you that championing Universal Health Care is among the most *moralistic* positions one can take.  Think about that a bit. 

I will take exception with your implicit, or tacit, proposition that if only people knew about Health Insurance they'd want it.  Many, many of us really don't want that level of governmental interference.  And I'm not talking about the so-called "conservatives."  I'm talking about the Real Right.  The small-government types.

[Shira]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

Rich voting for Kerry (who himself is very rich) is totally different than low-income people voting for Bush.

The first ones are knowledgeable and well educated. They care much more about the Iraqi debacle than on whether they will pay $X or Y$ as taxes.

[A18]

'Rich Democrats' are mostly a bunch of well trained idiots.

When you have a billion dollars, you don't care how much you pay in taxes anymore. And it's not for noble reasons.

Lower income people vote Bush for a lot of reasons, the first being that they're smart enough to realize an anti-corporate policy is the fastest way to drive America into the ground.

[J. J.]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

Rich voting for Kerry (who himself is very rich) is totally different than low-income people voting for Bush.

The first ones are knowledgeable and well educated. They care much more about the Iraqi debacle than on whether they will pay $X or Y$ as taxes.

But, if so, they are not voting their own economic interests.  You are stereotyping Bush supporters (and Kerry supporters as well).

[angus]

Let us not be calling Shira a troll.  She is many things but troll is not on the list.

agreed.  Frankly, her way of putting it was inelegant, but it's a valid point, much like the point of the many extreme rich voting for Kerry, despite the cost in taxes.

Rich voting for Kerry (who himself is very rich) is totally different than low-income people voting for Bush.

The first ones are knowledgeable and well educated. They care much more about the Iraqi debacle than on whether they will pay $X or Y$ as taxes.

many Bush supporters care about the Iraq debacle as well.  But the fact is that the 200 billion we spent is gone.  poof.  up in smoke.   might as well have set it afire.  Installing Kerry as the president won't bring that back.  I was as vehemently opposed to US military involvement in Iraq as I can imagine anyone being.  And that's a big part of the reason I want to see those who started it get us out.  Think Bush doesn't have a sufficient plan for Iraq?  Well, frankly, neither does Kerry.  And at least with Team Bush you get a group that has given it some thought.

Moreover, Kerry has a fine voting record.  Based on your posts, I should think you'd want too see him continue as a lawmaker, which is something he does well.  Seriously.  Why buy into the popular, but indefensible notion, of applying the Peter Principle to this distinguished Statesman and Senator? 

Ah, well, campaign's over.  No need to beat a dead horse.

Have fun arguing 

[Shira]

Shira..

Has your opinion of Mr. Zogby changed any..?

As most of the pollsters Zogby was not bad (+1 to Bush).
The two bad ones were Fox and Newsweek.

I did not check the state by state polls of the pollsters. I think that the last SUSA's was a good one.

[J-Mann]

I think that I have not properly expressed myself.
I am talking about the non-issue of gay marriage, playing such a major role.
I have never seen this topic mentioned in election campaigns in other countries.

As to the ignorance that I talked about, many of the voters, for example, (including these without health insurance) do not even know that in other countries healthcare systems are different, and that no one is without health insurance.

On the same token, these "ignorant" red staters don't have to worry about a huge nationalized health care program going bankrupt in 2006, LIKE IT WILL IN FRANCE.

[J-Mann]

Shira, I wonder how often you get out and talk to us red-staters or the common, uninsured, uneducated man on the street?  Do you?  I do.  They're better informed than you might think, and they actually know what they stand for.  They probably couldn't defend themselves in a debate against some high-minded liberal intellectual, but that's not the point.  Their vote is their own, and they aren't near as dumb as you like to think they are.

You have offended me - and thus many fellow Kansans - to the Nth degree.

[WMS]

I'm not sure I even understand the relevance of your question, but I think it's a hypothetical I cannot relate to.  I am a product of this society and in this society, I could NEVER have slaves.  I would imagine that had I grown up in the south pre-civil war, it would be the only society I knew and I'd probably (sadly) just go with the program.  I'd like to think that I wouldn't but I'll never know.

By the way, I am actually a southerner - born and bred in Kentucky - and still a huge Wildcat fan - can't wait till basketball season, which is  just around the corner.

I wouldn't suggest that you be so hard on yourself.  There were a few pre-civil war southerners, like Robert E. Lee, who didn't think it was moral to own slaves.  You might have very well been one of them.

The Lee analogy is my point.  He probably could have increased his wealth by doing something, completely legal, that he thought was immoral.  Sometimes people put a greater value on doing something they think in morally right, even if it puts them at an economic disadvantage.

WMS is completely right.

Yay! Score! [no, I haven't been online this long...my computer crashed on me...]

[Shira]

Shira, I wonder how often you get out and talk to us red-staters or the common, uninsured, uneducated man on the street?  Do you?  I do.  They're better informed than you might think, and they actually know what they stand for.  They probably couldn't defend themselves in a debate against some high-minded liberal intellectual, but that's not the point.  Their vote is their own, and they aren't near as dumb as you like to think they are.

You have offended me - and thus many fellow Kansans - to the Nth degree.

Tell me honestly, do you know, for example, that life expectancy in the US is by 4 years shorter than in Japan, by 3 years shorter than in Australia and Sweden, by 1.5 years shorter than in Germany and by 1 year shorter than in the UK ?
In general, life expectancy in the US is one of the shortest among developed countries, including a “developed” country like Jordan.

It seems to me that people like you don’t really understand the severity of these stats.

[A18]

LMAO. Shira -- give me a break.

Yes, we've been through the life expectancy numbers. I believe you tried to tie that to health care somehow -- and yet, at the exact same time, hurricanes in Florida were in the news.

[dougrhess]

You must admit she takes the recriminations well, though. She does make her line in the sand but never engages in personal attacks for which I applaud her.

I take her stereotyping of my monetary situation, my health care, and my education as a personal attack.

What stereotyping? It may not be a majority, but there are many Americans who vote contrary to their own stated desires in government and against policies that would financially or otherwise benefit them. The problem is that ideology is about more than self-interest and people don't necessarily connect programs with government. We all love programs that benefit us, but we just don't think of them as government or liberal or whatever, we just assume their the right thing and we don't imagine we'll lose them.  Plus, it's always hard to run a campaign on the idea that a program will be created to help this or that problem, it's just to distant a promise and unlikely. More likely is the defense of an existing program.

[Shira]

It becomes more and more clear that these elections were practically decided by the gay marriage artificial issue.

If only 50,000 voters in Ohio had voted the other way, Bush would have lost and we would have been listening to a completely different talking. “Where did the Rep go wrong?” etc.  Because the margin in Ohio is so nerrow, I can safely say that the “gay marriage”  decided these elections.

What a shame!

[J. J.]

What stereotyping? It may not be a majority, but there are many Americans who vote contrary to their own stated desires in government and against policies that would financially or otherwise benefit them. The problem is that ideology is about more than self-interest and people don't necessarily connect programs with government. We all love programs that benefit us, ....

You confuse economic gain with self interest, which is why the Democrats are doomed in future presidential elections.  You cynically assume that money isn't everything, that it is the only thing.

The people voting may want the society to be a certain way, and are willing to take an economic hit to make society that way.

[WMS]

It becomes more and more clear that these elections were practically decided by the gay marriage artificial issue.

If only 50,000 voters in Ohio had voted the other way, Bush would have lost and we would have been listening to a completely different talking. “Where did the Rep go wrong?” etc.  Because the margin in Ohio is so small, I can confidentially say that the “gay marriage”  decided these elections.

What a shame!

Well, it was the left that decided to *make* this an issue in the first place by forcing the issue in Massachusetts. Go blame them for it...

[Shira]

LMAO. Shira -- give me a break.

When a country is evaluated as to how advanced it is, the first indicator is Life Expectancy

[George W. Bush]

 Abortion was More important to me, Gay Marrage ment nothing. If Kerry was For the Ban on Partial Birth Abortion, He would have Gotten my vote.

[A18]

I can safely say that the only reason this election was even close was the anti- Iraq war lie.

But yes, I do think it's hilarious that the Massachusetts Supreme Court may have won Bush this election. I don't know that to be true, but if so -- all in all, not bad.

Not bad at all.

[J. J.]

LMAO. Shira -- give me a break.

When a country is evaluated as to how advanced it is, the first indicator is Life Expectancy

By who?