Wow. Bravo, Chekote.

Over 50% of my discontent with the last ten years of Republicanism summed up perfectly in just nine words.

MEA CULPA!

(Chekote… QUICK… get behind me and hide while I take care of this…)

Potan. It’s my fault. I’m the one who first injected the term “bible thumper” into the debate. I take full responsibility and apologize if the term offends you – it wasn’t my intent to offend anyone of faith.

While I too have noticed – and commented on – certain other poster’s seeming antipathy to those who view their Christian faith as the central tenet of their lives, I would stop well short of referring to Chekote as a “bigoted piece of shit.”

(*RUEFUL GRIN*)

Again… as far as I know it was *I* who first injected the term “bible thumper” into the conversation.

While I see and appreciate your perception – and where it comes from – in terms of the use of the phrase being pejorative, please believe me when I say that I wasn’t using it in that way, but only as “shorthand” in the context of my debate with “the other side” regarding the sincerity of “people of faith” who sincerely see abortion as murder in all circumstances.

Anyway… I just want to set the record straight.

BILL

quote”Let me give you an example of Bible Thumpers using the GOP to promote and impose their religious values.”

You don’t seem to be too tolerant of religious people, why else would you call them “Bible Thumpers” which is a typical bigoted secularist term for practicing Christian. I say the Republican Party should kick out ignorant and bigoted pieces of shit like Chekote if it wants to become more “tolerant”.

“…for the GOP to begin to regain its footing it has to embrace universal health care. ”

We HAVE universal healthcare. For those without insurance the healthcare may be limited to “emergency” care, but care is provided – whether one pays for it “directly” or not.

“It is a strategic, economical, and societal asset.

So is housing. So is clothing. So is food. Again, society “provides” at a minimum (and often higher) level, but the rule of thumb is that the more money you have, the better housing, clothing and food you have too.

“It is no more “socialism” than having public fire and and law enforcement.”

Yes it is, Sftor1. Let’s be honest. Y*E*S* I*T* I*S*.

“That will show a real change in thinking.”

The question is… a positive change or a negative change? That’s where folks disagree.

“What are we waiting for, really?”

Consensus…??? Sftor1, seriously, it’s fine and dandy to call for “let’s go, full speed ahead,” but if a substantial number of people (perhaps a majority, it all depends upon which polls you cite and which specific questions – specific wording – you’re referring to) are shouting “you’re going the wrong way,” that’s where the problem lies.

“We know universal health care is cheaper and has better outcomes.”

Actually… (*SHRUG*)… we know no such thing.

“It is one thing the private sector cannot be trusted with…”

So you say. Others believe that the greater gamble would be trusting the government.

Sftor1… understand… many of us believe that it’s GOVERNMENT(S) insertion and interference into the health insurance and health care system(s) that is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in in the first place. We have a federal government and ALSO 50 separate states all with their own separate and individual mandates and regulations creating a mess; that’s what I believe. Here in New York State I’m prevented by law (by regulatory law) (as are all my fellow New Yorkers) from buying a bare bones catastrophic insurance plan or utilizing a HSA/MSA in an economically rational manner. Depending on which state you reside in you may have more freedom than I, but do you have the option of residing in your state and shopping for insurance in other states? If not then your liberties are being corralled. I see further government meddling more as a potential disaster than the potential “solution.”

Funny thing… the same folks who keep calling for MORE governmental control over healthcare and – I’m guessing – many of the folks who have in the past most strongly condemned infamous governmental healthcare failures such as the well-publicized failures of Walter Reed to live up to its reputation a couple years back and every so often the spat of stories concerning failures of the VA system. Oh… and then there’s medicare…

(*SIGH*) (*SHRUG*)

Hey… let the government “fix” medicare and then maybe I’ll be willing to trust them with further societal healthcare responsibilities.

“…the Hippocratic Oath and the fiduciary responsibility to shareholders of the corporation are fundamentally opposed.”

How so? You sound as if you believe government funding for healthcare will be unlimited. Whatever the doctor wants to do! Hey… you may be right… which should scare the hell out of you as it does me! And if you don’t believe that… well… then we’re back to how do you figure private “rationalization” of cost/benefit is incompatible with honoring the Hippocratic Oath yet government “rationalization” (care guidelines taking costs into account as compared to available resources) wouldn’t be.

“Health care is a cost center, period.”

I don’t understand what that means; I don’t understand what that means in relation to the provision of food, shelter, clothing, power, any and all human needs. Explain please.

“…no one should ever suggest that people shouldn’t be able to buy their own if they are unhappy with the public system…”

We’ve been over this. Many of us are convinced that the “public system” as proposed will basically “push out” private insurance – at least in large part, at least as it applies to the lower, middle, and even first tier upper middle classes.

(Hey… I’ve got an idea… why not start with imposing single payer DENTAL CARE on the American People. Let’s try that and see how it works. If after five years… ten years… it’s working fine and dandy, well, then we can talk about the medical field as a whole.)

“I think everyone sees the danger of the one-party system we had under W, and which is again in place with Obama. Not good. A third strong party is the obvious…”

If it’s so… er… “obvious”… why have all attempts be such abject failures?

No. (*SIGH*) While I sympathize with the theory and with the motivation behind it… it ain’t gonna happen.

“I suppose the only remedy is for the American voter to get smart…”

Hmm… perhaps Obama will propose a law: “Let it be hereby enacted, starting in 2010 each and every American will possess an IQ of 140 or above…”

(*CHUCKLE*) Oh… if only brains could be legislated.

“But that is not something that can be counted on yet.”

Join me, Sftor1… two words:

MILITARY
COUP

Not gonna happen… (well, not for decades probably)… but it’s a far more viable solution to the nation’s problems than expecting either the People or the politicians to wise up.

(*SHRUG*)

BILL

Second, I think everyone sees the danger of the one-party system we had under W, and which is again in place with Obama. Not good. A third strong party is the obvious and imperfect answer, with its own inherent problems of paralysis and indecision. I suppose the only remedy is for the American voter to get smart enough to pull the lever for different parties for different offices, and to still hold officials to standards of performance. But that is not something that can be counted on yet.

Agreed.

(*NOD*)

BILL

First of all, it takes real maturity to recognize that one-party rule isn’t good for the nation, even if it’s the party whose views you agree with (for the moment). Thank you.

Secondly, we have a two-party system. The way the voting for the Electoral College is structured, virtually squeezes out any fledgling third party. (Example: In 1992, despite widepread disgust with both the Dem and Repub parties, Ross Perot got 19% of the popular vote, but ZERO electoral votes.) So in our two-party system, if folks become disenchanted with what Obama is doing, the GOP is the only other place to go.

Thirdly, parties have been written off before. The GOP was in even worse straits after the disastrous 1964 election, in which Goldwater was perceived as an extremist and enabled LBJ to win a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, winning in states even considered Republican strongholds. Yet, four years later, a Repub (Nixon) won the White House, due to the Vietnam War and urban violence.

The political reality is that an opposition party defines itself by the failures of the incumbent party. Go look at the website of the British Conservatives, http://www.conservatives.com, and you’ll see that much of their platform consists of correcting perceived policy errors of the Labourites.

The Republicans will start to pull themselves together, after the Dems truly screw up at something–anything that affects Americans directly. We conservatives are waiting for something on which to pounce.

You can be against gay marriage but you don’t have to go and on about the “perversion” of homosexuality per God’s laws as the Texas GOP platform does. This element has hurt the party. We need to deal with it if we want the GOP to be a national party again.

“Let me give you an example of Bible Thumpers using the GOP to promote and impose their religious values.”

OK. One more time…

Chekote. You’re looking at this from an almost reverse parochialism – an “enlightened liberal” parochialism.

To recap: *I*, William R. Barker, would vote “YEA” on Gay Marriage if the issue were on my state ballot. (You with me…??? Capice?)

That said, heterosexual marriage – marriage between man and woman – is a historical human norm across all societies. It’s not simply “Christian.” It’s not even simply “Judeo-Christian.” It’s across the board. Oh, sure, it may be one man and one woman Western society and one man and a number of women in other societies, but make no mistake, Chekote, it’s the “pro-Gay-Marriage” folks who are the “radicals,” not the folks responsible for the 2008 Texas GOP Platform.

Can you accept that? Can you accept this reality? You NEED to if we’re to have a rational discourse. (*SHRUG*)

Now am I on board with the whole “felony” thing? No. But again… they call “traditional” values TRADITIONAL for a reason. (*SMILE*)

(And then of course we have to recognize the legal/constitutional debate revolving around the issue; how does the Full Faith and Credit Clause apply to this issue?)

“We believe that the practice of homosexuality tears at the fabric of society, contributes to the breakdown of the family unit…”

Here again… (*SIGH*)… I see both sides of the issue where you apparently only see one. While *I* personally discount the “tearing at the fabric of society/contributing to the breakdown of the family” argument, I recognize that others have a right to disagree.

YES! Amazing concept…! I yield to others their right to possess a different perspective than mine!

(*CHUCKLE*)

“Homosexual behavior is contrary to the fundamental, unchanging truths that have been ordained by God, recognized by our country’s founders, and shared by the majority of Texans.”

Well… I’ll let the Deity speak for Himself… but as to the Country’s Founders and the majority of Texans… are you seriously disputing the above statement, Chekote…???

Anyway… I could go on point by point, but you get the general gist.

Re: Dacookson // Jul 17, 2009 at 8:05 am –

(*SMILE*)

Cute. But bottom line I believe the Cap & Trade bill passed by the House to be a disaster in the making if anything remotely resembling it passes the Senate and makes it into law.

(*SHRUG*)

BILL