Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Footprints in the Sand
Links in the Sand
- Reason Hit & Run Blog
- John Stossel's Blog
- Reason Online
- Coffee With CrankyBeach
- Glenn Beck (I refer to him as the common sense guy)
- Jessi's Jewelry
- XKCD: A webcomic of Romance, Sarcasm, Math & Language
- Bedlam Bards
- Browncoats Backup Bash Forum
- Hot Air.Com
- Nessaholics
- Vanessa Carlton's Official Page
- The Signal
- Toastmasters International
- Whedonesque
Quick External Links
Copyright (C) 2006-2009 Samantha All Rights Reserved
2 comments:
5/9
Principles I disagree with:
2) Yes or no: I believe in God.
No. He goes on to talk about letting people believe in God in their own way, which I mostly agree with. Though he makes the typical religious conservative omission of people who don't believe in God in their own way, as if we're somehow less moral because we derive our values from several thousand year old books. But I'm used to that....
4) Yes or no: The family is sacred.
No, you do not have the right to marry your children off at age 12, beat them half to death in the name of your wacky God, or in general deprive them of their basic human rights.
7) Yes or no: I work hard for what I have, and I will share it with others that I choose when I choose, should I choose. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
I think it's hypocritical to reap the benefits of American society but feel only obligated to give back to it on your own terms. There are a lot of countries where you can work hard and end up with nothing.
8) It is not un-American for anyone to disagree with my opinion, but my opinion or others' opinions may be anti-American.
Judging whether something is Anti-American is a slippery slope I'd rather not go down. The notion that my views are American and your views are anti-American reeks of arrogance.
2) If you substitute "God" with "Morality", I think it removes the essential item you have a problem with (and I wouldn't disagree with you on that being an issue)
4) I agree with you. My opinion is that laws (in their most generalized way) essentially exist to prevent people from hurting others. Forcing a minor to enter an adult relationship, beating a child, etc... falls into that category. However, telling someone exactly how to live their lives, how to educate their children, what their children should/shouldn't be exposed to,
dictating to whom you want to be in a committed relationship with (same sex or otherwise)... this is not the government's role.
7) I think the difference here comes down to what kinds of 'benefits' the government should be obligated to provide in the first place. There are certain basics that we get (protection, schools, infrastructure, etc), for which we pay back in the form of taxes. I take no issue in paying taxes for such things. However, I do have issues with the government raising my taxes to give freebies and other 'perks' to people who aren't working as hard as I am. I have issues with the government deciding that I don't need my hard-earned money as much as somebody else who settled for doing the bare-minimum. I have issues with the government using my hard-earned money to bail out people who made bad/risky choices.
8) I agree, it is a slippery slope, and I don't think this point was well made. However, I think it is worth mentioning that in the current era of 'hope and change', I find that any opinion that is not embracing the current president and his proposals is being met with the automatic reaction of "You're just standing in the way of progress" and "You clearly don't want the country to recover". There are some really drastic proposals in this bailout bill, and it should not Anti-American to question the potential damage that could come about should it be passed.
For all that people accused Bush of fear-mongering after 9/11 in terms of the war on terror, the overwhelming vibe I get from the democratic party is "You better pass this bill, or else it will never get better and it will be all your fault."
Post a Comment