Socnorb11 wrote:Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for."[/i]
++ infinity. I'll risk a joeybomb: Its stuff like this (more democratic ideal than republican) that makes me confused why Christians stereotypically vote republican and why liberals tend to stereotypically shy away from Christianity. I mean, this is the Gospel. Do unto others... as you do to the least of these... love your neighbor as yourself (etc etc)...
I've noticed this irony.
I don't remember my Bible too well, but wouldn't you say Jesus was (or is if you prefer) a liberal? i.e. loaves and fishes. don't cast the first stone. the lepers. whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers? etc etc etc
if the evangelical GOPers gets control over everything - maybe they can edit out the New Testament.
AJ wrote:I hope the dems throw Liebermans ass out of the senate caucus after the next election (assuming they have enough for a comfortable majority)
Judas anyone?
Who turned on who?
Seems like it was the dems in Delaware left him high and dry in his re-election bid. It's not like Joe's views have morphed dramatically over the years. The party has moved away from him, imo. Oh well, he took his revenge, though, that's for sure in the general. He's still voting pretty solidly democratic.
Popeye_Card wrote:Shooting down another tangent, what is everyone's thoughts on Joe Lieberman last night? I personally didn't care for it at all. He comes off as a scorned lover. Seems too transparent to actually work.
I didn't get a chance to watch him, but I have picked up a pretty good idea of what he said. He was already pretty well respected and admired (though from a distance) by conservatives because of his disagreements with the democratic leadership. I don't know what you're meaning specifically by "too transparent to actually work", but I have a hard time seeing the conventions for anything other than what they are - big, happy, rah-rah parties for the parties.
It shows McCain and the parties willingness to reach across the aisle, but I wouldn't think it's something that's going to sway a lot of voters. I suppose there might be a few Leiberman dem's out there who will follow Joe in the ballot box, but that's not exactly a substantial voting block. It's just a small section of the huge moderate block who won't make up their minds until the debates and/or they actually punch their ticket.
I meant it as transparent because the only reason for him to be there is to grab some fringe Democrats (or independents) that may be fans of his. Though if you're a fan of Lieberman, you probably aren't a fan of most of the Republican platform. The only thing he really agreed with them on was Iraq, and that's hugely unpopular with most everyone.
I don't think it really says much about reaching across the aisle. Most conservatives dislike Lieberman, and they didn't as much reach out to him as they accepted him to push through their Iraq agenda.
I should note at this point that I'm generally in agreement with Lieberman on the war. I didn't like going into Iraq in the first place, but once we got into the mess we had a responsibility to not just leave in the middle of a problem. And of course I agree with him on most social issues. I just don't agree with him on who he supports in the presidential race, why he supports him, and how he supports him.
AJ wrote:I hope the dems throw Liebermans ass out of the senate caucus after the next election (assuming they have enough for a comfortable majority)
Judas anyone?
Who turned on who?
Seems like it was the dems in Delaware left him high and dry in his re-election bid. It's not like Joe's views have morphed dramatically over the years. The party has moved away from him, imo. Oh well, he took his revenge, though, that's for sure in the general. He's still voting pretty solidly democratic.
I don't think that's right. It really was just all about the Iraq War and still is. Lieberman was and is a staunch supporter of the war. It was based on that that his Connecticut (not Del.) democratic supporters didn't vote for him in the primary (which in my view was perfectly understandable) and then he decided to run as an independent and won.
AJ wrote:I hope the dems throw Liebermans ass out of the senate caucus after the next election (assuming they have enough for a comfortable majority)
Judas anyone?
Who turned on who?
Seems like it was the dems in Delaware left him high and dry in his re-election bid. It's not like Joe's views have morphed dramatically over the years. The party has moved away from him, imo. Oh well, he took his revenge, though, that's for sure in the general. He's still voting pretty solidly democratic.
Connecticut.
I agree though. I didn't really care for the moveon.org segment of the Democratic party during the last election, which is how Lieberman got pushed out. But even with that, his speech last night was rather disappointing.
This country used to produce the goods that other countries wanted. They wanted our cars, our TV sets, our appliances...our stuff.
Now we depend on other nations for the majority of our goods (as do other nations). The trade imbalance between the US and China alone is staggering and doesn't appear as though it will change any time soon.
You can argue that "we don't have the right to have all the jobs" and "it's good for the rest of the world," etc...but keep in mind with that we've pretty much given up the freedom that we once took for granted as a self-reliant nation by becoming so dependent on foreign imports.
Socnorb11 wrote:Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for."[/i]
++ infinity. I'll risk a joeybomb: Its stuff like this (more democratic ideal than republican) that makes me confused why Christians stereotypically vote republican and why liberals tend to stereotypically shy away from Christianity. I mean, this is the Gospel. Do unto others... as you do to the least of these... love your neighbor as yourself (etc etc)...
Have you read Mark Twain's "The War Prayer" before?
Just read it quickly at work (while being interrupted twice, on my lunch-grr). From what I could quickly gather while distracted, hehehe. Kind of in the vein of dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor.
Popeye_Card wrote:I get your point, but I think it's misguided. Yes, there's jobs being created overseas, but they're moving there because they can pay people less there to do the same thing. That's just taking advantage of people, and further exploiting them.
Yes, businesses are outsourcing these jobs to foreign countries because they can pay the workers a lower wage for the same work. That's taking advantage of the global marketplace.
As far as "exploiting" those workers, one would have to know more than the simple fact that they make less than an American worker would make to do the same work. Things like cost of living and whatnot.
I'm not saying "go sweatshops!" or anything like that, but if foreign workers are making more than they would otherwise to do these jobs, and the businesses are paying less than it would cost to pay a domestic worker for the equivalent work, then both sides benefit.
/Devil's Advocate
I don't think so. The UN and even the worldbank does a lot of studies on what a family of four would need to survive (basic necessities which exclude travel expense, clothing expense, healthcare or education expenses). In many of these nations (or atleast the latin american ones I've looked at), the vast majority of the population still don't make enough (or barely do) to even cover that.
Also take into account that if we own the companies that employ most of the people in a nation, the profits don't go into that nation, they go to us.
I don't think anyone's saying globalization solves these problems, but there's no doubt that a family of four making more money due to an "outsourced" job is a good thing for them and that increased wages benefit those people to some extent.
Socnorb11 wrote:Because if there’s a poor child out there, that’s my child. If there’s a senior that’s having trouble, that’s my grandparent. If there’s a guy who’s lost his job, that’s my brother. If there’s a woman out there without healthcare, that’s my sister. Those are the values that built this country. Those are the values we are fighting for."[/i]
++ infinity. I'll risk a joeybomb: Its stuff like this (more democratic ideal than republican) that makes me confused why Christians stereotypically vote republican and why liberals tend to stereotypically shy away from Christianity. I mean, this is the Gospel. Do unto others... as you do to the least of these... love your neighbor as yourself (etc etc)...
I've noticed this irony.
I don't remember my Bible too well, but wouldn't you say Jesus was (or is if you prefer) a liberal? i.e. loaves and fishes. don't cast the first stone. the lepers. whatsoever you do to the least of my brothers? etc etc etc
if the evangelical GOPers gets control over everything - maybe they can edit out the New Testament.
Again, this is not the thread for this discussion.
That said, Jesus taught a personal faith and personal action within a community of faith. You go out and help the poor, don't just leave it to the government. Matthew 25.
Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.
Fat Strat wrote:
Now, I'm not suggesting that the government shouldn't do good things. Far from it. Rather, for Jesus it was the personal acts of faith that matter, not the institutional ones.
FWIW, I don't really agree with having tons of government "programs" (I don't think they really work), and I do think the welfare system is ripe for abuse.
But with that said, looking at it from an economics point of view, I don't have a problem with directing spending towards the lower classes than the upper classes. Think of it as perpetual economic stimulus--poor people are going to spend whatever money they're given. The rich? Maybe not so much. Though poor people a lot of times do opt for foreign disposable goods that I railed against earlier. Ah, a perpetual cycle of a self-destructing economy.
