Food for Thought

shop deals on amazon
Love your rabbit
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Rabbits Online Forum

Help Support Rabbits Online Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
naturestee wrote:
Alaska's actually the most socialist-appearing state in the US, believe it or not. And stop with the knee-jerk McCarthyism please.
Click to expand...
The money that Alaska residents get every year in the dividend - does NOT come from other residents of Alaska. It comes from the money that the state makes off of the various leases, etc. - part of which goes back into the government and part of which goes back to Alaskans.

How is that socialism? It isn't as if the state is taking taxes from the business people in Anchorage and putting them into the pockets of the fisherman who live in the rest of the state. Everyone who is a resident and files for the dividend - gets it. I know - we lived there for four years and qualified.

Maybe I should put it this way - Alaska isn't "redistributing the wealth" by taking from one person and giving it to another.

It is instead sharing the wealth among all of its citizens - but none of that money comes from taxes. (One reason we loved Alaska was there was no state income tax).


 
Ranting here, sorry. Feel free to disregard or disagree.


naturestee, I agree with pretty much everything you said.

I don't understand how, when most experts on oil agree that the total amount of oil is estimated at only a 7 month supply, at current world usage, is available in these untapped areas, everyone just blindly celebrates drilling as the answer to all our problems. Why are people so resistant to new energy technologies? Yes, it will cost money. Everything costs money.

On the right to life issue, I have some extremely strong opposition to Sarah Palin's views. McCain originally said he had no interest in messing with Roe v. Wade but now, probably just to get some votes, has said pretty much the opposite. (Anyone see John Stewart's bit on the Circle Talk Express? Nice.) When John McCain's pregnancy test turns up positive, that is when he will have the right to force me to have a baby that I don't really have the means to take care of. People who find a way to raise a child in tough economic/emotional circumstances are angels. I do not have the mental strength or fortitude to do that. I was raped in college, and if I had become pregnant, I would not have been able to finish school (I worked my way through, and still have huge student loan debt), and probably wouldn't have been able to get a good paying job, (my hometown is a college town where more than half of the jobs are seasonal, low-wage jobs; my mom still lives there and makes less than $9 an hour after several years experience, but she has no college education) and now wouldn't be able to afford to go back to school. That would have seriously derailed my life, through no fault of my own, and I don't think *anyone* has the right to force that on me.

I agree that I want a president who is smarter than me and more able to handle the difficult situations this country is facing. (Sarah Palin is not that person, except that I have not yet found a way to get taxpayers to buy me a new wardrobe. Yes, technically legal. But ethical? I don't think so. Not when she's proclaiming herself to be an average person. I also have not figured out how to govern a state that embraces some socialist ideals- dividend payments just for being an Alaskan citizen- yet decry socialism at every turn. So maybe she is smarter than me, after all.)

Let me state that I don't believe that a pure socialist system is the answer. It just doesn't work. But there are many European countries that have added little bits of "socialism" into their society and are much better off for it. I believe free market really is the best solution for things like phone service or tvs or stuff like that. But I don't think it has any place in health care or social security.
I particularly enjoyed the 60 Minutes piece some time ago about Denmark being the "happiest country on earth." From what I understand, they pay about half their income in taxes. The poorest person pays half, the riches person pays half, everyone in between pays half. Even Steven. Health care is paid for for everyone. Education, elementary through college, is paid for. And I think you can go back to school later in life. Each parent gets 6 months paid leave for the birth of a child. I believe retirement is paid for. What's missing? The greed we seem to have over here for stuff, stuff, stuff. A perfect system? I doubt it. But I would be happy to pay a little more in taxes and know I didn't have to worry about not being able to see a doctor when I'm sick. I'm pretty sure McCain's health plan would not cover enough to make health care affordable for me.

Oh, and I haven't researched the Danish system extensively, I just know what was reported on 60 Minutes, so if my impressions of it aren't correct, it's my own fault for not looking into it more thoroughly.

(I do have employer paid health care, currently. However, it changes companies *every year* as they look to save money. Every year the plan gets worse. This year was the first when I had a deductible, and it was a real shock to get that $243 bill when I went in for a routine check-up on my sinuses that lasted less than 15 minutes. I am pretty sure that my severe allergies would count as a pre-existing condition, and I would not be able to purchase private insurance if I needed to. I take 3 allergy prescriptions every day and still suffer from regular sinus infections. (Just finished 2 weeks of antibiotics, and I still have the sinus infection.) I have had surgery twice to remove polyps in my sinus cavities. Plus I take birth control because my husband and I don't want to have kids, and can't afford to even if we did. No one would want to insure me at a rate I could afford. It is shameful that the "greatest nation on earth" would treat its citizens in this way.)

Again, sorry for the rant.
 
naturestee wrote:
But social policies are what really get me. Average right-to-life politicians I can deal with although I'm for keeping their laws off my body. But Palin is against abortions even for rape victims! Frankly I find that to be cruel and also encouraging to the rapist. Congrats, you get a baby! Even if he isn't allowed anything to do with the kid the choice should be 100% up to the mother.
Click to expand...

what about that day after stuff that makes you have a peroid?

my mom doesn't believe abortion is ok, period(and i feel the same way:cool:.). but when i asked her what if some one was raped, that's what she told me. the day after stuff. why are people over looking things like that that does it the day after before you know, it has a chance to do much...? it really shouldn't be up to us(not even possibly pregnant mothers)to decide who lives or dies. babies are human beings, they have a heart beat at five weeks!(from wiki article-The human embryonic heart begins beating around 21 days after conception, or five weeks after the last normal menstrual period (LMP), which is the date normally used to date pregnancy.)

:rant:

ok, done for now.......:wiggle
 
BethM wrote:
On the right to life issue, I have some extremely strong opposition to Sarah Palin's views. McCain originally said he had no interest in messing with Roe v. Wade but now, probably just to get some votes, has said pretty much the opposite. When John McCain's pregnancy test turns up positive, that is when he will have the right to force me to have a baby that I don't really have the means to take care of. People who find a way to raise a child in tough economic/emotional circumstances are angels. I do not have the mental strength or fortitude to do that. I was raped in college, and if I had become pregnant, I would not have been able to finish school (I worked my way through, and still have huge student loan debt), and probably wouldn't have been able to get a good paying job, (my hometown is a college town where more than half of the jobs are seasonal, low-wage jobs; my mom still lives there and makes less than $9 an hour after several years experience, but she has no college education) and now wouldn't be able to afford to go back to school. That would have seriously derailed my life, through no fault of my own, and I don't think *anyone* has the right to force that on me.
Click to expand...

I do have every sympathy with you and other rape victims, I was molested by a friend's brother when I was twelve, and so have *some* idea what you have gone through. I still cannot agree with you on the abortion issue, however. LIke Ladybug said, that is what the morning after pillwas createdfor. For most people, there is also the option to adopt.

I don't have any sympathy for people who get pregnant through consensual sex, though. Birth control is cheap and very easy to get ahold of now, and if you don't feel like using it, well then. And yes, I have been there too. My boyfriend and I got pregnant when I was 18, and I never even considered abortion. In my opinion, once a woman is pregnant, it's not an issue of just her anymore. There is another human being to think about now, besides yourself. I have learned a little bit about abortion that I really didn't want to know, also. I will not give details here where there are younger members, but did you know that sometimes a baby can survive the abortion process? What do you think happens then?

I am gonna take a step back now, LOL, because this is a subject that really riles me up.

:rant:
 
naturestee wrote:
knee-jerk McCarthyism
Click to expand...
:roflmao:


I went and looked up McCarthyism (just to make sure I remembered what it was). After the brief history lesson compliments of wikipedia - I spend some time thinking about what you were saying.

First of all - unlike McCarthyism - I'm not going around pointing fingers and a large number of people and whispering (or even proclaiming) that they are socialists. I'm not saying (pulling Democrat names out of a hat) that Barney Frank is a socialist or that Nancy Pelosi is a socialist. I'm not saying Joe Biden is a socialist - nor am I saying that people who vote for Obama are socialists.

I'm not saying someone should be "blacklisted" nor am I saying, "We should have hearings because so and so is bad for the country".

I'm not on a witchhunt.

I did talk to a friend about this and I will take back part of what I said about Obama though.

As my friend pointed out to me - I am a member of the American Rabbit Breeders Association. However - I am no longer breeding rabbits (well - except for one last breeding for a friend who lost her lines in a dog attack on her rabbitry). But it is not my practice any more to breed rabbits. So...to label me a "rabbit breeder" would be inaccurate. In addition - it is possible for a non rabbit breeder to be a member of this association - so not all members of ARBA are "rabbit breeders".

It was a valid point. I can be a member of something without actually following their practices (in this case - rabbit breeding).

However - it could be stated (accurately) that since July of 2005, I have been a member of ARBA.

Am I correct? (The date is correct - so yes - I have been a member since that time).

Now - there is proof out there (and I will include links and photos and stuff) that Obama was a member of the "New Party" in Illinois in 1996. So let me share the information that I have recently come across on the internet (I came across a link on another site - wound up following it the other night - all of this was "new" to me and that was why I found it interesting).

First - the photo...

newpartymy7.jpg


From what I've read - that picture is from the New Party's 1996 newsletter.

Now also from what I've read - this was on the New Party's website back in 1996 (and was in their archives)...

moz-screenshot-73.jpg


Let me share some more information....in 1996 - in Progressive Populist magazine this was shared:

New Party members and supported candidates won 16 of 23 races, including an at-large race for the Little Rock, Ark., City Council, a seat on the county board for Little Rock and the school board for Prince George's County, Md. Chicago is sending the first New Party member to Congress, as Danny Davis, who ran as a Democrat, won an overwhelming 85% victory. New Party member Barack Obama was uncontested for a State Senate seat from Chicago.

Reference: http://www.populist.com/11.96.Edit.html

[line]So - I will take back what I said about him being a Socialist - since I can not prove that.

But - I can state factually - that according to both New Party records and according to Progressive Populist magazine - in 1996, Barack Obama was listed as a New Party member.

For those who don't know what the New Party is/was (I didn't until I was reading some of this stuff) - here is a link to it on Wikipedia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(United_States)

And since that article says: The party could best be described as social democratic in orientation....here is a link to the term social democratic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democratic

[line]
Now some of you may wonder why am I pointing this out? Well - why not?

Let's say for a moment that John McCain was a member of a "right-to-life" group - wouldn't that be all over the media? Wouldn't we have a right to know that?

Don't forget that Todd Palin's membership in the Alaskan Independence Party became a big media thing earlier - and he's not even the candidate.

So why shouldn't the fact that Senator Barack Obama was a New Party member be something that is pointed out and considered?

Once again - I'm not saying everyone who votes for him is socialist. I'm not saying that all Democrats are socialists.

I'm mainly pointing out that he is not the same type of Democrat as former President Bill Clinton was or Senator Kerry, etc.

By the way - I don't have the page in his book to quote this exactly (I read it online) - but supposedly - according to his own books he says..
"To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."

​
He also goes on to state:
Obama's interest in leftist politics continued after he transferred to Columbia University in New York. He lived on Manhattan's Upper East Side, venturing to the East Village for what he called "the socialist conferences I sometimes attended at Cooper Union."

​
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/28/obama-affinity-marxists-dates-college-days/


[line]
The title of this thread was "food for thought" - and I found this information thought-provoking.

My sharing it really wasn't that much different than when folks talked about Todd Palin's links to the Alaska Independent Party - except for the fact I don't have media coverage.

But it was me - sharing my thoughts on something.

That's all.

(I do have another post about some other points I'd like to mention).
 
naturestee wrote:
Oh, and about Obama's birth certificate: My certificate doesn't have all the "expected" info on it either. I think they're more universal now but at Obama's time (and mine, born in '81) different states had different policies and requirements. Also, in order to challenge someone's citizenship it is up to the challenger to provide proof of the accusations before anything of the accused citizen is required.
Click to expand...
You have a really good point here. I went to wikipedia to look this up and found out that there are different types of birth certificates...the traditional longer form - a short form (which is what I saw a copy of on the "fight the smears" website) and also some states (I know Connecticut is one as I have one of these) have a wallet-size copy.

Thanks for making your point cause you got me to thinking and looking things up.

I guess my one "duh" question is - if a judge felt there was enough evidence to request the birth certificate be shared as part of a lawsuit...why didn't the Obama lawyers produce it within the 30 days? From what I read - the judge had read the various information and decided that the birth certificate was needed by the court.

Anyway - back to the real point - various birth certificates will have different things on them - depending upon the type of birth certificate they are.

Wow - around here I learn something new every day!
 
BethM wrote:
Ranting here, sorry. Feel free to disregard or disagree.

I enjoy the rants because it gets me thinking and researching and doing more thinking! So please don't feel bad for ranting...at least not as far as I'm concerned.

I agree that I want a president who is smarter than me and more able to handle the difficult situations this country is facing. (Sarah Palin is not that person, except that I have not yet found a way to get taxpayers to buy me a new wardrobe.

Maybe you haven't heard that she is not keeping them - and that just like the RNC pays for the lighting and all that sort of stuff for the various meetings - they technically "own" the clothes she's wearing.

When the campaigning is done - I believe the RNC is either donating the clothes to charity - or auctioning them off or something. But she has stated (more than once) that she is not keeping the clothes and they are not "her property".

I'm guessing that the fact she's the only one of the four who isn't a millionaire (and I'm guessing she's the only one of the four who shops at a consignment shop for her clothes) - is part of why the RNC did this.
From what I understand, they pay about half their income in taxes. The poorest person pays half, the riches person pays half, everyone in between pays half.

Art & I have been discussing something that is sort of like this.

Here in Texas, we have a Republican running and one of his ideas is no income tax (I hope I get this right) and a 23% sales tax. You can go to www.fairtax.org to read more about the plan.

There's a lot to it and I really can't describe it here. But we've been talking about how it would impact us - along with how it would impact our son Eric (working part time and attending college) and my adopted mom (who is 80).

Eric isn't in the 23% tax bracket...so it would hurt him - but it would not hurt him as much as my mom who is retired and doesn't have any income outside of her social security and pension. Both my mom and Eric live on under about $1,000 per month (I think mom's is $800 per month). So if they had to pay 23% tax on everything they bought - from milk to bread to coffee to gas to whatever.....that would really hurt them.

For us - this idea wouldn't be so bad. I think we're above that tax bracket (I really need to look at last year's taxes to figure this out)....and so for us it would be good.

In some ways - we like the fair tax - but when it comes to seniors and others - we don't.

(Hmmmm....a Republican I can't vote for...oh my!) :biggrin2:

Anyway - there really is a lot to think about when it comes to the taxes, etc.

I will say that after being in the military health care system for the last 26 years - I'm not overly fond of government control of health care...just based on my experiences.

Anyway - feel free to rant on ~ really!
Click to expand...
 
naturestee wrote:
Also what is with the ridiculous anti-intellectual thing in this country? How dare someone be smart and well-read. I forget where I read this but I totally agree with the thought. When you look at who to choose for a president, don't choose the person you'd like to have a beer with or the person that reminds you of yourself. Presidents aren't supposed to be the "everyman," they should be the best people available and capable of handling emergencies and difficult concepts.
Click to expand...
I do agree with you here to a point. When I go to vote - I do consider a person's intellect - along with their experience - their judgment and other things.

But I have nothing against someone who has many degrees - and on a couple of the news shows I watch - I love it when they bring in people who have all of these degrees and they explain things.

I certainly would not vote against someone just based upon the fact they're an "intellectual". But I wouldn't base my vote for them on just that either.


 
Peg, that's a lot of food for thought. I will have to read more than once and assimilate. Thank you for taking the time and the effort to post your thoughts.
 
Sorry Peg, I wasn't aiming at you with the "knee-jerk McCarthyism" comment. There just seem to be a lot of people, including some around me, that hear McCain and Palin call Obama a "socialist" and they have no idea what it actually means but that it is "bad." (Bad is in quotation marks because I do like some of the ideas from socialism. Did I mention that Obama's not liberal enough for me?) And there was someone who mentioned examining members of Congress to see if they were "pro-America" or not (remember Palin's slip about the "real America" and "pro-Americans?)... she's a Republican congresswoman in Minnesota. She apologized for the comment later when she realized the backlash that happened- she could very well loose her re-election campaign because of it- but it is the basic definition of McCarthyism but with "pro-/anti- America" instead of communism/capitalism.

For those that didn't read Tinysmom's article on social democracy, here are the modern tenets:

In general, contemporary social democrats support:

  • A mixed economy consisting mainly of private enterprise, but with government owned or subsidized programs of education, healthcare, child care and related services for all citizens.
  • Government bodies that regulate private enterprise in the interests of workers, consumers and fair competition.
  • Advocacy of fair trade over free trade.
  • An extensive system of social security (although usually not to the extent advocated by democratic socialists or other socialist groups), with the stated goal of counteracting the effects of poverty and insuring the citizens against loss of income following illness, unemployment or retirement.
  • Moderate to high levels of taxation (through a value-added and/or progressive taxation system) to fund government expenditure.
Social democrats also tend to support:

As you can see, this is far from actual socialism. It specifically supports free enterprise, just with government regulations for safety, consumers, etc. similar to our current system. Our laws prevent monopolies that big businesses would love, enforce safety laws at work, protect consumers from false advertising and dangerous products, etc. The only thing on this list I actually don't like is government-run health care although some European countries do great with that. All the other policies are ones I am 100% for.

Apparently I'm a social democrat. Who knew?

But it's not socialism. Your property is still your own. Your business is still your own. There is no communal ownership of anything. Edit: And in some of Palin's speaches she claims that Obama will take your businesses and property away, take what's yours away because he's a complete and dirty socialist.

As for the New Party, here's what it was: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Party_(USA)

It wanted to change part of the electoral process back to one that was previously used in the US, where candidates could receive nominations from more than one political party. Actually, it would seriously encourage the growth of 3rd parties which I think we need. Also, it was big on grassroots/community organization, which explains Obama's interest in it if he was actually involved. He worked for community groups, it's how he got his start. It's also how he's getting so much money from small, individual contributions. The man knows his grassroots organizing.

About the abortion issue, I understand where you guys are coming from. But the thing is it hinges on a personal or religiousbelief that life starts at conception. For people who truly believe that, such as Palin (and she's stated this clearly in an interview), the morning-after pill is just as bad as a full-out abortion. It prevents the fertilized embryo from attaching to the uterus. My personal belief is that life doesn't start until one is able to survive outside of the mother's body. Since this isan issuethat comes down to personal beliefs often the person's religion, I feel that the government should have no say in it. If you don't believe in abortion, don't do it and also teach your kids your thoughts. But don't impede on my right to make decisions about my body and life with the assistance of a docter. In my view it's about the separation of Church and State. And for crying out loud stop attacking Planned Parenthood, in many communities that's the only place offering low-cost ob/gyn exams, low cost birth control, birth control/prevention education, and STD testing. I know a number of people, including myself in college, who went to Planned Parenthood for pelvic exams, etc.,that we couldn't otherwise afford.:rant:

This has turned out to be a really interesting discussion, actually. Thanks for being reasonable, everybody!


 
I know of people that using birthcontrol or even a condom is bad. :(Sadly some people I know are beyond stupid.
 
naturestee wrote:
Thanks for being reasonable, everybody!
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:

I hope folks know that even though I posted a lot (and LONG messages) - I wasn't upset (other than thinking maybe I was being told I was acting like McCarthy)...and I've really been enjoying reading the discussions and thinking about this.

I want to bring up something about 401Ks...but I'm not sure I should. I am watching the topic to see what is happening with it....
 
THat's how the Catholic church believes..... no birth control. HAHAHHAHA! God does not want me to be a nutjob in a looney bin when I have 2 children that need me. He doesn't care if I don't get pregnant intentionally...... we have procreated ourselves into overpopulation!

Now, I will answer the questions you have all posted for me later - today was a really rough day and I have a bad headache and earache from leaning back with a towel under my shoulders while the doc poked needles into my neck! YUCK!

Anyhow........ my husband just told me that he wasn't voting for that terrorist...... :foreheadsmack:

He's usually the democrat in the house! LOL!
 
Bo B Bunny wrote:
Anyhow........ my husband just told me that he wasn't voting for that terrorist...... :foreheadsmack:

He's usually the democrat in the house! LOL!
Click to expand...
:roflmao:

Didn't you say before once that you two normally cancel each other's votes out anyway?

So he's just keeping things the way they normally were???

Sorry - I just sorta had to laugh!
 
As a Canadian.. thought I would ask... when will the rest of us know who is the confirmed President? Is it the next day, or how does that work? Will be interesting to see what happens, either way..

Not much into the wheeling and dealing of politics, but man will I be GLAD even as a Canadian to finalize this election! At least the Canadian campaigns only last a month or so, seems like I've been hearing about this election for years!
 
TinysMom wrote:
Bo B Bunny wrote:
Anyhow........ my husband just told me that he wasn't voting for that terrorist...... :foreheadsmack:

He's usually the democrat in the house! LOL!
Click to expand...
:roflmao:

Didn't you say before once that you two normally cancel each other's votes out anyway?

So he's just keeping things the way they normally were???

Sorry - I just sorta had to laugh!
Click to expand...

this is really good.......................:laugh::roflmao:

:whistling:wave2
 
LOL, Bo! Ask your hubby if that means he's voting for the one that's all for diplomacy first.;)

Striking first without being directly attacked by a country and without UN approval is, in my opinion, terrorism. My respect for Obama went up when I read his profile and found out he spoke at peace rallies against the start of the Iraq war. For those keeping note... I was one of those sign-carrying hippies too.

Also, tell him Colin Powell wouldn't be voting for a terrorist. Man I hate that stupid smear campaign.

Edit: Peg, I just read your last post and that's how James and I work. He almost always votes Republican, I generally vote Democrat. We've decided we either both have to vote or both have to not vote.:p

 
Yes, Peg, we do and it IS funny but it makes me so darned mad at the same time!

His UNION backs Obama!

He's such a redneck in some ...... nawww..... MOST ways!

Funny tho, it's like that all over from what I am seeing.... all the republicans are voting demo and all the demos are voting republican!
 
Bo B Bunny wrote:
Now, I will answer the questions you have all posted for me later - today was a really rough day and I have a bad headache and earache from leaning back with a towel under my shoulders while the doc poked needles into my neck! YUCK!

Anyhow........ my husband just told me that he wasn't voting for that terrorist...... :foreheadsmack:

He's usually the democrat in the house! LOL!
Click to expand...

We'llhave to talk about the needles... I thought I was sticking those pins in a voodoo doll! Was it you instead? I'll PM you about my neck needles experience:?

Please give your DH some nose pats from me and Frankenbunny for 'right' thinking, LOL! He can have some of crack Craisins too.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top