Liberal Pussies Rebuttal

Posted: October 5, 2010 in Politics

This isn’t a legit post, I’m shoplifting it from a well thought out response to my last couple arguments. It’s smart, and it uses reason. He certainly calls me out on some of some of my bullshit.

I don’t want to (just) use this blog as a bully pulpit.

So when somebody presents me with something I cant dismiss, I want to share it. I don’t agree with him on everything. I certainly think his stance on Stem-Cell research is off. But his stance on military spending made my day, and he has a great point about our lower class not really being that poor.

I hope conservatives put off by my last few posts will enjoy this. I’m sure I’ll come back to this sometime, there’s a lot left to talk about, but here’s his post:

My comments about what conservative politics should be are just as wishful as your comments about what the democratic party should be.  Both are equally-wishful thinking, so there’s no harm in debating the issues that represent what the two ideals strive for.  But… point taken: with respect to your comments about the shortcomings of politicians on all sides.  Fortunately, as I see it, the old-guard is going through a change of hands.  The republican party is completely regenerating from grass-roots.  It’s the dreaded and bemoaned Tea Party that is chock full of libertarians and small-government people that could reshape conservative politics.  We’ll see… Besides, I don’t vote exclusively republicans as you asserted.  I vote on the issues, for the lesser of two collective evils, for whatever party that falls on.  Truly.

Wire-tapping?  That point is neutral between parties.  It started under Bush, but it has continued in full force under Obama.  By some accounts, it has increased.  So one party can’t claim privacy issues more than another, in my humble opinion. You can only go on what the next candidates promise to do.  I hope that both can agree that the status quo is distinctly un-American.  If I was running, I would publically compare it to the KGB and the SS, because people to listen and vote accordingly.  I hope that someone does.

War?  The republicans definitely screwed the pooch on Iraq.  God only knows what the real motivation for that war was.  Some geo-political posturing to be sure.  But again.. looking forward, neither party is going to be advocating war in the near future.  We can’t financially afford it, and the electorate has no taste for it.  Our troops are tired.  Not a big decider for the coming elections. 

Embryonic stem cell research.. well.. I personally think it’s wrong.   And I’m pretty much an aetheist.  This is a huge debate and not likely one that can be addressed without going to far off topic.  But my best assessment of the biology tells me that if a fetus is deemed worthless, then so is a walking breathing human being.  So I see harvesting of cells from a fetus as being on par as harvesting organs from a newborn.  It’s just wrong, because it diminishes theindividual rights of that life (which I think it is).  If you could save the lives of two people by taking the kidneys from one, it does not mean you have a right to do so, because of the individual rights of the one.  Besides… this whole morality problem is circumvented by the fact that stem cells can be harvested from other sources, including umbilical cords and epidermis cells.  That’s where the research needs to be focused: where there’s no ethical dilemma.  The big med research companies just want access to the
multitude of embryos on ice (also wrong) because it’s easy and cheap.  And they are BIG contributors to democrats.  Our government should rightfully tell them to go find another way.  Again… in my personal opinion.

So, back to small government.  Specifically: a smaller, smarter military.  A lot of republicans these days are thinking this way: so desperate are they to stop the financial bleeding.  The problem is: America doesn’t WANT a smaller military.  Talk about the biggest government hand-out ever… cushy government jobs for the masses (which pay more than private jobs now, based on averages) and big military contracts for the industrial giants.  This is how government gets its little fingers into everything.  They make huge swaths of the populace dependent on their graces for wages, business, and financial assistance, such that the people become reluctant to vote big government away, because their personal lives will be impacted so significantly.  People will compromise their freedoms to keep their jobs (systematic urine testing, for a real world example).  So that’s when the government really gains control over people: when they aren’t just the law, they’re also the bread and butter.

Which is not to say that government doesn’t have a role.. equal protection laws, freedom of speech, hell yes.. police, fire, road construction, border patrol, military, prisons, AMEN!  Education is arguable, but probably an acceptable role for government, AS LONG AS it’s still legal to seek alternate privatized education if the propaganda gets too thick.  Post Office?  Again.. arguable.  If there was no post office, don’t you think that someone like FedEx or UPS would fill the gap nicely?  The post office runs like a business anyways.  As I understand it, the USPS receives no tax dollars and makes all income from postage income.  Weird that it’s agovernment operation at all, since it’s fully self-sufficient.  

Healthcare?  God no.. if there was ever a place where government involvement hurts the people, it’s here.  Already, things are going south because of the new legislation.  Because government healthcare is promised to everybody for free (prepaid actually.. disproportionately), businesses are now deciding that they will stop offering healthcare coverage to their employees.  Just last week, McDonalds joined the bandwagon.   So now, millions of people who would otherwise be getting insurance through the freemarket will now be turning to the government.  Government healthcare will run in a continual deficit, like social security does now, such that no private industry can compete in the market without going out of business.   Meanwhile, as all private options disappear to the common American, more and more will people go on government healthcare, and it will get ridiculously over-budget and service cut-backs will begin.  You think it sucks now that new medicine costs a lot now?  Just
wait until you’re asking the government to pay for it… because they won’t have the money.  That’s why people from Canada come to America to pay for surgeries out of their own pocket.  I know a Canadian who had cancer and was told by the government to come back when the cancer had spread a little further before they would operate.  Worst cancer strategy ever!  The government bureacracy doesn’t care if the life expectancy falls a year or two, or if people have bad knees, or if they go blind after they retire.  But companies and individuals that can make big profits by fixing these problems DO care very much.  But if there is only one major customer (the government), on a tight budget, they may decide the financial venture is too risky.  I’d much rather stick with the current situation, where if my daughter got sick I could get her fixed up even if I had to sell my house, my car, my clothes, and beg on the street.  At least I would still have an avenue towards getting her healed,
instead of an insurmountable government bureaucracy that tells me to go home because the budget has dried up for the year.  Making sure I can pay for such unexpected tragedies is why I have worked so hard to put myself in a position to be capable.  I will vote for repeal of the government healthcare initiative, because I think it leads down a dark road.

You’re right that some people invent for pride.  You’re right, Sir.  But I think they are the minority of inventors, because most invent to get rich.  I think if we leave pride as the only motivation for innovation, we’re leaving a lot of horsepower on the table.  Maybe money is not the big motivator for the inventor, but it IS for the investors that financially back his idea.  Most inventors are not like Bell, or Franklin, or Newton.  They aren’t independently wealthy, and cannot alone support their ambitious goals and ideas.  They’ve got bills to pay, just like us.  

Your comment about me choosing to step down to live in poverty is a little off the mark.  I didn’t say that the poor had it better than me: that’s why I’ve choose to work to get where I am.  But let’s be frank.. according to the US census bureau, a typical person under the poverty level actually owns a home (a three-bedroom house with air conditioning and a dishwasher), has more living space that the average Parisian, Londoner, or Athenian, owns a car, has two TVs, and pays for cable service.  These are not Somalia-poor people, and they are obviously spending beyond their means while subsidizing their grocery bill with government hand-outs.  That’s why conservatives think they’re weak, because they want hand-outs that they don’t absolutely need.  I hate to sound uncompassionate, because I genuinely want people in this country to live and eat well.  But the government giving money to people who already have houses and cars is not the answer.  They have the means to feed and clothe
themselves, but they have chosen instead to spend their money on commerical stuff.  That’s their choice, but they should not be rewarded for those choices with money from other Americans.  Please.. understand I’m not against all government assistance.  At a certain level, it does belong, and we can’t let people starve in the streets.  It’s just that the threshold is currently set wayyy too high. The government should be cutting hand-outs to people who really could buy their own food, while lowering taxes to foster a business environment for these people to make more money.  Sometimes even a few percentage points makes a big difference in a business being profitable vs. not profitable, or rather existing vs. not-existing . Human dignity depends on the feeling of being self-sufficient and self-made.  It’s a tough-love thing: people must be free of hand-outs to be truly free, because hand-outs always come with strings attached.  And the thought that many people being so dependent on
the government makes me worry about the future of individual rights.

And about my vote supporting the religious right… that’s not entirely true, because i don’t live in Georgia where the crazy evangelicals are.  If I lived there, i would agree about my representatives.  But here in Utah, where the mormons are a lot of things, at least they aren’t scientifically backwards.

  1. Steven Garner says:

    What idiot wrote that drivel? :o)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s