(I created my previous post yesterday, but with Scouts and basketball, I didn't have the time to finish it. So I posted it today and forgot to say so in the post. Just wanted to clarify.)
I have been thinking about the recent election and conversations I have had leading up to the elections. One of the things that has me a little baffled is how people I know and respect so well can have such different opinions on the candidates. The co-worker I mentioned in the last post and I had several conversations and he is a religious and morally conservative guy. But we had different opinions on who should be our next president. (Even though I wasn't too thrilled with any of the candidates.) The conclusion I came to is that we want the same basic things, we just have very different opinions of how to achieve those goals.
We both want an improved education system. He believes that the federal government can pump more money into education and improve it. I believe that education would be better served if control was retained closer to home.
We both want an improved heath care system. He believes that federal regulation is the answer. I believe that a personal/family health plan that actually makes sense and allows me the control is the answer.
We both want a strong economy. He believes that corporate greed is the problem and that more government regulation is the answer. I believe that you will never get rid of greed no matter how much you try, that it is not peculiar to CEO's (no one is greedier than Union leadership), and that more unnecessary regulation will hamper business. I believe that we need to punish those who break the law and find ways to encourage and unencumber those who don't.
We both believe in giving to those less fortunate than us. He believes in having the federal government redistribute wealth. He doesn't trust the good in people enough. He said so. I believe that the American people are decent enough to help. And if given the chance to accumulate wealth, they would be able to give more to the poor. One of the best examples of the differences in attitudes may be illustrated by the tax returns of the candidates revealed during the campaign. The McCains donated roughly 30% of their income. The Obamas donated roughly 3% of their income. The Bidens essentially didn't donate any money. The amount was so staggeringly small as to not register as a percentage.
There are some deep fundamental differences between my views and Obama's views, abortion being one of the biggest. As I heard him say in a campaign interview, "I don't want them (his daughters) punished with a baby." My co-worker tried to defend him saying that he didn't really mean it. But I have no reason to doubt that he said what he really meant while off the teleprompter. Obama said it, not me.
It all boils down to the fact that I believe in agency, for better or for worse. Doctrine and Covenants 58:27-28 is one of my favorite scriptures. One that I try to work on when I'm down. I believe in the good people of our country. I believe that we can be better on our own than when compelled by government.
Government is a necessary evil and that is why our founding fathers placed more limits on it than abilities. I heard Obama say during a campaign interview, "Our constitution spells out what our government can't do, but it doesn't say what it can do on our behalf." He is well educated and he knows better. The constitution says how our goverment is set up and what it CAN do. Then it limits it. And Obama has studied the constitution.
I think one of the best examples of the difference between the ability of government and it's citizens is Hurricane Katrina. The church, the Red Cross, others trying to get into New Orleans with supplies, but the governor and the mayor won't let them in. Parking lots full of school buses flooded while people try to evacuate the city after the fact. Government failed the people of New Orleans. Then FEMA came in with red tape and handing out cash to anyone with a good story. But regular citizens, civilians came by the truckload to help. My friend Dan Eldredge was stationed in Mississippi during Katrina and has inspiring stories of the sacrifices of members from the Eastern seaboard. If you know Dan and haven't heard the stories, you should ask him sometime. Where government failed, regular people stepped up to become examples, role models, to inspire.
Contrary to a statement in the inaugural speech, my vote for someone other than Obama was not a vote for fear. It was a vote for hope, my hope. My hope in the goodness of people. My hope that we can change for the better. That faith can grow in the country and lead people to good rather than being compelled. Forcing my kids to do everything doesn't work.
Please understand me in what I am going to say next (especially if an Obama supporter has stumbled across my blog and still happens to be reading). I do not mean this as a personal attack to anyone, and I am certainly not trying to be judgmental in any way. This is not a direct relationship, a direct correlation. It is similar, though. Please hear me out and I welcome any comments you have. I welcome discussion on this next topic.
When we were in our pre-mortal existence, we had a choice. We could choose what appeared to by the easy way. "Government" would force everyone to do what is right. This was the "feel good" option. Or we could choose agency and all the problems that came with it. We would still have church leaders, but it would be limited government. We would have the ability to choose good or evil, or to try to sit the fence. The feel good option today is to try and have government confiscate money (called taxes and fees) and then filter them through the unwieldy and wasteful bureaucracy to redistribute as it sees fit. Many people today choose this option because it makes them feel good. They could accomplish the same thing on their own, and much more efficiently if they would just do it on their own. I am confident that every dollar I give in fast offerings will go to someone in need. I am not confident that any percentage in whole numbers of the money the government takes will go to those in need. I have more confidence in the Red Cross and the Salvation Army than I do the government. I won't give to the United Way because of their support of Planned Parenthood.
I am certainly not saying that confidence in the ability of big government to take care of it's citizens is evil or equates to the decision of 1/3 of our brothers and sisters in pre-mortal life. But I do see certain parallels and can perhaps better understand how some of our siblings fell. Perhaps it began small because it made them feel good to think that they are trying to help all their siblings whom they loved, I'm sure.
I've tried to condense volumes of thoughts and ponderings into this post. I hope it makes sense and flows logically from beginning to end. My mind races faster than my thoughts. There is no way my fingers can keep up. I hope that the reader is able to take this post as it was intended. I wavered on whether I wanted to try it, but this is part of the reason I started this goofy little blog.
-Vern
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Great post! The young men are lucky to have you.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, when you create a post, you can click "post options" on the bottom and choose the time and date it will post (although it is Pacific Time). So if you create something one day but don't get around to posting, you can still show it as created that day, or you could post date it so it shows up a week later. Just a tip...
Great tip. Thanks
ReplyDeleteI actually really enjoy reading these "ramblings!" It is good to see well thought-out arguments on the conservative side.
ReplyDeleteYour belief in the human spirit is inspiring, and I think there are many good people out there who could live up to what you believe. Unfortunately, I think there are a lot of "it's all about me" people out there too. Just as you gave the example of Katrina as evidence for how people can truly come together and help when it is needed, there are examples of quite the opposite all around us as well. All the mess on Wall Street is surely evidence of how selfish and greedy people can be, and their bad choices affect everyone. There are men and women who purposely defrauded people out of millions just to get richer themselves; or while laying off 1/4 of their labor force because of lack of funds, updated their offices to the tune of 1.7 million dollars. I am not saying I think bigger government can heal all ills, but I also, unfortunately, don't believe that the goodness in humanity can fix our country's ills alone. If that were true we'd still have a government like the original founders established, which relied on the goodness of the individual--but I have to add that the whole idea of the electoral college shows how little they actually believed in the wisdom of the individual, really their belief applied only to educated, white men.
I think parents and people like you and Jenn are examples of how everyone should be: involved in their family, priorities in the right place, ethical, but unfortunately there are a lot of parents/people who aren't involved in their family enough to make sure their children are getting a proper education. There are families that are so obsessed with increasing the number of "things" they have that they wouldn't manage their health care in a responsible way. My mom works with a number of lower income families and visits the homes of kids who don't have a good winter jacket but have three 42+" flat screen hi-def tvs in their house. As far as the abortion issue goes, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
And I believe in free agency too, but God gave us laws and regulations as well. Which is why we disagree with Obama on the abortion issue isn't it? He didn't just send us down here and say, "Have at it." From God we got laws and regulations that would help us return to him again. Bur from our Federal and State governments we get laws that protect us from the bad choices of other people and from making irresponsible choices ourselves that could potentially harm others, like health care. Not all families are going to spend their money wisely and with other's best interests at heart, and then when a major medical emergency hits they file for bankrupcy because they never decided to purchase health care, and it affects all of us.
I agree with you that government is a neccessary evil, I wish people were good enough that we didn't need it. But they aren't. Not even the early saints could get a healthy operating consecration system going. And I think some of the things that are messed up about government right now (like giving million dollar bonuses to CEO's who are begging for government bailouts, or the messed up world of lobbying) are things that Obama plans to look at and reform. Or programs that are failing or pointless, I believe that in the next four years his team plans to weed those out so a)there will be less red tape and b)there will be fewer unneccessary programs that we as tax payers are paying for. And he has asked for sacrifice and service from everyone to make the changes we need to be better than we were, because he, like you, believes in the goodness of the individual.
I am not trying to sound like I think government is the answer to everything, but when I look at the past 8 years and see what happens when we have a president who turns a blind eye to what is going on in his own country I don't think that is the answer either. I don't disagree that Bush thought he was doing what was best. I think it would be wonderful if history redeemed President Bush, it means that things in Iraq would be stable and the world would be a safer place for it, but that is yet to be determined. But look at what he messed up here at home, I mean this housing crisis was looming and predicted, and he did nothing. And when he asked for money to fix it, there was no oversight and now billions of dollars have been spent in a short period of time and nothing is getting better.
Remember, you asked for discussion, so you better still be my friend after this long, exhaustive comment! That's my three cents. Or thirty.
Colleen,
ReplyDeleteI am glad that you commented. That is exactly what I wanted. I had only discussed this idea with my brother who is likeminded and wanted to hear a different opinion.
Before I get to my main point, a couple of comments: 1)I don't know how liberal highjacked the greedy CEO issue. There are greedy people in every walk of life and these guys come from every walk of life (did you know that the average democrat has a higher annual income than the average republican?). I don't think any group can control greed. But if you made me choose a group who enables these guys, I would say it is the group who is soft on crime. These guys are breaking the law and they need to be punished, but liberal don't like to punish people. 2)Bush is only slightly to blame for the domestic policies of the last 8 years; only in that the President tries to set the tone in Washington and he tried so hard to cooperate with congress that he sometimes lost sight of his ideals and principles. Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have a lot more culpability than Bush. They are the legislator, he was an executor. He controls foreign policy and congress controls domestic policy. I think that the housing example you mentioned is the perfect example. Bush has nothing to do with housing. It is not his job as President. I do recall however (because it frustrated me so much at the time) several member of congress were trying to reign in Fanny May and Freddy Mac and the liberals in congress went balistic. They were crying about how everyone deserved to have the American dream and were pushing all-to-willing accomplices in the mortgage industry to soften the rules to allow people to get mortgages who really shouldn't have had mortgages. And look where we are now. And if memory serves correctly, Biden was one of the loud ones. I don't think politicians should be lecturing on greed. It amazes me how one suddenly becomes an expert on all things simply because they can convince enough people to check his/her name on a ballot.
Now to my main point. I acknowledged in my blog that Heavenly Father gave us a government and gave us laws. But His are different in one fundamental way. His are voluntary. His laws are designed to build us up. It is the feed a man to fish teach a man to fish scenario. Heavenly Father didn't send us to Earth to be taken care of or to feel good. He sent us to Earth and asked us to work to become like him. He won't save us from ourselves with no effort on our part. He expects personal responsibilty and effort from us. The federal government wants to give handouts and create dependency on them. You mentioned people who buy TV's rather than proper clothing for their children. So the federal government wants to give these people money. Do you think it is going to the kids for clothing? No, now they can get the most expensive HD satelite or cable package. They haven't anything. If you look at history, we are nearing the point that all great societies come to before they fall. They get comfortable, tend toward socialism, start to forget the moral values that made it all possible in the first place, and they fall. My hope is that we learn from history, remember the values this country was founded on, and repent as a society before we fall.
The bottom line is this: God wants to help us save ourselves (and I use this word somewhat reluctantly because we can't save ourselves in a salvation sense, but I can't think of a better word) and the federal government wants to save us from ourselves. I do have hope in people, but even if I didn't, I wouldn't change my view. Forcing people to be good doesn't help them become anything. As much as I would like to, I cannot lock my girls up from 13 to 21 to save them from the world. And the federal government needs to allow people to make mistakes. I am not a liberatarian. I believe in a federal government, but a very limited one. The way this country was set up, state governor should be a more coveted and powerful position than US senator. Sadly, this is not the case.
Hope this flows and makes sense. This comment window is tiny so I haven't edited. I should have typed this in Word and cut and pasted.
It all made sense, and good points all.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to imply that the greedy CEO issue was only a liberal issue. It has definitely caused problems for both sides of the asile and come from people on both sides of the aisle. It was primarily the Senate Republicans that fought Bush's aggressive push for the first financial bailout package because of all the potential problems (which turned out to be true). Although, it was Obama, a Democrat, who stepped in and said that there needed to be rules in place for the package to be passed. I can only imagine how horrible it all would have gone if there hadn't been some perameters set. So both sides, I believe tried to make the bailout better. But it was Bush's job (and that of his Financial team) to make sure it was administered properly and with purpose, and it hasn't been.
I do think that the problems with Wall Street right now show how deregulation, a primarily Republican cause, of financial markets and other business can wreak havoc on all of us. Laissez faire, or hands-off, economics relies too much on honesty and ethics, and unfortunately money seems to draw the most unethical of people
(again, neither Democrat or Republican being guilt-free)! Bush would never have proposed to regulate our financial markets, keeping tabs on the moves of the CEO's and CFO's. He held to that Republican belief that less regulation is better for the economy...true sometimes, but definitely not always.
As we have seen, the credit crisis problems may have been first evidenced with Fannie and Freddie, but they go so much deeper, and into companies that loan to much more wealthy clientele. And you say that Democrats are soft on crime, but how many mortgage brokers are being investigatd by the FBI-a federal policing bureau led by Bush apointees? Not many. And how many golden parachutes were overlooked by the Bush administration in the early days of this crisis until the "liberal elite media" started pointing it out?
I disagree that Bush did everything he could to work with a Democrat-led congress. I don't think there are very many people who would agree with that. Remember that the only reason it was so strongly Democrat is because after the way Bush handled the first four years of his presidency, people voted the Democrats in to try to balance him out. He was very unwilling to compromise, he overturned or vetoed many of the things Congress tried to pass. I think he very much overstepped his boundaries as "executor" and did his own legislating as well as ignoring legislation passed, as if it didn't apply to him. He, himself, claimed he was the "decider."
It is petty, but not surprising, that if the President refuses to work with Congress, they will refuse to work with him. I don't think either branch did us any favors by having the attitudes they had towards each other, but it definitely wasn't all Congress...Bush wasn't willing to give as much as he wanted to be given.
I also disagree that Bush is not responsible for domestic policy. A President is responsible for both domestic and foreign policy. There is a reason his cabinet includes secretaries who oversee both foreign affairs, such as secretary of state, and domestic affairs, such as housing, health care, treasury, etc. And they all report to him and advise him.
Now back to the housing crisis. I think we could go back and forth on this one forever, because in the end, there were so many causes. You say it was Democrats who forced through laws allowing people who shouldn't get loans to get them. Regardless of how lenders such as Fannie and Freddie behaved (and even credible banks like WaMu that offered Adam and I an amazing loan...until we looked into the finer details), I don't think that is how Congress saw things. To say that they desired for people who could not afford the homes they purchased to do so is not correct. But even if it were true, would it have mattered if laws had been passed later to rein in Fannie and Freddie? Bush's administration was notorious for their failure of reulatory oversight. How many food and toy recalls have we had recently?
Another huge contributor to the current crisis is the cutting of the federal interest rate, recently, but also as far back as the months following Sept. 11th. When interest rates are low, people tend to buy more on credit. What seemed like a good idea to give the economy a kick back then, turned into crazy forclosure madness when the adjustible rate mortgages reset five years later (late 2006--when things started to go badly for housing). It seems that as things got bad, that is all Bush's Fed could think to do (and the current Fed was primarily shaped by Bush's administration).
Anyhow, again, it is a crazy mixed-up mess that has so many/so much to blame, it is impossible to pick one culprit. I just think the Bush administration should have seen it coming, I mean, they have people, such as the Treasury Secretary, whose job it is to watch for stuff like this. If Bush or his economic team had come to Congress with hard numbers and facts showing something like this current crisis could occur, I don't think Congress would have ignored it. You say that Republicans tried to rein in Freddy and Fannie, but I don't think the fight was on the right terms or made in the right manner. If they really felt there was a danger for the economy looming because of Freddie and Fanny, and had evidence to back it, something would have been done. I'm not saying it was all their fault and the Democrats have no blame. I am just giving evidence that the blame goes just as much to Bush and his Republican administration, and in my opinion, moreso.
As for the main point of the blog post. I have to disagree again. I love what you said about God wants us to learn how to save ourselves (agreed, that isn't the best word, but I can't think of a better one either). It is true! But to say that laws placed on us by God are voluntary in a different way than laws placed on us by government are isn't true. Government's laws are voluntary, if you break them you get punished, just as we do with God's laws. If we choose to go against Him, will we not achieve a different degree of glory? All laws, God's and the government's, are voluntary, open to free agency. For both there will be consequences. One holds mortal consequences, one eternal. It is true that you can't force someone to be good, or lock your children up until they are 21 (although that would be nice!). But that doesn't mean you don't put laws in place to help guide people to the better choice. Just as God did and does. If you commit a crime against God you will be sent to varying degrees of glory, if you commit a crime on earth you will be sent to varying degrees of prison sentences. The federal government will allow for mistakes, but if you make the wrong ones there will be consequences, just as there are with God.
As far as the money to a poor family goes, I think I said the same thing as you. I don't think I read a single thing in Obama's platform claiming we should give monetary handouts to everyone. McCain's (the Republican candidate) plan was to give families a monetary credit to buy health insurance, how are you going to guarantee they will buy insurance instead of going out to get that HDTV? Versus, Obama's health care plans don't hand out money to people, they also don't force anyone to get health care for themselves. They make it affordable, and good quality for all, so people who want it can get it with the money they are already earning from their jobs. They do require that children under the age of 18 are insured, but that is because children are subject to the decisions of their parents, which can be very bad in some cases.
So what do you think? On The Office last night Oscar said that the only thing debate does is make the two sides more entrenched in their opinions, maybe it is true, but it has been really interesting hearing your point of veiw. Thanks for putting this out there, and answering in a respectful way. I have really enjoyed seeing your side, and it has really made me think more about mine!
I'll keep this one really brief.
ReplyDeleteI didn't mean to imply the Bush did all he could to cooperate with congress nor that he has no responsibilty over domestic policy. Only that he doesn't have nearly as much as he gets credit (and that goes for every president). Congress writes the laws that we live by. As an executive, a doer and decider, his adminstration executes them.
Go ahead trash the Republicans. Very few of them are Conservative, McCain one of the least. Bush isn't too conservative either. Both of them let campaign finance reform through which takes power from individuals and gives it to the media.
The difference between Gods laws and man's laws are tremendous. I didn't say there weren't consequences to every action. Breaking man's laws brings a punishment, a taking away of that which you have. The punishment is relatively immediate and is enforced by one of the many agencies that we put in place to enforce them. Usually, God's laws entail a stop in progress, occur naturally as a consequence of breaking a true law, not a result of police. There is a repentence process that allows for a full pardon, so that we can continue to progress. I'm not saying that man's laws aren't necessary. They are analagous to the law of Moses. God gives us a higher law. I prefer the higher law. I'm tired of wandering in the wilderness and it seems we are ust heading deeper. I know that some of the law of Moses is necessary, I just want as little of it at possible. There were generations of Nephites that found ways to live the higher law while living the Law of Moses before the Saviors birth and I strive to as well. I just get frustrated because man's laws don't seek to elevate, only to limit. I can do more good with a dollar on my own than the government. I can use my time better on my own than if I have to donate to the government (the first 3 months of every year.) You mentioned failed consectration. Bishop's didn't confiscate everything and redistribute, people signed on and decided for themselves what they needed and what they could donate.
Thanks for humoring me on this and not getting upset.
Sorry, I have a hard time doing "brief," I apologize!
ReplyDeleteYou did say, "[Bush] controls foreign policy, Congress controls domestic policy." And you also said, "[Bush] tried so hard to cooperate with Congress that he sometimes lost sight of his ideals and principles." If I misunderstood you, I apologize, but that is why I commented on those things.
First, again I say that it is true that in our Constitution and in past presidencies the role of the executive was to "execute" laws made by Congress, or not execute them if a president felt they were unconstitutional. But Bush seemed to overstep his bounds when it suited him, and at times took both the role of the legislative branch and the executive branch into his own hands. Here is a link to a Bostom Globe article citing some of his more questionable uses of his power: www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2006/04/30/bush_challenges_hundreds_of_laws/ (if you are going to read it you may just have to cut and paste, I don't know how to make it a link). I agree on what you say about the legal role of the President as it is stated in the Constitution, but Bush seemed to be trying to expand that role beyond its legal limits.
Also, I had to re-read my comment to figure out how you thought I was "trashing" conservatives. If you felt that, I didn't mean to sound like that any more than you would have been "trashing" Liberals in your earlier comments. Don't worry, I am not upset, but I do have to defend myself.
I am obviously not a fan of Bush and his administration, and I can definitely see how I could come across as trashing HIM to those who believe that he was doing a good job. But I don't equate Bush with all conservatives or all Republicans. I do have to say, everything I said is based on facts about his administration that you can look up. He did have an extraordinarily strong hand in assigning the members of the Fed, his Financial team was not strong and made many mistakes that they themselves admitted to, and he did appoint the head of the FBI, who is only minimally investigating lenders whose questionable behavior greatly contributed to the current economic crisis.
I never said that Bush represented all conservatives/Republicans. I just differ from you in that while you believe Reid/Pelosi/Democrat-led Congress have the majority of the blame, I believe that Bush and his administration have the majority of the culpability for what is going on now. It was for that argument that I was trying to give evidence by citing the interest rate cuts by the Fed, lack of regulation from his administration and inability to forsee and effectively combat a crisis like the one we are in (mostly because I feel they were asleep at the wheel).
The only things I said about the "Republican Party" were that they support limited government involvement in economics, which is a fact about the party in general (of course not all Republicans as individuals believe in a completely free market, but a form of laissez faire economics is generally supported by the party as a whole), and just because I don't think a completely free market works well isn't trashing them, it's just my opinion.
The other thing I said about the Republican party, on the topic of Fran and Fred, was that there were so many other problems beyond these two lenders (and I exhaustively stated those problems, sorry), that the Republican effort to have more regulation of those lenders wasn't really going to make a huge difference in this overall economic crisis. I was trying to give contrary evidence for some of the claims you made in your earlier comment as you do in debate.
I also stated some things I thought they did well. So please don't say I am trashing any party in general. As I said in my earlier comment, NEITHER party did any of us any favors by being so staunchly partisan. Democrats included. I fully recognize that many Republicans in Congress are more moderate, McCain inparticular. I think Ann Coulter jokingly said during the primaries that if McCain won the Republican nomination she would vote for Hillary Clinton instead, because Clinton is more of a conservative than McCain! Although, once he did win the nomination, and his campaign got underway, many of his more moderate views were pulled more to the right. To be clear, I am not saying that's a bad thing, to be on the right side of the divide.
I believe that we need both sides of the aisle to moderate things, to balance eachother out. I woudn't want a completely liberal congress either, there are issues, like abortion, that need a strong voice of on the other side. Wouldn't it be nice if we could move away from the two-party system all-together and just vote the issues? Now that is what I'd really like. Then maybe we'd have some progress because people wouldn't feel they had to be so completely partisan!
As for the God's laws vs. Man's laws issue I completely agree with you on the hope that that is what we strive to be and will ultimately become. I do not think that man's laws are NEARLY as important to God's. I mean mortality versus eternal exaltaion...let's see...hmmmm. It would be wonderful if we were a people who could live as some of the generations of Nephites did and adhere to that higher law and not need all the societal laws. Really, if everyone could live by just the two, love God and love your neighbor, we would need no other laws because the rest would fall into place. I think there are many out there who could do it. But as a society in general, we are not there yet. In our world right now we are much closer to the people of Moses, wandering because we can't see the direction we have been given, worshipping false idols, living the law one day and then utterly failing the next. Good thing there is repentance so we can continue to progress. But because of that, we can't be free of those "laws of Moses" yet. But, with people like you and the Eldredges, and the Bartles, and so many other amazing families in our ward, church, and beyond, working hard for the side of good, maybe in generations we will get there. Or Christ will return and get us all straightened out and we won't have to worry about it anymore.
I am sorry if my opinion of Bush offends you in any way. Like I said all the way back in the beginning of this debate, I do think he thinks what he did as President was right. Like you do, I think that he believes history will exonerate him, and prove him to be a visionary. While I am not sure that will happen, if it does I will be very happy, and will be the first to say I was wrong about him. It means that the future world is better than it is right now, and if that is true, then how wonderful!
This will be my last comment on this issue, mainly becuase we have strayed from the point that I originally was trying to make. I was not thrilled when Bush got the original nomination. I am not a huge fan of Bush's. My point is that I think history will be kind to him because history is not nearly as emotionally attached to his policies as you and I obviously are. It will remember that much of what he accused of not doing domestically was originally set up to be a state responsibility and not a federal one anyway. We were attacked and he responded. History will realize that if 9/11 never happened, we would have been back in Iraq by now anyway. I didn't say that he would be our greatest President, but history will be much kinder to him than you think it ought to be.
ReplyDeleteThe other point about trashing republicans was probably just an invitation out of a little frustration on my part. They are not conservative, do not stick to principles, and deserve to be trashed for the way they have handled many things.
And lastly, to summarize the last part of my origninal point: Just as I think "helicopter parents" are doing their kids a diservice by trying to save them from themselves, not allowing the proper growth, a "helicopter government" is doing it's citizens a disservice by trying to save them from themselves, not allowing the proper growth. Sometimes kids don't turn out the way you hoped, the way you taught them to be. Sometimes citizens don't turn out the way society hoped. That's mortal life.
Believe me, I'm not offended. Having such good comments and not just the typical "me too" comments that I see on the family related blogs has been great and has kept me thinking. My ponderings have been that much deeper because of it. Thanks
We definitely did stray from the original point a bit there, didn't we? But it was all very interesting to me! I appreciate the discussion. It has been really interesting and has helped me reevaluate my opinions and frame them better. I am usually afraid to talk politics at all because my friends are more important to me than my politics, and some people just don't deal with different view points well. Not you though! So I really appreciate your courtesy and hearing all your opinions. I've learned a lot through this. Thanks to you, too!
ReplyDelete