One person's observations

[Husky Jerk]

Sorry, but I have a few things need I need to say after viewing all the posts today...

First, since when does feeling "family values" are important make you a religious zealot? I feel that the erosion of the family unit is the one most important factor to be considered when trying to discuss what's wrong with our society today. True, almost all religious people believe in "family values" but not all "family values" types are religious. I know this because I am one of the latter. Saying religion is becoming intertwined with politics because America voted for higher family values is a little narrow-minded, imo. Although I agree that religion and politics are a bad mix, One reason I voted for Bush because of his "family values" even though his religiousness bothers me.
Second, the division of America in my view has more to do with the almost fanatical behavior of Democrats since '00. Edwards' "two Americas" deal was indicative of this to me. I understand that Dems felt slighted in '00, I voted for Gore, but it seems to me that Dems decided to try to pin Bush to a wall every chance they got. Yes, I know this always happens, but to back Bush going into Iraq then to persecute him after it got ugly really struck a chord with me. We must remain unified through thick and thin in a time of war. I think that bulldogged determination is the only way to get through this threat. Kerry did not seem to possess this conviction. Yes, there have been screw-ups in Iraq, but I think the logic is sound, we just gotta keep plugging away.
Third, the economy. My career depends wholly on the performance of manufacturers, and my company is currently experiencing record revenues. Yes, a lot of them have cut back on "button pushers" but development of new technologies and products is progressing faster all the time. Better jobs are available but they due require education. To increase taxes on these businesses will stymie their ability to explore these new avenues. Before you say these jobs should be American jobs, I say they were aleady leaving. You can't pay an operator premium salaries unless you like paying twice what you are paying now for the same product. To compete, we the consumers have already dictated that these jobs go overseas. Companies, however are more than happy to develop new products and technolgies and spend a lot to do so. On a personal level, I fall smack dab in the middle class, and personally experienced a $3500 swing in tax relief last year with no change in write offs so I don't see how theses tax breaks applied only to the rich. As for business, if you aren't doing 200k a year, you probably won't make it very long in most instances, even small businesses. Yet Kerry felt that these guys got too much relief, and wanted to repeal those tax cuts. So you would have businesses that can't compete with the global market and still keep their employees, and have little margin to try and explore new technologies to enhance their position in the marketplace. At first glance, shipping jobs overseas bothered me too, until I talked with customers and realized their situations. Now it looks like a move that required guts and vision.

Alright, blast away.

[Kaylore]

I'll blast away. I think your post is excellent and speaks volumes.

1. Family values are a normal, average American concern. Democrats saying that they are the product of far right wing politics just proves that it is they who have actually drifted away from the center. They just have thought we were moving when it was them the whole time.

2. For as "terrible" as the economy is, most of America seems to be ok with it.

3. A party of strong Family values, Strong National Security, Foreign policy based on making allegiances with those who are our allies, and cutting taxes across the board seems to resonate with voters.

4. You can't hate someone out of office. Of course I made several posts about this but you all ignored me.

[Husky Jerk]

I haven't ignored either side in this forum, except for maybe LABF, I just don't post much. Too lazy, busy or someone already said it usually.

[Billy Clyde Puckett]

Damn fine post. I too have a very stong family, but not religious. I admit I am a free market zealot and believe in competition. What some people forget is that the definition of competition includes "freedom of entry AND EXIT from the market". This goes for jobs too. US companies outsourced 300,000 jobs overseas in the last 4 years. Most of these jobs are heads down programming and call center jobs that most people in the US do not really want. It is the same as brining in migrant workers to pick lettuce except they can stay home to do the job. According to an article I read in Business 2.0 a couple of months ago, the shipping of these jobs to India and India's removal of their import barriers have created more than 300,000 jobs for US companies. The two largest malls in the world are in India and they are almost exclusively US brands. I also saw the reduction in my taxes.

[enjolras]

First, since when does feeling "family values" are important make you a religious zealot? I feel that the erosion of the family unit is the one most important factor to be considered when trying to discuss what's wrong with our society today. True, almost all religious people believe in "family values" but not all "family values" types are religious. I know this because I am one of the latter. Saying religion is becoming intertwined with politics because America voted for higher family values is a little narrow-minded, imo. Although I agree that religion and politics are a bad mix, One reason I voted for Bush because of his "family values" even though his religiousness bothers me.

This is what bothers me the most about this election. When we focus on these issues we are saying that there is a moral mandate for how Americans should live.. there is one correct view of morality, and it is the role of government to force that particular moral view on those who don't hold it.

I've argued a lot today about gay marraige. With the overwhelming support the bans enjoyed those who didn't want to discuss it before feel like they have mandate it against it.. it's true, the majority of Americans hold a viewpoint that gay marraige is wrong. I'm fine with that... but that doesn't mean that the viewpoint is compatible with American ideals.

With so many people ignoring the true impactful issues (war in Iraq, economy, etc.. which I'm not saying you did btw) and instead focusing on these moral ones it creates an oppressive society. Isn't true American morality not about forcing your version of morality (even if it is a popular version) on other Americans? Particularly when it has no real impact on your life? My moral view happens to be very different than yours.. I beleive in self-ownership. I beleive in the right of Americans to as much liberty as possible. I just can't understand this 'family values' mindset. It's foreign to me in almost every way..

Second, the division of America in my view has more to do with the almost fanatical behavior of Democrats since '00. Edwards' "two Americas" deal was indicative of this to me. I understand that Dems felt slighted in '00, I voted for Gore, but it seems to me that Dems decided to try to pin Bush to a wall every chance they got. Yes, I know this always happens, but to back Bush going into Iraq then to persecute him after it got ugly really struck a chord with me. We must remain unified through thick and thin in a time of war. I think that bulldogged determination is the only way to get through this threat. Kerry did not seem to possess this conviction. Yes, there have been screw-ups in Iraq, but I think the logic is sound, we just gotta keep plugging away.

It's interesting.. as someone outside of the two parties (libertarian) it seems like both sides like to project certain attributes on each other. The fact is the divisiveness comes not from 2000, but from a LARGE cultural clash between the two sides. Americans are living in very different worlds, and hold very different values. Looking at the rural vs. urban vote drives that home. Both sides feel like the other should have to live their way...or else. Unity has to come through cultural compromise. Bush IS in large part to blame. His 'it's right or wrong, black or white, with me or against me' approach to issues leaves no room for dissent. You either rally behind him or your on the other side.. If he is to be a uniter he needs to lead America to understanding that we really are a diverse people. Trying to force one set of values on everyone else doesn't unite.. again we must learn to accomdate each others differences.

3. A party of strong Family values, Strong National Security, Foreign policy based on making allegiances with those who are our allies, and cutting taxes across the board seems to resonate with voters.

The exits would suggest otherwise.. the whole thing was so much more complex than that. The Kerry exits seemed to show a more balanced view.. where the Bush exits where about extremes. If you thought terrorism (above all else) was really important you voted Bush. If you thought family values where important (above all else) you voted Bush.. Voters by and large thought the economy was in poor shape and disagreed with Bush's economic policies, but they felt so strongly about those other issues that they voted for him anyways. That's the real interesting lesson about this election.. as I said before voting is not about issues right now, it's about culture. Those who cared about a broad range of issues tended to vote Kerry... but for the most party the the truly polarizing issues (gay marraige in particular) seemed to carry the day.

[enjolras]

On the tax thing.. I'm in the middle class ($80-$100k) and I saw a VERY modest decrease in my taxes.. something like $100 bucks. If you don't have dependents the tax break was rather non existent I don't have a point.. prolly just looking for some sympathy

[Rock Chalk]

Originally Posted by enjolras

On the tax thing.. I'm in the middle class ($80-$100k) and I saw a VERY modest decrease in my taxes.. something like $100 bucks. If you don't have dependents the tax break was rather non existent I don't have a point.. prolly just looking for some sympathy

wow, if thats middle class IM in the deep lower class.

My tax break annually was about 10% of my total income. Not much actual money but then, I didnt make much actual money either.

[watermock]

I like She Males.

Oope

[Husky Jerk]

Enjolras, I don't subscribe to either party, I feel that limits you too much. I looked at both candidates and made my decision. To me, marriage is a civil union that originated from religion, but has since has adopted legal ramifications. If two gays want to form a civil union, for the same legal benefits, I have no problem with that. I hope they aren't doing for a tax break. There isn't one. Anyways, a ceremony that has very large religious ties for many people should not be forced to accept couples that do not fit their value system. I don't pretend to understand homosexuality, and to me it's wrong, but if someone else goes that way, that is their decision, and I won't be forcing my view on them, but in return, they shouldn't be forcing their views on me either. There probably should be some sort of legal ceremony so they can protect their partner after death and whatnot but it is not a marriage. But for the record, this issue had nothing to do with my vote.
My point is that America needs more personal and moral responsibility. I'm sick of everybody figuring out how to blame their problems on the media, government, and whatever else they can think of. Those all are reflections of us as a society. Our kids are getting pregnant and convicted of felonies younger and younger, and everyone says that the media is exposing them to this stuff, and that the government should punish them. Wrong! We allow them to see it and we should punish them. We complain about violent crime and drug use and guns, and expect someone else (government) to do something about. If we all held our families together and communicating and teaching our children, instead of expecting schools to prepare them life, none of this crap would be a problem. This is what I mean by family values.

The fanatical Democrat statement is honestly born of my own observations, like I said I voted for Gore, and thought Clinton was a good leader, other than a lack of moral fiber. But X's and O's, he did OK. The reactions of many Dems after '00 really bothered me. I still don't get why they picked a candidate who was so far to the left, if not to try to divide the country. Bush seems pretty centralized on the right but Kerry really made him look extreme, because Kerry was on the left fringe. Iraq has polarized a lot of people too, but at the time, it was pretty unilateral in support of going in there. It appears to me that the Dems pulled away when things got ugly which again split the country.
Just my view, but judging by results this week, I probably wasn't alone.

[Exile_In_SJ]

good well thought out posts Husky Jerk, I agree with you. I think what happens is the media tends to ignore these ideas and just demonizes anyone professing 'family values'
To the media and the left, family values seems to indicate something nefarious and evil.

[Exile_In_SJ]

good well thought out posts Husky Jerk, I agree with you. I think what happens is the media tends to ignore these ideas and just demonizes anyone professing 'family values'
To the media and the left, family values seems to indicate something nefarious and evil.

[enjolras]

Anyways, a ceremony that has very large religious ties for many people should not be forced to accept couples that do not fit their value system.

It's not like Marraige is a club (I'm married myself, btw).. How is the fact that gay people can be married 'forcing' anyone to do anything? After all, atheists can be married just as readily as agnostics just as readily as Christians. Marraige, in and of itself, is not a religious institution.. it's a government one (you can be married by officers of the state after all). There is a SEPERATE religious element.. a spiritual bonding if you will. If Churches want to deny gay people religious sanctioning of marraige, you'll get no complaint from me. To me this seems like something where the only TRUE victim are gay people who want to get married. I just don't see any logical ground that somehow makes the populace at large affected in any way by it..

I just can't see how this is not run of the mill discrimination.

[Husky Jerk]

Originally Posted by enjolras

It's not like Marraige is a club (I'm married myself, btw).. How is the fact that gay people can be married 'forcing' anyone to do anything? After all, atheists can be married just as readily as agnostics just as readily as Christians. Marraige, in and of itself, is not a religious institution.. it's a government one (you can be married by officers of the state after all). There is a SEPERATE religious element.. a spiritual bonding if you will. If Churches want to deny gay people religious sanctioning of marraige, you'll get no complaint from me. To me this seems like something where the only TRUE victim are gay people who want to get married. I just don't see any logical ground that somehow makes the populace at large affected in any way by it..

I just can't see how this is not run of the mill discrimination.

You make some valid points. My grandmother was a judge and married my wife and I, and we also had a Catholic ceremony to validate the marriage for her side of the family. Because that was important to her. Her family wouldn't have respected the marriage if not for the religious ceremony. One of the principle reasons is that the Catholic church requires classes on how to treat each other and actually did some personality tests to highlight possible areas of conflict. I have deep respect for religious people, but I am not religious myself.
Marriage originally was a concept to "legitimize" children by forcing the woman to be with one man (although the man had no such commitment) and not much else. Religion changed that to a union that actually improved a woman's place in society by forcing men to respect their wives and making it more difficult to divorce them. Today, marriage has evolved to include a civil component to protect the spouse's rights in case of death or divorce. But the origin of the ceremony still applies.
To allow gays to marry achieves their goal of professing their love and to protect their rights, but has nothing to do with the original intent of the practice. I have no problem with either of these aspects. If a gay couple has spent their lives together, they have a right to legal protection to their acquired wealth in the event of one's death, and all the other legal benefits that come from marriage. But these are benefits that were added to adapt to today's society, and not applicable to the origins of the ceremony. Give them a civil union to protect these rights, but don't insult thousands of years of tradition by making it the same as a marriage between a man and a woman. The reasons behind it aren't truly the same.
On a side note, I don't think that Bush is against gay "marriage". He stated that he felt it is a decision to be made by the states, not by judges being pressured by special interest groups. Leave it to the people, essentially. And our society is not comfortable with the concept, hopefully because of the position I explained above and not because they feel that the only right gays are entitled to is a discount on KY jelly. But you never know. I don't feel that we are a totally ignorant society, just one that holds true to it's traditions. Maybe I'm fooling myself, but sometimes ignorance IS bliss.