Lessons Learned

[Rooster7]

Okay, guilty as charged. I have to admit that I have somewhat oversimplified my arguments. Fact is, I don't believe all liberals are evil or amoral. There are quite a few that are just plain deceived. Furthermore, while I embrace conservative views and the politicians that support them, I realize that some politicians are just politicians - even amongst the conservatives. Having said all the above, I do believe this country is in a huge battle for its moral foundation.

 

NJ,

 

Certainly Bible verses can be twisted to support almost any argument. Im convinced that those who twist God's Word to fit their arguments know who they are, and hopefully they are praying for His mercy. While I pray for God's mercy often (for my many other sins), I don't believe intentionally twisting His Word is one of them.

[acco40]

I just want to share a few articles that are somewhat germane to this topic.

 

A couple of blue men from a red state were having dinner a couple of nights after the election, and one of the blue men, a fellow who worked for Kit Bond many years ago, said something like this: "Back in Kit's early days, he never described himself as a conservative. In those days, nobody did. After the Goldwater debacle in '64, conservative was a dirty word, kind of like liberal is now. It wasn't until Ronald Reagan came along and defined conservatism in a new and positive way that people began using the word again. That's what the liberals need to do now. Right now, we let other people define us."

 

And just how would we define ourselves? Let me try.

 

I'm a liberal, and that means I believe in responsibility, both personal and collective. Collective responsibility? You betcha. I believe that society - that's us - has a responsibility to take care of the less fortunate and those who can no longer provide for themselves. Social Security, for instance, is a liberal idea. Both for retirees and the disabled. If a working person becomes disabled, he or she will get a monthly check. It's not going to put a person on Easy Street, but that person is not going to have to sit on the sidewalk begging like you see in some countries. Back when the whole Social Security program was being founded, many of our conservative friends were against it.

 

Our friends, I say, and I mean that. I believe that the people on the other side are our opponents, but not our enemies. They are mostly decent and patriotic. I believe in civility, and I am dismayed when people on my side of the Great Debate lose sight of that. It especially annoys me when people on my side assume a condescending attitude toward other working people.

 

You see, I'm a liberal and that means I support working people. In the struggle between labor and capital, I lean toward labor. Our conservative friends call organized labor a special interest, but this particular special interest is the reason we have a 40-hour workweek, paid vacations, health care benefits and decent wages.

 

I believe in responsibility so, yes, I'd raise taxes if I had my way. I believe that it is wrong to put current expenses on a credit card that will be passed down to our children. That may be good politics, sure, and our current president, a conservative, has cut taxes while presiding over the greatest increase in nonmilitary spending since the days of the Great Society. Under the watch of a conservative president and a Congress controlled by his party, we've gone from a surplus to a deficit. I'm a liberal, and I find this irresponsible.

 

I excluded military spending from that last argument, but I'd like to deal with it now. Because I believe in collective responsibility, I would never wage a war while cutting taxes. Shared responsibility means shared sacrifice. If we're going to ask the working-class kids of an all-volunteer military to put their lives on the line, we can at least make a small financial sacrifice ourselves. Maybe we'd pay a special fuel tax to fund the war. However we did it, we would do it together and we would do it now. We would not pass the debt down to our children.

 

What we would pass down to our children is a healthy planet. I'm a liberal, and I believe in the environment. The Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act were both liberal ideas. Many of our friends on the other side support industry and call our environmental laws onerous. They want those laws relaxed. I'm a liberal and I support the Sierra Club.

 

The ACLU, too. I support the rights of the accused. In so doing, I stand on the shoulders of the Founders of this country who were distrustful of governmental authority. I believe that a person who has been fairly convicted should be punished - I have served as a state's witness at an execution - but I believe that a white-collar criminal who loots a company should be punished as severely as a kid who robs a convenience store. I believe that if drug addiction is a disease for the rich, it should not be a crime for the poor. I believe in fairness. I'm a liberal. (Bill McCLellan, St. Louis-Post Dispatch).

_____________________________________________________

I have to thank Jimmy Carter for saving my sanity. Granted, his was not a presidency one looks back to with fondness. Gas lines stretched forever, Iran took our people hostage and there was disco, besides. But Carter's ex-presidency has been a model of that unofficial institution. He has built homes for the poor, mediated wars, helped feed the hungry in Africa, fought disease in Latin America. In so doing, Carter, a deacon of Maranatha Baptist Church in Plains, Ga., has obeyed a directive Jesus issued one of his disciples. Do you love me? He asked Simon Peter. Peter said yes. Feed my sheep, said Jesus.

 

Remembering Carter's example, his very public embrace of that command, is what has gotten me through the last week without a facial tic. If one more person tells me "morality" guided their decision to vote for George W. Bush, my head is going to pop like a balloon.

 

One is hard pressed to find morality in Bush's ineptly prosecuted war, his erosion of civil rights and the loss of international credibility his policies have caused. Unless, of course, one has been quaking in one's boots at the prospect of same-sex couples making a commitment straight couples have avoided like SARS. In that case the vote probably reflects one's morality just fine.

 

No political tactician am I, but I think Democrats made a fundamental mistake when the Christian right rose as a political force: They watched it happen, ceded God to the GOP without so much as a beg your pardon. Democrats, fearful of unsettling the secular West and Northeast, only shrugged as the Almighty was packed up and shipped South, where He is to this day routinely trotted out to endorse various would-be governors, senators and school board members.

 

Small wonder faith has come to seem inextricable from voting the straight Republican ticket. And if you are, as I am, a Christian who remembers what Jesus told Simon Peter, it is galling to see Him reduced to a GOP shill, wrapped in a flag and used to advance a conservative agenda. Which stands the Bible on its head.

 

After all, the book says Jesus consorted with lepers and prostitutes. It says He talked with women -- which was beneath a man of His time and place -- and washed the feet of his followers. And it tells us He said things that seemed to make no logical sense. If someone takes your shirt, let him have your cloak as well. If someone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the left. Love your enemies. This was crazy talk. There was nothing conservative about this man. So I look at the success conservatives on the so-called Christian right have had in claiming Him as their exclusive property and I wonder, where in the heck is the Christian left? Where are the people who preach -- and live -- the biblical values of inclusion, service, humility, sacrifice, and why haven't they coalesced into an alternative political force?

 

Instead of a movement like that, we have an old peanut farmer building houses. You wish there were Christian people shouting from the rooftops that the faith exemplified by the politics of exclusion is not the faith the rest of us celebrate, not the faith that lifts us and makes us whole.

 

But nobody's shouting these things. It occurs to me that maybe they're all too busy building houses for poor people. And that maybe I should be as well. God bless you, Jimmy Carter, wherever you are. (Leonard Pitts - Miami Herald).

 

Now, Rooster, TrailPounder, and others, when you try to slam posters on this forum by labeling them as "liberals" as if it was a dirty word - it doesn't work for me. It may work for Carl Rove and others but I proudly wear that label.

[Twocubdad]

Bless you, brother. That's the best post I've read since I joined this forum.

[LovetoCamp]

acco40, it cuts both ways brother. The President wasn't allowed a second to be a uniter, not a divider, because he was being villified by The loyal opposition from the moment the Supreme Court decided that the Florida Democrats could not keep counting ballots until your guy won. Caring, You folks don't have a lock on caring. Please, mister. You think billionaire Kerry really gives a crap about the poor inner city Detroit kids any more than Carl Rove does? I guess because I voted for President Bush, I took all the condescending and patronizing jabs and slams directed at him as a little directed at me. The environment. Do you believe that as much time as people like me spend outdoors and on the water, that I want to sail my South Coast through toxic waste? Not hardly. I believe a Republican administration started the Environmental Protection Agency. I don't support gay scout leaders. I may have stood alone here recently in voicing my opinions and then getting smacked around personally, but I don't think I was alone in my opinions. People who have views different from the intolerant, close-minded, sophisticates, don't enjoy getting verbally trashed. Sophisticates, what a word, was used to describe the superior ones from LA, NYC, and Hollywood. Going forward, I'm going to squelch the issues and politics thread (I'll try). I don't want to argue, call names, get mad, throw bombs, insult, or anything else anymore. I apologize for fueding, for taking things too personally, although my Great Grandmother's name was Elizabeth McCoy. So going forward, I'm going to concentrate on delivering the program to the Tigers and my Mutinous Sea Dogs. So, I'd like to begin anew. Can you? Paul? dan? Hunt? acco40? gsmom? NJ? Pack?

[acco40]

Demogogues exist in both parties. Just because Rush Limbaugh is a pompous ass doesn't mean that I have to view all Republicans with disdain - and I don't. Idiocy also doesn't have a monopoly with either party. Phrases like "It was stupid of 59 million people to call to call 59 million people stupid and try to win an election." makes it appear that all who voted for the same candidate think in lock step with one another. They don't. Heck, John McCain may have voted for Bush - but I am sure they don't think the same. Even, Cheney couldn't come to admit that he supports the President's view on homosexuality. He just stated that he supports the President.

 

Rooster's statement: "Today, it is what is, not because democrats have evolved or grown, but because they have digressed from our countrys foundation (Judeo-Christian values) and embraced an amoral attitude." As Ronald Reagan would say, "There he goes again" - lumping all Democrats as amoral. The audacity for anyone to state that Republicans, Democrats, Indendents or any other major party is amoral is beyond my comprehension. We are not politicians, we are Scouters and should share many of the same values. The debate is not should we allow our citizenry to become destitute, should we fight terrorism, should we kill babies, etc. but what are the best policies to carry out what we all believe. Peronally, I am confounded that some who put massive amounts of their personal energy into trying to ban abortion seem to fight any program that tries to reduce unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Each side has the same goal, just different modes of operation. That does not make one side immoral or amoral. Dropping 500 lb bombs on Fallujah may kill "innocent" Iraqis and those who wish the worst for America. Marines engaged in urban fighting will be maimed and killed fighting terrorists. Those are facts. Is it worth it or the right policy? Those are the details that are worthy of debate. Don't belittle those who disagree with your view point. That is what I am upset with, especially from Scouters and possibly Scouts who should know better.

 

Feel free to squash the politics thread. But please, quit labeling those who may disagree with your view point as intolerant. If you don't want to argue, call names, get mad, throw bombs, insult, or anything else anymore - just don't!! No need to squash the threads. I know it is sometimes easier to call others names than to engage in rational thought but it is worth the cost.

[packsaddle]

Hey, I just found this great Mencken quote. What a great sense of humor, gotta love 'im!

"When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental -- men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack, or count himself lost. His one aim is to disarm suspicion, to arouse confidence in his orthodoxy, to avoid challenge. If he is a man of convictions, of enthusiasm, or self-respect, it is cruelly hard

 

The larger the mob, the harder the test. In small areas, before small electorates, a first rate man occasionally fights his way through, carrying even a mob with him by the force of his personality. But when the field is nationwide, and the fight must be waged chiefly at second or third hand, and the force of personality cannot so readily make itself felt, then all the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically the most devious and mediocre -- the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum.

 

The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their hearts desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

 

--H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920

 

 

[LovetoCamp]

Whew, we really dodged a bullet there. The American people elected the guy with the higher IQ.

 

 

 

 

[firstpusk]

"Whew, we really dodged a bullet there. The American people elected the guy with the higher IQ." Trail Pounder

 

Not quite, the guy would have to be willing to use the IQ. Thinking of any kind is not our President's long or short suit for that matter. Couple his intellectual laziness with his utter lack of scruples and I think Menken has our President nailed.

[EagleInKY]

And that's exactly the attitude that has turned off about 1/2 of Americans. The past week, folks in Hollywood and the media have referred to "us" as:

 

- Walmart Voters (I guess there's something wrong with shopping at Walmart).

- United States of Jesus (I'm pretty sure they meant this as a slam).

- Dumb

- Idiots

 

And that's just a few I remember.

[packsaddle]

EagleInKY, If your point is that stereotypes are not a good way to engage in constructive dialogue, I agree. I may have heard a couple of those terms thrown around, I don't pay them any more attention than the term, 'soccer mom'. Why should you? You should shrug that stuff off. What do you really have to whine about anyway? Your guys beat their guys, right? Your guys are in complete control and theirs are out of the game, right? The victim stance doesn't work if you're not a victim.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[scoutingagain]

I'm hesitant to resurect this thread but here goes. I read through it and on the way home thought of what does tolerance mean.

 

From Dictionary.com

 

8 entries found for tolerance.

tolerance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tlr-ns)

n.

The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.

 

Leeway for variation from a standard.

The permissible deviation from a specified value of a structural dimension, often expressed as a percent.

The capacity to endure hardship or pain.

Medicine.

Physiological resistance to a poison.

The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.

 

Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.

Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.

The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.

 

 

Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

Copyright 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

 

 

tolerance (tlr-ns)

n.

 

Decreased responsiveness to a stimulus, especially over a period of continued exposure.

The capacity to absorb a drug continuously or in large doses without adverse effect; diminution in the response to a drug after prolonged use.

Physiological resistance to a poison.

Acceptance of a tissue graft or transplant without immunological rejection.

Unresponsiveness to an antigen that normally produces an immunological reaction.

The ability of an organism to resist or survive infection by a parasitic or pathogenic organism.

 

tolerant adj.

 

 

Source: The American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary

Copyright 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

 

 

Main Entry: tolerance

Pronunciation: 'tl(-&)-r&n(t)s

Function: noun

: the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult with repeated use or exposure

[Backpacker]

Interesting thread and a topic I have thought long and hard about. Whether we like it or we don't Bush has been elected for four more years. So we can either waste this time calling each other names and blaming all kinds of things for the outcome or we can unite together as Americans and try to see some positive legislation come out of Congress, for a change, that will help make America an even better place than it is today. A four year stalemate in our governmental process will just bring us down as a nation.

[gsmom]

I think toleration and respect for one anothers point of view is definitely called for and long overdue.

 

However, I am not willing to cede any grounds on the issues confronting our country and what the Bush administration plans to do. A bare majority of 51 percent is not a mandate. I believe now just as I did before the election that Bush is seriously leading our country in the wrong direction in foreign policy as well as in a number of domestic issues, in particular Social Security and the budget deficit. With respect to foreign policy, he has just nominated the author of memos advocating rejection of the Geneva Convention and allowing torture of certain prisoners to be Attorney General of the United States. I think Alberto Gonzales should be rejected for this position on these grounds. I'm sure many of you will disagree. I think we can respect each other's points of view without giving up our positions or our values.

[boleta]

I strongly supported Kerry because I strongly felt that Bush is taking the country down the wrong path. 60% of the American public say we are going in the wrong direction.

 

If Kerry had won Ohio, he would have faced a Republican Senate and House. He would have had 272 Electoral Votes to Bush's 266 and 3 million fewer votes than Bush. Our country would be far worse off with the unclear support Kerry would have had in spite of winning the election according to our laws and Constitution.

 

Kerry ran a nearly incompetent campaign. When attacked in modern politics you must respond and attack back. He did not. He chose a trial lawyer for Vice-President who lost the support of the entire medical community that I belong to. There were numerous issues that Kerry could have attacked Bush with but he did not. Kerry ONLY gave a clear response to the issues in the first debate. Even at the end of the election, I found it painful to listen to interviews with him where he could not give a concise answer to the questions asked. He did not deserve to win, even though he might have had a better plan. And I was one of his SUPPORTERS!!!

 

The election is over and we now have 4 years to see what Bush will do.

 

The President now has the opportunity to represent all of us, including the 55 million voters who do not support him. I doubt that he will do this as it is not the style of the neo-cons who tell him what to do and say.

 

And if any of you think that the morals issues of this campaing will affect you on a daily basis, you are wrong. That may be what won this election for Bush, but that is not what we will be discussing 4 years from now.

[acco40]

Boleta, you've got one thing right. In order to have lost to Bush, one would have had to run a very very disorganized campaign and Kerry nailed that one. My take - 20% voted for Bush, 31% voted against "the Democrats", 40% voted against Bush and about 9% voted for Kerry.