Someone please explain to me the difference between minimizing a person's role in running the government and ridiculing helping poor people.

I am editing this to add that it's rhetorical since it's apples and oranges to me. Making fun of helping the poor people in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods is offensive. Someone saying that the mayor of San Francisco, for instance, doesn't have a difficult job would be a lie but doesn't compare to dismissing poor people.

There are some disagreements about the end of slavery and why it was really ended but the fact of the matter is there should not have been slavery in the first place. Great it was ended by the Republican Party over a century ago. Have I missed something magnificent that they've done this century in terms of promoting diversity.....oops I guess that must be Colin Powell and Condolezza Rice? Were they keynotes at the GOP convention or was it just that clip of Rosa Parks shamelessly exploited?

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Wales2004

Casey, I would like to clarify something. And I'm sorry if I offended you. You arguments for your party are compelling and you state them very eloquently. What I meant was that my impression of the Republican party's platform. I'm sure there are Republicans that are not biased against the groups I listed.

IMO, the beginnings of that started under Nixon when he went to China. Every administration after that one did some work to end the Cold War. Was Reagan part of that? Yes. Should he get all the credit? Absolutely not.

We are at complete opposite ends of the spectrum when it comes to this issue. I don't believe the Republicans want to lessen the role of government in our lives and then, in the next breath, say that lesbians and gays cannot be married. Isn't that further government intrusiveness? Or how Edwin Mease in the 1980s had a gay couple arrested for having sex in their own home!

If they want to spend less money, fine. Spend less. But don't spend less here and then spend billions overseas in a war that is not justified. Imagine if just half of the money spent in Iraq was spent here on our citizens. Don't you think that alot of our problems would have been solved by now?

I just don't understand taking money from people who desperately need it just to put it in the hands of military contractors is the way to go. I just don't.

IA with the moral standards of the party being a bit intrusive. McCain himself is not an advocate of pushing the republican social agenda, which is a reason for his popularity IMO.

Yeah, we are on oppisite sides....I like the way Mike Huckabee put it last night..he was telling the story of how he grew up very poor....he said he did not become a republican because he was rich. He said he became a republican because he did not believe in waiting around until the government bailed him out...

Someone please explain to me the difference between minimizing a person's role in running the government and ridiculing helping poor people.

Is that what a community organizer does? Sorry I didn't know. That is part of the reason I like to discuss here. I learn a good bit!

I guess republicans were just confused as to what Obama did as a community organizer. It is kind of a generic title.

It sounds more like a president of a neighborhood association or a contractor building a new subdivision to me..

IA with the moral standards of the party being a bit intrusive. McCain himself is not an advocate of pushing the republican social agenda, which is a reason for his popularity IMO.

Yeah, we are on oppisite sides....I like the way Mike Huckabee put it last night..he was telling the story of how he grew up very poor....he said he did not become a republican because he was rich. He said he became a republican because he did not believe in waiting around until the government bailed him out...

One other thing I will say about you, Casey. It can't be easy being in the minority on this thread (from what I've seen of the responses, anyway). It's admirable that you're able to keep on truckin' after gettin it from all sides!

We'll just agree to disagree on the fiscal points. You'll see me running off at the mouth more on those ones, and I look forward to your rebuttals.

It can't be easy being in the minority on this thread (from what I've seen of the responses, anyway).

Sometimes not..

I enjoy it though. The internet has opened me up to a new world. I live in a red state, in a red county, and in a red city. I would never be able to hear the other side of the argument without you guys!

As far as I'm concerned, McCain doesn't compare with GHWB or Reagan.

She left her 9,000 residents with a $20 million dollar debt.

Thank you...this is the kind of qualitative experience I mean. People can dress up their resumes but the performance is what matters most.

What would be examples of Obama's qualitative experience?

How do you guys feel about the impact of the Bradley Effect (inflated numbers for non-white candidates)?

I am in no way trying to knock Obama's race, but I've been reading many legitimate studies that have been done. These studies show that many white voters fudge the fact that they will vote for a non-white candidate when polled. They say that minority candidates have inflated numbers due to this. It has never been a factor in an election of this magnitude. Will that make a larger or smaller difference? Do any of you feel that this will have a large impact in 2008?

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

Big deal. I'm discussing work experience, not job performance evaluations. But if you want to compare achievements... Let me do more research and I'll see what I come up with.

What? That's like saying that Bush should be President again because he's had the most experience at being it. And he has, other than Bill Clinton. Of course performance evaluations should be included.

Love Hilary Rosen's comment...it shouldn't take having a special needs child to worry about other peoples' special needs children.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by bandbfan

It sounds more like a president of a neighborhood association

Hmm, sounds like president of the PTA

Yeah, we are on oppisite sides....I like the way Mike Huckabee put it last night..he was telling the story of how he grew up very poor....he said he did not become a republican because he was rich. He said he became a republican because he did not believe in waiting around until the government bailed him out...

Please. He's a republican because of his social agenda which he doesn't have a problem pushing on others. Although I have no doubt that Huckabee is more of a "regular guy" than many in the republican party, he is by no means the kind of "regular guy" that makes up a large perecentage of the United States. And I say that because most people don't want state and religion mixed. His whole argument against an educational lottery is one of the things that got me. It wasn't, well the funds won't go to education, blah blah blah. The argument was based on his religious background.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by bandbfan

Hmm, sounds like president of the PTA

If a person doesn't know what a community organizer or activist does then why put it down? How do you debate people by diminishing something about which you know nothing? I find this truly amazing and I am just going to call myself a victim of my own ignorance.

Please. He's a republican because of his social agenda which he doesn't have a problem pushing on others. Although I have no doubt that Huckabee is more of a "regular guy" than many in the republican party, he is by no means the kind of "regular guy" that makes up a large perecentage of the United States. And I say that because most people don't want state and religion mixed. His whole argument against an educational lottery is one of the things that got me. It wasn't, well the funds won't go to education, blah blah blah. The argument was based on his religious background.

The Republicans in California's state government wouldn't make any such claims since they want to borrow $2 million from the lottery to end the budget crisis. Anyone that votes for it be it Republican or Democrat should not then tout children as our future since they don't hesitate to slash the schools' budgets and dip into their funds. Huckabee probably wouldn't do well here.

If a person doesn't know what a community organizer or activist does then why put it down? How do you debate people by diminishing something about which you know nothing? I find this truly amazing and I am just going to call myself a victim of my own ignorance.

They put it down because many do not know what the role of a community organizer is. I'm still unsure.

Community activist is an understandable role. But if I'm not mistaken that is not how Obama described his involvement.

Please. He's a republican because of his social agenda which he doesn't have a problem pushing on others. Although I have no doubt that Huckabee is more of a "regular guy" than many in the republican party, he is by no means the kind of "regular guy" that makes up a large perecentage of the United States. And I say that because most people don't want state and religion mixed. His whole argument against an educational lottery is one of the things that got me. It wasn't, well the funds won't go to education, blah blah blah. The argument was based on his religious background.

I'll leave it to Huckabee to describe why he became a republican. Personally, I dont see a problem in him letting religion be a base for his decision making, but to each their own.

I guess the majority of people in Arkansas didn't see a problem in it either seeing as the reelected him.

Edited September 4, 200817 yr by Casey008

Hmm, sounds like president of the PTA

It does in relation to the scale, but I bet more people could define the role of leading the PTA rather than organizing a community.