Friday, October 24, 2008
Don't Forget To Vote!
"My fellow liberal elitists are more dependent on other people. I am, that's for sure. I need other people to fix my car, raise my vegetables, build bookshelves, launder my shirts and clean my house, and since I need those people, I should take some passing interest in the schools their children attend and the sort of medical care available. I don't believe in indentured servitude, and so I want to live in a society in which the women who launder and fold my shirts get a fair deal. I don't want my breakfast sausage to come from a packing plant like the one in Iowa that employed undocumented Mexicans and treated them like medieval serfs. So I'm a Democrat. It's the party that has a better record of looking after the interests of people who earn less than a hundred grand a year." -- Garrison Keillor
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
I love that photo and the sign says exactly my first thoughts when I read about Palin when she was first chosen by McCain. Thanks Ann for posting it.
Oh. And I like the Garrison Keillor quote too.
It's all so mind-boggling these days but the following is what I'm trying to consider in an American election, a quote which you've probably already encountered in your travels...
"You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.
You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.
You cannot establish security on borrowed money.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.
You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves."
- Rev. William J. H. Boetcker (1916)
Pretty sensible stuff to consider,eh?
Have a fun Austin day!
I am really glad I stumbled on this blog, because I have a question I really need answered. Many Obama fans claim that Sarah Palin is not qualified to be President. OK - perhaps, she is young and does not have the best reume I have ever seen. So the question is, how is Senator Obama more qualified to be President than Sarah Palin? Please keep her stance on the issues out of the answer because that is irrelavent to the question. Again, I am not looking to cause trouble, but am searching for an answer. BYW - I did not vote for W in 2000 or 2004, I am just looking for an answer.
Thanks
T-Bone, please refer to this post, also posted by our lovely rev. ann:
http://anncpittman.blogspot.com/2008/09/now-i-get-it.html
And maybe Ann can provide you with the sources she used for that post.
Thanks Michelle - I appreciate the response. A couple of things don't really add up (ie 12 years as a Con-law professor, before 12 years in government. This would mean he bacame a professor at age 23) but I get the point. Also, I find it difficult to believe he sponsored 131 bills in the Senate in only 4 years, but that is a relatively minor point as well.
The bottom line for me is, what little I know about Senator Obama, I do not like. I guess it is third party for me yet again!
Thanks again.
Can you answer true to any of these?
I think the government will do a better job of spending my money than I could.
When we pull out of Afghanistan and Iraq, I know the Islamic terrorists will stop trying to kill us.
I believe people who can’t tell us if it will rain in two or three days can now tell us the polar ice caps will disappear in a century if we don’t comply with Orwellian government economic oversight.
English has no place being the official language in America.
I’d rather pay $4 for a gallon of gas than allow drilling for oil off the coasts of America or in that vast Alaskan wasteland, ANWR.
‘Big Oil’s’ five-percent profit on a gallon of gas is obscene, but the government tax of 18 to 35 percent on the same gallon of gas is just fine.
I believe businesses in America should not be allowed to make profit—it should be confiscated by the government so politicians and bureaucrats can redistribute that profit as they see fit.
I believe guns cause crimes and murder, not the sociopaths using them, and, thus, should be confiscated. Besides, when someone threatens my family, I know the government can respond faster with a call to 911 than I can with a gun in my hand.
It’s a right to kill millions of babies while objecting to the death penalty for murderers.
I believe five elitist liberal judges should rewrite the Constitution by diktat to suit Leftist agendas that could never pass proper amendment.
I was very easily able to answer “False” to every one of them.
weird. who are these people and why did they just now find my blog?
Strange happenings on here, Ann. And Garrison Keillor's article you quoted was about my fair city of Abilene. He was here last weekend to record A Prairie Home Companion.
And for the record, I like to think of myself simply as an elitist, not a liberal elitist. My superiority over almost all of humanity has little to do with my perfect political views.
Cody
o lord cody.
thank you for the clarification.
I'm with Cody. My elitism has nothing to do with my political views, and everything to do with my overeducation. :)
T-Bone, I don't believe we've met, but I teach government at UT and try to present an unbiased view of the facts to my students, so maybe this will help. Obama was a part-time con law professor while he was a state senator, so there's some overlap in those 12 years.
131 bills in four years is not at all unusual in the Senate. Members of Congress are constantly introducing resolutions commemorating the triumph of the state high school basketball team and stuff like that. It would be interesting to know how many of the 131 were on substantive issues, but since Obama was clearly aiming for the presidency from the moment he entered the Senate, it's not surprising. He also had a very experienced Senate staff who would have known how to get these things done quickly.
Hi texasinafrica - thanks for the response. Interesting post, those both make a lot of sense.
Ann - Sorry, I don't mean to infiltrate your blog. I will leave you all alone. I know contrasting views are not always welcome.
Chukk - I actually agree with most of what you said, but it is impossible to convince people who are set in their idealology.
The extereme wings of both parties are very dangerous. What we need is common sense leadership, term limits in Congress (these were never meant to be life time positions or full time jobs), and the elimination of the influence of special interests.
Dear TBone,
Contrary views are always welcome. However, i usually prefer they are informed contrary views, so that dialogue or at least a healthy, agree-to-disagree stance may be taken. Some of the comments left on my blog fall under the uninformed category (even bad taste), i'm afraid. This is RARE though because I tend to have very thoughtful readers!
Keep visiting my blog. :)
And good luck choosing your candidate.
P.S. One's stances on issues is never irrelevant for me.
P.P.S. Decide the top three or top ten things that are important to you and research your candidates current thoughts (and their record!) and choose your candidate accordingly. The following issues are VERY important to me, and they lead me to my candidate: Human Rights (in America and abroad), the Environment, War, Separation of Church and State, Health Care, Immigration, Homosexual Rights, Abortion, and all pretty much in that order regarding priority...
Post a Comment