Bush Addresses Urban League

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
For me, it will be moral issues that will be my deciding factor, as will it may be for others that are in the same predicament. If I could just combine what I liked in each candidate (a conservative with a good head for money and the underserved, then there would be no problem. )

When you find that combo let me know because I would not only vote for him/her I would campaign!! LOL

You said that moral issues whould be your deciding factor. How do you decide which moral issues? I don't believe in gay marriages or abortion, but I do believe righting societal wrongs is a moral issue as well. In addition, even though I get my bread and butter from Corporate America and would, with my husband's salary, be considered in the income bracket that benefits from all of the tax cuts, I am still concerned about what it does to the deficit and people in lower income brackets.

If we didn't learn anything else from Reagan's presidency we should have learned that the trickle down economics usually doesn't trickle down.

[gogoaphi]

Sorry to crash your thread. I happened onto it and found it interesting.

Anyway, I thought I would offer up a link to this guy. He is one of the most clear-thinking, well-spoken economists and conservative thinkers that I've ever known. I had the pleasure of meeting him and visiting with him at length about 3 years ago. His thoughts are provocative and compelling. I hope you enjoy!

http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/wew/

Let me know what you think!!!!

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Iconoclastic

You have been bamboozled.

hoodwinked and led astray LOL (i couldn't resist!)

[Exquisite5]

I too think we've been bamboozled, but as a Texan I KNOW Bush is not the answer to our bamboozled state.

McCain I could vote for, and much more happily vote for over Kerry, but McCain is not an option right now.

At present, Bush and Kerry are the two real options. I don't too much like Kerry, but I won't waste my vote that is "washed in blood" (for once I agree with Al Sharpton) by voting for Nader.

I am generally a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I think abortion is murder, but upon taking constitional law I KNOW its a constitutionally protected right (so many people in GC forums espouse opinions on issues of which they have no true understanding). I think the death penalty on its face is a good idea even though I know that right now its not applied fairly. The thought of gay marriage makes me cringe as a Christian, but I don't believe in this country the separation of church and state allows legislating morality. Just to make me happy I'd rather the government recognize civil unions, because even though I believe homosexuality is sinful (as is all fornincation), its not compassionately conservative to me for a man who has lived and shared his life with another man for 50 years to simply lose his partner's social security and pension when he dies.

I would love compassionate conservatism if it existed. However, right now I see nothing compassionate about Bush's platform.

I believe in an independent group of the descendents of Africa who live in America. I know that the more I pay in taxes the less I have to give to the needy. However, I also know that while I would simply give more to take care of my community if taxes were lowered, there are many who financially wouldn't give at all. Because of this, I simply grit my teeth when I look at my summer law internship paycheck and see all social security money being taken away that I will never see.

When I graduate from law school I on my own will be well into the tax bracket that is most suited to Republicans, but because I am generous (what I believe to be the most Christly trait) I will vote democratic. I personally don't need $125,000 per year, but there are people who really need $12,500 per year. Without taxes, I only and the other true compassionate conservatives and many of the generous liberals would be the ones helping them.

This is one of my main problems with Bush. To me he is the rich man that can't get to heaven. He says he is a Christian, but why is he so stingy? Christ calls us to give up everything and follow him, to love our neighbor as ourselves. I don't see that love in Bush's platform. Now, I don't see it in Kerry's, but its definitely more generous to the most needy.

Show me a candidate who uses my resources wisely, leaves me with more money with which to build my community, treats people fairly, does not appoint racist judges (just look at Pickerings bio!), supports Charter schools and vouchers, maintains the federal student loan system so that ALL children really can one day attain economic and educational equality, understand that the legacy of slavery is not a fallacy, has seen war time so he personally knows what he's commiting the armed forces to when he signs them up to fight, will not cut spending on the defense and will ensure that military families live ABOVE THE POVERTY LINE, helps keep health care cost down for the ELDERLY and CHILDREN and I'll show you Exquisit5 running to the polls.

Until then, I'll sadly saunter to the polls to check off "less of 2 evils" Kerry and pray my vote somehow amidst all the corruption and greed still gets counted.

The problems of the American descendants of Africa are complex and depending on others definitely won't solve them, that doesn't mean I won't take all the help from the government I can get. We need to own our own businesses- we need to create Greenwood, OK (before the riot). If you don't know- you should. We need to economically empower ourselves and working for them won't get us there. The government won't save us, but I'm not going to vote for the party trying to stop us from saving ourselves.

[Eclipse]

Exquisite%, I agree with about 99.5% of what you had to say! Good post.

I do have a question about this statement though

Originally posted by Exquisite5
I think abortion is murder, but upon taking constitional law I KNOW its a constitutionally protected right (so many people in GC forums espouse opinions on issues of which they have no true understanding).

Can you explain to me your views on how abortion is/should be a constitutionally protected right? Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the law to kill yourself (euthenasia sp?)? How are the 2 different? I'm no legal scholar, so speak to me as if I were in the 3rd.....ok 6th....grade. Thanks!

[Honeykiss1974]

Since when did it become a requirement to ONLY express opinions within a legally supported context?

I think we all are aware of the fact that simply because something is allowed/supported according a particular law, done not automatically make it right (or vice versa). I thought we all knew this, but maybe I'm wrong.

ETA: Not saying that its not important, but usually its an idea that inspires legislation, and not the other way around.

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Eclipse
Exquisite%, I agree with about 99.5% of what you had to say! Good post.

I do have a question about this statement though



Can you explain to me your views on how abortion is/should be a constitutionally protected right? Please correct me if I am wrong, but isn't it against the law to kill yourself (euthenasia sp?)? How are the 2 different? I'm no legal scholar, so speak to me as if I were in the 3rd.....ok 6th....grade. Thanks!

I personally kinda think abortion is killing, I think. Can you tell I am actuallly undecided on that? Only because I am not sure I believe you can kill something that can't live on its on. To me that is different from Euthanasia because those people are alive and will continue to live until they die. This is why Euthanasia is illegal, but removing someone from life support is not, maybe its not exactly why, but that is my understanding of it.

So with that said, legally speaking abortion has been determined by the High Court to be a "family issue." The court has historically deemed "family issues" to be protected by the Bill of Right's inherent right to privacy. I understand the analysis to kind of be the gov't can't make you have kids or not have kids (like China) so since the baby can't live on its own its not really killing and therefore gov't can't place undue burden on access to abortion. The gov't is not req'd to support abortion, only to not make it unduly hard to get one. The living/not living debate is key to the abortion issue which is why many states place trimester limitations on abortion, especially as more and more babies are saved upon being bore prematurely.

Earlier I shoudn't have said that I think abortion is murder. I think for me personally I am on the fence as to what it is because a 3 wk old baby clearly can't survive on its own outside of the womb and hence at that point to me, aborting a baby is almost akin to taking someone off of life support. But, as I said almost I'm not completely sure- which is why in my life I won't have an abortion because I don't know if I think its killing or not.

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974
Since when did it become a requirement to ONLY express opinions within a legally supported context?

I think we all are aware of the fact that simply because something is allowed/supported according a particular law, done not automatically make it right (or vice versa). I thought we all knew this, but maybe I'm wrong.

ETA: Not saying that its not important, but usually its an idea that inspires legislation, and not the other way around.

I think you're referring to my post, and if so I was not clear. I didn't mean that there was a legal requirement. My comment was:

so many people in GC forums espouse opinions on issues of which they have no true understanding.

I stand by this and I am referring to opinions espoused of ALL context, not just legal. On these boards alot of people talk in soundbites and when you ask them to back it up they ignore you or never again post in the forum. I have no problem with diverging view points, but please FORMULATE YOUR OWN OPINION and know what you're talking about.

For me this applies to ALL topics, including the law. IF you are going to speak on the law, know the law you're talking about. IF you don't know what it says, how do you know its right, or wrong?

[Eclipse]

Originally posted by Exquisite5

So with that said, legally speaking abortion has been determined by the High Court to be a "family issue." The court has historically deemed "family issues" to be protected by the Bill of Right's inherent right to privacy.

I hear what you are saying, but the government infringes on the "right to privacy" all of the time. I can't smoke weed in the privacy of my own home, I lcan't have sex with a minor, I can't look at pictures of naked 8 year olds on the internet, I can't decide that I no longer want to take care of my child, I can't be married to 2 men at the same time and a whole bunch of other stuff. These are all things that, in my opinion, could be seen as "family issues", but the government has seen fit, for the good of society, to restrict these things. Why are these things taboo and not abortion. I can see the whole "When is the baby alive" issue, but the fact remainds that in the US it is stil legal to kill/abort the child until it is born. Studies have shown that unborn children feel and as you said, are vaiable earlier and earlier. Back in the day if a baby was born after 6 months it would surely die, now, it stands a chance. Medical advances are such that it may even be less than that one day.

To get back on topic, support of abortion is the biggest problem I have with the Democratic party.

[Love_Spell_6]

Originally posted by Eclipse
I hear what you are saying, but the government infringes on the "right to privacy" all of the time. I can't smoke weed in the privacy of my own home, I lcan't have sex with a minor, I can't look at pictures of naked 8 year olds on the internet, I can't decide that I no longer want to take care of my child, I can't be married to 2 men at the same time and a whole bunch of other stuff. These are all things that, in my opinion, could be seen as "family issues", but the government has seen fit, for the good of society, to restrict these things. Why are these things taboo and not abortion. I can see the whole "When is the baby alive" issue, but the fact remainds that in the US it is stil legal to kill/abort the child until it is born. Studies have shown that unborn children feel and as you said, are vaiable earlier and earlier. Back in the day if a baby was born after 6 months it would surely die, now, it stands a chance. Medical advances are such that it may even be less than that one day.

To get back on topic, support of abortion is the biggest problem I have with the Democratic party.

You bring up some very good points...and I think many Democrats have a problem with the issue of abortion..but I guess it gets weighed against other factors when you're determining who to vote for....like a balancing act. But for some...killing babies is an issue that tips the scales.

[Exquisite5]

Originally posted by Eclipse
I hear what you are saying, but the government infringes on the "right to privacy" all of the time. I can't smoke weed in the privacy of my own home, I lcan't have sex with a minor, I can't look at pictures of naked 8 year olds on the internet, I can't decide that I no longer want to take care of my child, I can't be married to 2 men at the same time and a whole bunch of other stuff. These are all things that, in my opinion, could be seen as "family issues", but the government has seen fit, for the good of society, to restrict these things. Why are these things taboo and not abortion. I can see the whole "When is the baby alive" issue, but the fact remainds that in the US it is stil legal to kill/abort the child until it is born. Studies have shown that unborn children feel and as you said, are vaiable earlier and earlier. Back in the day if a baby was born after 6 months it would surely die, now, it stands a chance. Medical advances are such that it may even be less than that one day.

To get back on topic, support of abortion is the biggest problem I have with the Democratic party.

I undertand what are you are saying about other instances of governmental interference that can be seen as privacy violations. I can't really say why the Supreme Court has chosen to protect some things under privacy and not others. It actually quite likely comes down to two things:
1)those issues have never been challenged before the judiciary (whose job it is to interpret the laws); or
2) if it was challenged perhaps a very conservative court was sitting at the time.

I think you raise valid points- I for one don't have the answer to your questions, but I think they show true insight and a depth of thought behind them.

However, please know that there is a difference between legal and constitutional. In many (if not most) places it is impossible for all practical matters to receive a late term abortion. And there are even laws limiting it, take for instance the partial birth abortion ban. At a certain point in time partial birth abortion is the only abortion option available. I don't have a problem with the law I just wanted to point out that abortion up until birth is not necessarily "legal" or a U.S. reality. In fact, it was Roe v. Wade the leading abortion rights case that actually introduced the trimester limitation approach.

But again I too will get back in track and say that the Republican view on abortion is actually one of my problems with that party. That and the lack of generosity yet claiming Christian values issue...but I digress...

[Little32]

This post done got interesting since the last time I checked. Exquisite, I think you have posted some good and insightful things here. I agree with a lot of what you are saying. Don't have must to add, I think that you have articulated things quite beautifully.

[mccoyred]

Originally posted by Honeykiss1974


I personally am not a fan of Kerry for my reasons and on the flip side, I am not a big fan of Bush for other reasons, but what is the REAL alternative? For me, it will be moral issues that will be my deciding factor, as will it may be for others that are in the same predicament. If I could just combine what I liked in each candidate (a conservative with a good head for money and the underserved, then there would be no problem. )

Co-sign

As a registered INDEPENDENT since my 18th birthday, I often find myself choosing the lesser of two evils. MOST of the time, the choice is Democrat but there are some good ideas on the other side of the aisle and I have voted for Republican candidates in he past. (NOT Daddy or Baby Bush, though )

I CHOSE not to affiliate with either party so that I can avoid the partisan debates that plague forums such as this one in every election year. Folks should not blindly follow the party line without demanding that the party work for them! The Dems take us (Black and other minority groups) for granted and the 'Pubs want to use us as tokens.

During our National Convention last week, one of our business sessions included designated sorors presenting the platform of 3 parties -- Democrat, Republican, Green Party -- for our personal information in keeping with our Political Awareness and Involvement programmatic thrust. We truly benefitted from the presentation of these platforms in a non-partisan, non-biased manner. I love my DST!!!

[ladygreek]

Ditto on voting based on candidate and not party.

I thought having the three parties represented was an excellent idea. And on top of that, Secretary of Education Rod Paige was the Social Action Luncheon speaker. Of course he spoke and left immediately- LOL.

[Shortfuse]

Originally posted by Love_Spell_6
Iconoclastic you bring up some very good points...and so did President Bush in his address to the Urban League...its funny how since he made some very good points..no one really wants to respond or talk about it. Our community is famous for making excuses for our shortcomings and blaming everybody else except ourselves. Its but so much a government policy can do i.e. NO Child left behind..when our families are not taking care of business at home. You want to know why OUR children are being left behind???? (Here comes my Soap Box)

*Because 70% of all black children are born out of wedlock
*Because 62% of black families with children are headed by a single parent
*Because 85% of black children do not live in a home with their fathers
*Because Only 15%-20% of black children born today will grow up with two parents until age 16.
* Because Over 80% of long term child poverty occurs in broken or never married homes.
*Because Black men in America engage in polygamous relationships 3 and 1/2 times that of White or Hispanic.
* Because "The Black Family has crumbled more in the last 30 years than it did the entire 14 decades since slavery" - Dr. Julian Hare, Dir. - San Francisco Black Think Tank.

****Stats taken from: http://www.saveus.org/

I've said this before, Its not about party, ...I just think it's sickening that the black community has so much allegiance to a party that in my opinion does more to add to the problems than solve them.

So what has the Republican party done for blacks? What have the conservatives done to EASE our problems? You're right to say the Democrats have taken us for granted. But voting Republican over democrat is like leaving the plantations for the LYNCH party next door. It pains me to hear people talk about voting for a party THAT HAS DONE NOTHIGN FOR THEM and in some cases voted to HURT them. Bush made some good points (that's debatable) but until he puts those points into ACTION, it's more lip service then anything. To continue, how come these "points" didn't jump out during his first 4 years of office.

This is why we need a third or maybe 4th party in this country to let the conservatives know that they just can't depend on the racist south and the Democrats need to know the BLACK VOte isnt' theirs for granted.