Free Republic

"Welcome to FRee Republic, newby. Those who attack a poster, in a sanctimonious manner, with accusations of knee-jerk conservatism ... without having arrows in their quiver ... should apologize ..."

I don't roll armed! My post wasn't intended as an attack, but I do apologize for the evident sarcasm in the beginning, it's an old, old habit of mine. I'm even sarcastic to myself if that makes any sense.

I DO think it important that WE as conservatives (it was an inclusive statement, that I myself, and probably everybody here are guilty of not living up to at times) approach our political belief structure with objectivism, thoughtfulness, and a whopping dose of philosophical charity, thereby always gaining the moral victory, if not the political victory.

I am a bit puzzled though, that this perceived attack of mine makes you desirous of an apology, whereas a direct reference to me as sanctimonious and a repition of the epithet "newby" are OK (I'm not saying they're not, I think you have the right to call me anything you want but they are more personally directed at me than any of my comments were).

I'm so off topic it's embarrassing, but to expound on the poverty issue, I wish you to know that I have nobody to blame for my poverty but myself. I screwed around in College, had to quit before I graduated, and I have been rather irresponsible in terms of my approach to employment since then. I have been dealt some hard knocks by life, but I don't expect or receive any hand-outs from the government. I feel the Johnson administration made a shambles out of our social structure, and the programs put in place have done nothing to help anybody save for those willing to become leeches draining money from those who have worked hard for it (if one even considers being enabled to live a life of irresponsibility to be a "help"). I think it's despicable that there are people out there who willingly pop out more babies so they can get a bigger check.
I feel though that sometimes conservative reactions to issues of poverty have come to be colored with a certain amount of resentment, as though we shouldn't help them at all (before you get upset, I don't mean you... I have no idea what you think about the poor), and not that we shouldn't be "helping" them in the destructive and wasteful way that we have been since the 60s. In times past people of high moral standing were motivated by ethics and compassion to reach out to those in need around them and we've screwed society up so much that this is much harder than it used to be. Even if one donates to a charity, there's little assurance that they don't have some hidden agenda that they're using some of the money for.

In closing, please only take my words personally if you want to feel personally attacked. I'm usually speaking in a broader sense than I think you perceived me to be.

Take care.

"Sorry, Dope ... the facts are not on your side here. The bodies at the morgue in St. Gabriel were disproportionately white [i.e. too many whites for their percentage of the population]..."

It seems to me that the "disporportionate" affectation referred to by the study is discussing POST-Katrina affects, not during-Katrina mortality. Obviously it's just up to chance where devastation hits and if it hits harder where rich people, or white people live, more of them die. If a comet were to strike our planet in the middle of Africa, it is likely that more Africans would die than Asians, but this would be the stupidest study ever if mortality rate were it's sole point. It's what happens AFTER to the survivors where variability that's not just up to chance and nature comes in to play, and clearly, financial well-being is of great assistance in restoring lost or damaged property, addressing bodily injuries, etc...

If a flood were to hit my home town of Walla Walla, it wouldn't really matter if the neighborhood where I lived only had water come up waist deep, and the neighborhood where some millionare lived had his house swept away. Assuming we both survived, I would be devastated financially, with no means to replace my belongings, whereas my fellow, well-to-do Walla Wallan, could simply replace his home, or move somewhere else. Does this make any sense?

Btw, I'm white and poor and I really don't care who died more black or white people... I think its tragic when something like this happens to my fellow Americans. Furthermore I think its immature and insensitive that people on both sides of the issue, and especially liberals, chose to focus on race so much in the wake of this tragedy.

"Was God's will thwarted when the ventilator was removed and she didn't die on her own?"

I don't know, I would never claim to know such a thing in such a specific instance.

"...many of us agree with the founder's Statement who wrote we are "Pro-God and Pro-Life" as 2 of the first on a list of many identifiers."

Yes, I'm aware of this, hence my question as to whether there were any Christians who believed that we go too far; if anybody thought maybe we sometimes interfere with the natural course of things out of human pride. I was under the impression however, that the term "Pro-Life" is typically a reference to being opposed to abortion. If one were to truly be Pro-Life in the sense you seem to be implying, that of never killing a human (if one were to construe the discontinuation of life support to be a form of killing, which of course as I have mentioned seems to come down to a matter of belief) then of necessity, one would have to be opposed to wars, the death penalty etc... Or do you mean you're Pro-Life if the individual is under the age of 17?

"Many of us pray for this girl's life."

Moreover, shouldn't we pray for improvement and recovery as well?

"If it is God's will that she dies, who would argue, so long as it is God's will and not the state's determination."

But you said yourself she was removed from a ventilator and started breathing on her own... if it is not a surety that someone will die when a ventilator is removed, it is not a "determination" that the individual SHOULD die but rather that their life, if it is to continue, should be left up to nature/God/whatever. How does one determine if one is in line with God's will, or if one struggles against it?

"She is 11, a child, and deserves protecting."

I do not disagree. In the beginning, I was merely indulging in some philosophical speculation and posing an ontological question. I realize now that such an action must have been out of place.

"Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.
Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Have the gates of death been opened unto thee? or hast thou seen the doors of the shadow of death?" --God, Job 38:4-6,17

"Couldn't administering life-saving antibiotics, when medics see fit, be also considered a thwarting of God's will? And isn't that close to what Christian Scientists believe?"

Well, yes, I suppose it could. It's obviously all a matter of perspective, which was kind of my point. I believe you are correct, Christian Scientists don't believe in many of the approaches modern medicine takes to keeping people alive, I believe they're even against giving or receiving blood (I recall a case a while back where a court order had to be obtained because parent's were refusing to get a blood transfusion necessary for their daughter's survival). However, I tend to consider Christian Science more of a cult, than a traditional form of Christianity. So I'm still curious if there are any mainstream Protestants, or Catholics here who are of the opinion that modern medicine can go to far in the pursuit of keeping the human body alive?

"This demonstrably false statement discredits the entire study ... but what else would one expect from a Brown University professor!?"

Usually when one uses the word "demonstrably false" in an argument it is followed by a demonstration of how this is the case (same root word, see?) You have not provided this, nor do I think you can. It's almost a no-brainer that poor people are hit harder by disasters of any kind, financial, natural, sociological, you name it. I have first-hand experience with this being very poor myself, and so I think a study on this subject is stupid, and a big waste of time.

Regardless, I think it important that we not resort to knee-jerk conservatism on issues such as this; it really makes us no better than many on the left.

"Officials say she is now able to move her eyes in the direction where a sound is being made."

Hurray, now she can look at where noise is coming from for the rest of her life.

I see there are plenty of you who think that God's will is thwarted when a person is removed from artificial means of sustenance; aren't there any Christians out there who think that maybe it's actually thwarting God's will to keep people alive indefinately by keeping them hooked to a machine? The latter seems a bit more logical than the former.

That said, I sure as hell hope nobody hooks me up to something so I can look back and forth in the same room until I croak. I'd rather die a slow and painful death... wait, that WOULD be dying a slow and painful death.

Agreed, I'll be really puzzled if we don't just let them take this token stand. It's not like it's a prize bit of this planet either!

"My wife and I bought a Hyundai Santa Fe last spring and I admit I was impressed with the fit and finish and especially that the manufacturer was willing to back it with a 100,000 mile warranty."

This is such a key issue, I was wondering if somebody was going to mention Hyundai in this thread. It's not just quality in a car that matters, it's quality to cost ratio, which a good warranty can be a big part of. Take Hyundai's low, low prices into account and there's a reason they are selling more cars in America than ever before.

I don't think it's really matters so much if Detroit's autos are as good as imports at this point, people take awhile to get over what happened in the past. My sister, for example, owned a 1984 Chevy Cavalier, a very ugly, simple, little car, but it lasted and lasted, and in fact, is still in operation under new ownership. Not too long ago she bought a mid 90s Cavalier, much nicer on the inside, looks better, however, with way less mileage it's been quite problematic compared to the old one car.

There are so many other factors too, gas mileage, value-over-time, styling. I really think us conservatives have a tendency to blame the media for everything, but I've never picked up on any strong anti-American car bias, or a pro-import bias from the media. The liberal, pro-Asia conspiracy alluded to above just seems like a cop-out to me. American cars, in my opinion (with the exception of trucks and SUVs) have been quite ugly for a long time, and anybody who was moderately well off and wanted an attractive car was going to spring for a much sexier looking car from Europe for just a bit more, and those of us who are poor, think a lot about things like cost, gas mileage, and how many times we're going to have to take the damn thing in to the shop before 100,000 miles. So really, yes, there are a lot of good cars being made in America right now, but it's too little, too late, and why can't they give better warranties?

Hans

P.S. Speaking of Hemi's, I would really love to have one of those Dodge Magnum station wagons with the V8 Hemi in it. Dodge actually managed to make a station wagon look awesome, which is a feat in and of itself!

Indeed. Has this idiot ever heard of the historian by the name of Josephus? We know from numerous other sources that much of what is written in Josephus' histories really occured, so why would he write stuff about a Jesus from Nazareth (including a physical description) if he never existed? And why the hell should it even matter to an atheist if some Jewish reformist started his own religion?

I couldn't agree more.

Here in Washington state we recently passed an indoor smoking ban. One can only smoke indoors in private property, and furthermore, the ban specifies that one must be 25 feet away from the door of whatever establishment one is smoking outside of.

This despicable violation of business owner's freedom was the brainchild of Christine Gregoire (after stealing the gubernatorial race from Dino Rossi due to some sheisty King County ballot counting) and her fascist Democrat cronies.

Y'know what happened the day after the smoking ban when I went walking down the streets of downtown Seattle? The gutters and sidewalks were littered with tons of cigarrettes.

go figure

Hmmmm... Seems somewhat silly to be using things like bleach and chemicals to acheive whatever environmental improvement the ELF thinks they're after! A bit of hypocrisy maybe... out of liberals? Who'da thunk.

Anybody here read Robert Anton Wilson and Robert Shea's cult classis "The Illuminatus Trilogy"? I've always found it ironic that long before our real ELF, these guys wrote about a liberal, anarchist terrorist group called the Erisian Liberation Front, or ELF, named after the greek goddes of discord, Eris. I've always wondered if the Earth Liberation Front was started by some un-creative individuals after reading this book.

"I propose a Constitutional amendment prohibiting Massachusetts from voting in national elections until the good folks of the Bay State stop electing the likes of Ted Kennedy and John Forbes Kerry to the Senate."


LOL... AMEN!

I've been constantly baffled by the fact that in our last presidential election Democrats were stupid enough to nominate Kerry. Regardless of their politics, ideology, whatever (and even if I agreed with Democrats more than Republicans) the sheer stupidity reflected by the nomination of a wooden, arch-liberal snob, made it absolutely impossible for me to imagine voting for their candidate. I have a lot of liberal, Democrat young friends who were totally turned off by that nomination too. Massachussetts liberal has truly become a bad word in American politics... and for good reason!