A Brunch to Remember
December 2nd 2008 11:40
This particular brunch hasn't happened yet, but I'm sure it will be memorable. LGJ is coming home Friday night and the brunch in question is scheduled for Sat. morning. The memorable part will be those in attendance. We'll need a big table...
This Welcome Home Event for LGJ has some interesting possibilities. My daughter, son-in-law and grandson will be there, of course. My son-in-law's father and sister will be there. And the sister's husband. He's an illegal alien who has lived in this country for many years, never bothering to learn the language. To make matters even more interesting, the sister is a rabid liberal and B.O. worshipper!
Considering the reason for the get-together, my son-in-law has asked that we not discuss politics at the table. It's supposed to be a happy party, not a battlefield. That's fine with me, but apparently his sister isn't willing to cooperate. She's made it clear that she intends to "convert" LGJ at all costs. That should go over about like a lead balloon!
Picture it, folks! A token liberal, an illegal alien and a bunch of conservatives, all trying to keep the table from becoming a boxing ring! Well, maybe not all... After extracting my promise not to start anything, he said I wasn't being gagged or muzzled. If she starts it I'll be able to defend myself (and conservatism) with the help of the US Marines!
Hopefully I'll be able to tell you all about it afterwards, rather than you getting to hear about it on the news! LOL
This Welcome Home Event for LGJ has some interesting possibilities. My daughter, son-in-law and grandson will be there, of course. My son-in-law's father and sister will be there. And the sister's husband. He's an illegal alien who has lived in this country for many years, never bothering to learn the language. To make matters even more interesting, the sister is a rabid liberal and B.O. worshipper!
Considering the reason for the get-together, my son-in-law has asked that we not discuss politics at the table. It's supposed to be a happy party, not a battlefield. That's fine with me, but apparently his sister isn't willing to cooperate. She's made it clear that she intends to "convert" LGJ at all costs. That should go over about like a lead balloon!
Picture it, folks! A token liberal, an illegal alien and a bunch of conservatives, all trying to keep the table from becoming a boxing ring! Well, maybe not all... After extracting my promise not to start anything, he said I wasn't being gagged or muzzled. If she starts it I'll be able to defend myself (and conservatism) with the help of the US Marines!
Hopefully I'll be able to tell you all about it afterwards, rather than you getting to hear about it on the news! LOL
| 44 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Lester Caudill
Round Politics
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
But it's fun debating sometimes, eh? At least I enjoy it.
However, I am certainly not a radical liberal by any means. I'd call myself more of a centrist with certain left-wing leanings. But I guess that still classifies me as WAY more liberal than you.
My conservative aspects are believing in a policy of integration rather than let's-make-all minority-groups-happy multiculturalism. (I even wrote my final university thesis on this subject!) And I am not a fan of OVERT political correctness, either, as it can cause people to become blind to certain glaring problems.
However, I am totally FOR gay rights (maybe because most of my closest friends are gays and they just happen to be the most intelligent, friendly and wonderful individuals on the planet). I also believe that this whole religious thing about gayness being a sin is utter rubbish. The mental STATE of being romanticaly attracted to poeple of your own gender is nothing you can change -- just like I cannot 'make' myself be attracted to other women, no matter how much I try. Recent studies also show that homosexuality is caused by the incorrect amounts of hormones that a baby is subjected to while still in its mother's womb (which, for example, do not "masculinise" a male embryo's brain completely). I also believe that it's often plain obvious that gayness is not a "choice" -- after all, isn't it a funny coincidence that lots of gay men also have rather feminine facial features and higher-pitched voices?
Also, considering that homosexuals only ever constitute around 2% of the population, it's not like they will ever bring society down or anything.
OK, I am way off the subject now. *LOL* I also believe that looking for more efficient, unpolluting sources of energy is of paramount importance -- not necessarily because of climate change, but because of pollution and the possibility of a world crisis when fossil fuels run out one day.
With all this in mind, would you be able to bear my presence at your dinner table, hypothetically speaking?
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
I am just as opinionated, but in a different way. I am also an analytical and deep-thinking person, so I always have something to say.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Before you ask how that could be, I'll answer your question. I have no problem with rabid shunks being released into every (unoccuppied) abortion clinic in the world. Rush wouldn't want to be that mean to the skunks.
Comment by Anonymous
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
I also think I have "common sense", but you probably wouldn't agree.
And shame on you for supporting a man like Rush Limbaugh. I just went and read all about him. Sounds like horrible, nasty, arrogant person.
His opinion of feminism is (quote): "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
What a jackass, to use a nicer term. There are so many things wrong with that statement, including the fact that he's impying that unattractive females do not deserve access to mainstream society and they should just accept it. Because the value of a woman lies in her appearance, right?
And if he actually knew some history, he would remember that (not so long ago) there were days where women could not even vote. They were obviously not seen as mentally developed grown-up human beings who could actually understand politics and claim full citizenship rights. I think the whole feminist movement started with the brave suffragettes who said "enough is enough".
True feminism is not about abortions or running around half-naked. It's about acknowledging the fact that women are human beings with the same needs as men, and therefore acknowledging that they should have equal opportunities in life. This includes important things like equal pay (which, unfortuantely, is STILL a problem ín many western countries) and regulating employment laws to not fire women just because they need to go on maternitiy leave. Stuff like that.
How dare he say things like that? And how dare you, as a politically-involved woman who enjoys the voting rights that were fought for by her female predecessors, support a man like Rush Limbaugh?
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Sarah Palin is what feminists were supposed to be to begin with and look at the way those Nasty Organized Warthogs treated her! They're the ones who should be ashamed.
If you listened to Rush, you'd know that he isn't what he's portrayed to be. Most of the things you cited about him as beig unlikeable were jokes. Except his remark about unattractive women being feminists. They're downright ugly. Inside, where it counts.
Comment by NoaIzumi
Anime Bottle
Editorial Fact Check
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Comment by Anonymous
Also, the government needs to introduce better rules for maternity leave in places like Australia.
As I always say, those Scandinavians have it good. They are always ahead of the world in social development and standard of living. Just an interesting quote I found for you:
"Sweden is one country which provides generous parental leave: all working parents are entitled to 16 months paid leave per child, the cost being shared between employer and State. To encourage greater paternal involvement in child-rearing, a minimum of 2 months out of the 16 is required to be used by the "minority" parent, in practice usually the father."
16 months paid leave!!! If the whole world had this, it would be a paradise. And I like how the cost is SHARED between the employer and the state. This is what I mean about a clever middle ground between rabid capitalism and moderate, harmless aspects of socialism. It seems those countries have found the magical balance. I totally support that kind of structure. Not to mention that they also have some of the best healthcare in the world...
Once again, I am off the subject. But my point about feminism still being necessary remains.
-EW
Comment by Anonymous
Really Long Link
And about how Sweden is a world leader in healthcare:
Really Long Link
Please read them because I want you to tell me what you think.
Why am I posting all these links and quotes? Well, I noticed your frequent and paranoid references to "communism" and "socialism" under Obama. It's as if you cannot accept the fact that there is a MIDDLE ground. There is therefore no need to sound so neurotic.
There are several prosperous nations in the world (Australia included) where the government has more control over things like healthcare and tertiary education funds, and these countries are by NO means Communist nations, as you know. In fact, they are peaceful, wealthy, organised countries with a high standard of living and complete freedom of speech.
This is one of the major things I don't understand about your views -- your tendency to see things in black and white. If you look a bit closer, you will see that there are many grey areas.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Reality isn't paranoia, EW. Maybe big government control makes you happy... then have at it. Socialized medicine might work just fine for you. I do NOT want it in my country. The free market system works, socialism doesn't. Simple as that. Who pays for the extended family leave? The employer? or your taxes?
Europe had begun to stagnate a few hundred years ago, which is why Australia and the USA were so successful at their beginnings. Independent people who didn't want a government telling them what to do every minute flocked to the new countries. Freedom and prosperity reigned for a long time ( a couple of centuries or so) and now some people are willing to trade their prosperity for mediocrity and their freedom for freebies. I'm not.
Comment by Anonymous
If you read about world healthcare systems, you will see America is lagging behind much of the western world. How is that good? Please explain to me what is so great about that.
Once again, you seem to believe that only the two extremes are possible. And I keep saying a TINY bit of socialism does no harm, and has already proved itself in other countries.
That was the whole point of me mentioning it. Read what I wrote again... In Sweden, the cost is SHARED by the employer and the state. That seems like a fair and balanced system. So the answer for you is: the employer AND the taxes.
And why do you think that is? Things don't happen for no reason, you know? It just shows that people are dissatisfied and disenchanted with the current situation. This, in turn, shows that your system has some serious flaws, because people's dissatisfaction speaks for itself.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
Competition improves services and products while keeping the prices down, EW. That's how the free market system works (in a nutshell). When we were following our Constitution, we were the strongest country and best economy in the world. As we have started drifting (just a little at a time, engineered by well-meaning but foolish people) into socialism, we have gone into a decline. You may not mind the incrementalism that destroys countries from within, the B.O. voters may think that a welfare state is a good thing, but history proves that it never works.
Comment by Anonymous
OK, let me attempt this point one more time, with a different example. If you still don't get it, then I give up...
Things don't have to go totally one way or totally the other way. For example, in Australia, we have a good government health system (which, after 30 years, shows no signs of collapsing). But we ALSO have private health insurance, which gives you more coverage than the government system. People who earn over a certain amount of money are strongly encouraged to have private insurance in addition to their government insurance.
This means that a high percentage of people pay for healthcare too, so it's not ALL in the hands of the government. But it also means that when you find yourself in miserable financial circumstances, you can always go to the doctor for basic treatment and not pay a cent. And that gives people a feeling of security, which is certainly a nice feeling.
I myself once highly appreciated this system when I returned to Australia after a whole year overseas (and year of not working or paying any taxes in Australia) and could still go to the GP when I needed and pay absolutely nothing. And I thought to myself, "Boy, am I lucky to be a citizen of a nation like this one." We really have it good.
Read about Medicare Australia:
Really Long Link
-EW
Comment by Anonymous
OK, let me attempt this point one more time, with a different example. If you still don't get it, then I give up...
Things don't have to go totally one way or totally the other way. For example, in Australia, we have a good government health system (which, after 30 years, shows no signs of collapsing). But we ALSO have private health insurance, which gives you more coverage than the government system. People who earn over a certain amount of money are strongly encouraged to have private insurance in addition to their government insurance.
This means that a high percentage of people pay for healthcare too, so it's not ALL in the hands of the government. But it also means that when you find yourself in miserable financial circumstances, you can always go to the doctor for basic treatment and not pay a cent. And that gives people a feeling of security, which is certainly a nice feeling.
I myself once highly appreciated this system when I returned to Australia after a whole year overseas (and year of not working or paying any taxes in Australia) and could still go to the GP when I needed and pay absolutely nothing. And I thought to myself, "Boy, am I lucky to be a citizen of a nation like this one." We really have it good.
Read about Medicare Australia:
Really Long Link
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief
I don't know where you get the idea that our poor have poor medical care. They get it for free. If we weren't spending so much to take care of illegal aliens, the cost would come down for those who belong here. If we had medical care accounts instead of medical insurance as it is right now, everyone would be able to afford it. B.O. isn't going to let that happen, of course. He wants everything socialized.
Comment by Anonymous
The last thing I will say on this topic is that, even if you don't agree with me, please don't call PARTIAL socialism "poison". Because it is making other western countries really happy.
So if you don't believe in it for the USA -- that's fine. You have the right to feel that. But just don't assume that it doesn't work in other countries -- because it really does.
So let's just leave it at that.
Oh, and a final quote I found in an online article:
"A New York Times Editorial in 2007 summarized medical care in the US: "The World Health Organization ranked 191 nations. France and Italy took the top two spots; the United States was a dismal 37th. The Commonwealth Fund compared the United States with other advanced nations, ranking the United States last compared with Australia, Canada, Germany, New Zealand and the United Kingdom. The United States, to its shame, has some 45 million people without health insurance and many more millions who have poor coverage. The US has the greatest disparity in the quality of care given to richer and poorer citizens. The US has a high infant mortality rate, ranking last among 23 nations. We rank near the bottom in healthy life expectancy at age 60, and 15th among 19 countries in deaths from a wide range of illnesses that would not have been fatal if treated with timely and effective care. The good news is that we have done a better job than other industrialized nations in reducing smoking."
I won't debate this particular topic further.
-EW
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief