Bonita Woman Forestalls eviction – for now

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]
CAR, I respectfully disagree. I know of at least one person (myself) who would accept to be the recipient of less benefits from the government, for the greater good.
Incidentally, I would accept modest, justified tax increases, too.

What makes me willing to do this is the fact that I believe wholeheartedly all the rhetoric about “mortgaging our children’s future” with all the huge deficits and unfunded future liabilities (of public pensions, medicare, etc.)

I would hope that more considerate discussion of the cost/benefits of government (and less digression to hyped up political talking points) might convince others to accept these realities (or “sarcrifices”, or “responsibilities”, or whatever you want to call them), too.

I can dream, right…?
tb ;-)[/quote]

teaboy,

I agree with you, but didn’t think you were “anti-govt” in the first place. Those of us who tend toward a more “socialistic” approach seem to be the ones who are willing to sacrifice for the greater good (no surprise there, I suppose).

That being said, the “anti-govt” types are all too often the ones who support foreign wars/a strong military force, effective law enforcement (local and national), want full SS and Medicare benefits, want all the infrastructure and services that are provided by our govt, but don’t want to pay any taxes. Granny wants to call 911 and have the cops, firefighters, or paramedics there within minutes — and wants Medicare to cover her resulting bills, but doesn’t want to pay taxes for it. This is what I find so ironic.

[teaboy]

CAR, yesyesyes, but I think we risk falling into the old trap of polarizing politics when we frequently try to pigeon-hole people by labeling them based on our imagined understanding of their views and also traps us into dismissing their views as constant and unevolving.

We can label them “anti-govt”, “tea-baggers”, “bourgeois”, “fascists”, or just plain old “republicans”… 🙂

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

Apart from the French, though. Nobody likes them. N’est-ce pas?

tb

[teaboy]

CAR, yesyesyes, but I think we risk falling into the old trap of polarizing politics when we frequently try to pigeon-hole people by labeling them based on our imagined understanding of their views and also traps us into dismissing their views as constant and unevolving.

We can label them “anti-govt”, “tea-baggers”, “bourgeois”, “fascists”, or just plain old “republicans”… 🙂

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

Apart from the French, though. Nobody likes them. N’est-ce pas?

tb

[teaboy]

CAR, yesyesyes, but I think we risk falling into the old trap of polarizing politics when we frequently try to pigeon-hole people by labeling them based on our imagined understanding of their views and also traps us into dismissing their views as constant and unevolving.

We can label them “anti-govt”, “tea-baggers”, “bourgeois”, “fascists”, or just plain old “republicans”… 🙂

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

Apart from the French, though. Nobody likes them. N’est-ce pas?

tb

[teaboy]

CAR, yesyesyes, but I think we risk falling into the old trap of polarizing politics when we frequently try to pigeon-hole people by labeling them based on our imagined understanding of their views and also traps us into dismissing their views as constant and unevolving.

We can label them “anti-govt”, “tea-baggers”, “bourgeois”, “fascists”, or just plain old “republicans”… 🙂

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

Apart from the French, though. Nobody likes them. N’est-ce pas?

tb

[teaboy]

CAR, yesyesyes, but I think we risk falling into the old trap of polarizing politics when we frequently try to pigeon-hole people by labeling them based on our imagined understanding of their views and also traps us into dismissing their views as constant and unevolving.

We can label them “anti-govt”, “tea-baggers”, “bourgeois”, “fascists”, or just plain old “republicans”… 🙂

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

Apart from the French, though. Nobody likes them. N’est-ce pas?

tb

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

tb[/quote]

Yes, agree. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

tb[/quote]

Yes, agree. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

tb[/quote]

Yes, agree. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

tb[/quote]

Yes, agree. 🙂

[CA renter]

[quote=teaboy]

But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.

tb[/quote]

Yes, agree. 🙂

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Ren]

[quote=teaboy]But surely engaging everyone in logical discourse to enlighten and educate (both others and ourselves) is more to our mutual benefit.
[/quote]

Absolutely!

I think the vast majority of conservatives and anti-big government types are happy to pay taxes. It’s paying for inefficiency, and paying for things like studying the mating habits of squirrels (actual U.S. taxpayer funded project) that irks us. When I say “us”, I’m talking the fiscally conservative. There are millions of people, like me, who think Democratic fiscal policy is even more insanely stupid than Republican fiscal policy, but who are socially liberal. I don’t mind being called conservative, just don’t call me a Christian, and don’t assume anything else about me, either. I hate the pigeonholing, no matter which side is doing it.

The biggest difference between the two is perception. For example, a liberal newspaper will publish a heart-wrenching story about an illegal immigrant family that is being forced to move back to [insert South American country here] due to unemployment. The liberal is sympathetic and wants to see that family have a happy ending by granting amnesty, thereby improving their job prospects. The conservative wants to reduce the problem by addressing the big picture – strictly enforcing existing employment laws, spending defense money on our own borders, and expanding legal immigration bureaucracy if necessary. Meanwhile, the liberal and conservative politicians are afraid of losing the Latino vote, and so even if amnesty is granted, neither will enforce existing employment and immigration laws – guaranteeing another flood of illegal immigration. That immigrant family, now citizens, will be paying through the nose for the next wave of illegal immigrant health care and education ($20b/year in CA). Liberals see the current individual human suffering, conservatives see the country as a whole suffering, but neither is capable of helping, and so both are the cause of future suffering.

In other words, the real problem isn’t conservatives or liberals. It’s the Career Politician. By definition, the country’s best interests are secondary to their own egos and interests. Such a creature would not exist in the ideal government.

[Author]

Posts