Just an observation…


Official photographic portrait of US President...
Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I see that there is a new flap over who President Obama had picked for the presidential inauguration… It seems that his first choice, the Rev. Louie Giglio, has withdraw, very soon after he was picked..  Why you might ask?  Well it seems that, for some odd reason that may have something to do with the Bible, he thinks, or thought, that homosexuality was a SIN.

Is homosexuality a SIN?  It might be..  there have been more knowledgeable people than I who have said yes, or no.  Each groups seems to find some portion of the scriptures that seems to support their theory…

So I am going to look at this in another light..  People get their values from the Bible.  I have always been told that these values were personal values and that tolerance means that I should not try to force them onto others.

Our government, the United States of America, is set up so that our laws are, yes, based on what the personal values of the majority are.  They were not setup as supplemental material to the 10 commandments, or an enforcement of Biblical views.  If that were true we would still be closing stores on Sunday, would know what days to not eat certain meats, or still be stoning people for heresy.

What we do have is need to pass laws for the common good, for the protection of the weak, and yes, to codify certain standards that society has accepted through the ages, and yes, through the ages Marriage has been accepted as the union of one woman and one man.  Utah was told this when they wanted to become a state, which turned out to be convenient for Utah as, it was about this time that the leader of the Later Day Saints go a new message from on high that polygamy was indeed wrong, and so Utah was allowed to join the Union.

There are laws pass against thing like, murder, rape, theft, and others, that have less to do with the Bible then a need for a stable society.  Some law, based strictly on Biblical views have either been struck down, or just left unused.  Take the laws on sodomy.  When was the last time you hear of anyone getting charged with sodomy, or bring up the idea that homosexual couple would be in violation of these laws.  Some years ago, you might remember the T.V. show “West Wing” about the White House.  A couple of the junior staffer were to meet with military representatives to discus gays in the military.  When the military people pointed out that the president wasn’t really serious about this, as he had sent junior staffers, the staffers replied that as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces if the President said it was alright for Gays to be in the military then it was the way it was.  The Military people pointed out that the Uniformed Code of Military Justice outlawed Sodomy, and that since the UCMJ was in fact a law passed by congress THAT is what would have to be changed before gays would be allowed in the military.

So, where are we then…  Some of the rules laid down in the Bible, now we are talking about the Christian Bible, have fallen by the wayside as Society changes.  One of the few consistent views had been the make up of the family being headed by one man and one woman.  If that is to change, then maybe we should take another look at where society gets it’s values..  Maybe, once homosexual marriages are widely accepted and the taboo against that is broken we might want to look and see if the taboo against incest still stands.  For some people the idea of a brother and sister getting married might not be as extreme as two men, or two women.

Final thought..  if an anti-gay preacher is unacceptable, then maybe we might look at having another type of priest do the benediction..  Maybe a Native American Sharman, or a Taoist Monk, or even a, wait for this…

VooDoo Priest.

Thanks,

That Joe Guy.

 

 

Is there Truth in Politics?


 

In all fairness I will  have to admit, again, that I am a registered Republican but, I would also have to say that I am not real happy with either party.

In an earlier post I quoted a man who said that Florida was one of the most corrupt states in the Union.  He wasn’t talking about the people he was referring to out Politicians….Check out my article titled Florida is #1 in corrupt Government?

As we head into the vote for out next President, President Obama or Gov. Romney, I tend to not trust any of what they say.  To give you an example, in the second presidential debate Romney points out that Obama’s administration could not claim credit for increases in oil production as most if the increase took place on private land and that the production on public lands actually decreased due to Obama wiping out a percentage of the permits to drill..  He said this resulted in a %14 drop in production…  There was an argument over this as Romney tried to get Obama to admit he cut the number of permits, and therefor decreased the production.  Obama replied that what they did was take away the leases from companies who had the leases for public lands but, were not using them.  This brings me to my question : if you only cut out the companies that were NOT producing, then where does the %14 drop come from?

The Democratic Party of Florida recently sent us a political mailer that announced Vern Buchanan to be the “most corrupt politician in America“.  Really?  They point out the number of investigations that had targeted him, though none have, so far, found anything.

Now that is interesting. Are they saying that an investigation, no matter how unprovable, is more damning than a actually conviction, and that he is more corrupt, even though they can’t show corruption, then those people who have been convicted?  Does the “innocent until proven guilty” only apply to Democrats?

Sure Vern in a public figure and they can report that he is under investigations by some agency but, with no charges made, or likely to be made since most of the people who investigated him said they could NOT find any proof, wouldn’t an accusation such this be considered as libelous?

As a voter I get tired of these accusation that led nowhere about incidents that happen sometime in the past and suddenly become important just before an election.  Politics is not only annoying but it is getting downright mean..

When Bill McCollum debated Rick Scott in Miami he did everything but call him a crook, then he went on to support him for Governor.  This, to me, is proof that in politics today their support for the party is more important than their duty to the voters, and I don’t see that as a problem with just the Republicans.  If Bill McCullom really thought that Rick Scott was that much of a crook, and so should NOT be our Governor, then why didn’t he either refuse to support him, or support the best person even from the other party?

I don’t think that truth can be found in politics, or politicians, and it is up to us to weed through the abundant lies to find the REAL truth.

I always remember a quote from an economics professor who said “figures don’t lie but, liars figure”.  The other saying I always liked what in the form of a question.  How can you tell when a politician is lying?  His lips are moving…

The people you vote for will not only have an effect, in some way, on you but, they will represent you, so the next time you look in the mirror see if you can see him there.

Thank you,

That Joe Guy.

 

Will they ever fix the tax system?


Fat chance there..

Tax
Tax (Photo credit: 401(K) 2012)

Lets face it… the two groups get too much mileage out of the set up we have now…

The Democrats try to win favor with the middle, and lower class, by saying that the wealthy should pay more in taxes.  They use the term “fair share” but just what is that?

The Republicans accuse the Democrats of trying to punish success by raising the taxes on the people who make the money,  They accuse the Democrats of taking from the people who earn the money so they can win favor with the people who don’t.

Recently the Democrats have criticized Romney for taking advantage of the tax code to pay less taxes.  It is in the tax code, which is comprised of laws passed by both parties so, if the Democrats really wanted the rich to pay more in taxes, or as they say “their fair share”, the solution would be to do away with the deductions that only effect the wealthy.  Maybe even start the who system over.  Do a system “reset” and simplify the whole mess.

Part of the problem with this is that the system in place befits both parties and I doubt if Nancy Pelosi, or Harry Reid, will ever tell their accountants “pay as much tax as we can”.

The system, as it stands, allows them to raise the class warfare issue without them having to fix what is wrong and, as long as no one seems to notice that no change the the tax rates will really matter because people can bring down their NET INCOME with the use of the various deductions, there will be no change.

We need to make them understand that we know how this works, and we need to make them understand that if they really want a change in the status quo then they have to get serious about making changes and quit PLAYING US.

 

Party of the which part?


A Good Man Is Hard to Find
A Good Man Is Hard to Find (Photo credit: cliff1066™)

I have been writing about LIES and how you, if you want to see who is lying, must be able to look up the truth because, as I have quoted Fox Mulder, the X-Files, “the truth is out there”.

Sometime when I look at the political ads I must ask the question : how stupid to they think I am?  Then I see something like this, I will clue you in soon, and wonder : just how stupid are they?

With all the discussion about child predators, people confessing to crimes, and other things that you can find on Facebook, wouldn’t you think that people would be carefull about what they put on their page?

I guess not.

You would think that an ad that talks about Republican women for Obama would pick Republican Women…  so look at the Facebook page for Maria Ciano here, and see how Republican she really is.

Then again maybe it is just too hard to find a real Republican Woman who plans to vote for Obama, and they have to pick one, poor choice, who “lets the cat out of the bag” on Facebook..

Now there might be some truth to the matter, I mean about some Republican Women who plan to vote for Obama, but, it ain’t in this ad.

Sure, most of the political advertising seem to be filled with partial truths, or outright lies but, why does this leave us with the unpleasant feeling that we are really just voting for the “lesser of two evils”?

What happened to the day when we felt like we could vote for the better man?

For example of the “Better Man” theory : between Bill Nelson, a democrat with an excellent personal history, or Connie Mack IV, with a history of drunken fights and road rage, I would vote for …ta da… Bill Nelson and the man I would rather represent me..  Leave Connie Mack to the Beer Hall…

It is true that I might not like all of Bill Nelson’s politics but, sometimes it is the “person” you vote for and NOT the “party”.

People who vote a strict party line and don’t question their lies, are part of the reason we have to wonder which is the lesser of the two evils.

I would like to see the day when they tell us why we should vote for them and not why we should not vote for the other guy.  People who really care who they vote for should make them prove they are the better person for the job.

Try this… the next time you see your Representative try to imagine that he is YOU…  Would you like yourself?

Thanks,

That Joe Guy..

Obama Care? I think not.


U.S. Supreme Court building.

I am not a legal scholar, nor am I about to become one, so maybe I can be excused for not really understanding the newest Supreme Court decision.

It seems like on the Justices just said that the Government can not mandate your joining the health care system but they can extract a penalty from you, they call it a “TAX”, for not joining….

This is interesting..  Now I am going to go off on an idea..  Part of the idea of why the Feds wanted to force everyone into the health care industry the premise that if someone, with out health care insurance, or poor, got sick then the people with healthcare insurance would have to pay for them….  therefore they were really in the healthcare system whether or not they had the insurance, and the are now just being punished for not joining in the first place…

Now, how about this idea..  You don’t have a car, so you don’t get auto insurance.  If you are injured someones insurance will have to pay for your injuries, so maybe the next step would be to penalize you, er tax you, for not having auto insurance?

President Obama said this was not a tax but, the Supreme Court said that was the only way they could justify the law was through the use of a tax.  It must be nice to have a job for life, where you get to make it up as you go along, all the while knowing that you can’t be fire just because you are a bozo….

Thank you very much Justice Roberts.  What is next?  A tax on not joining a health club?