Skip to comments.To My Father-in-Law Who Wants to Disown Me for Voting for Romney
Posted on 12/01/2012 7:47:03 PM PST by Behind the Blue Wall
click here to read article
Look, me, my father in law, and Barack Obama are all “black”, and my father in law’s principal reason for disowning me is that I am a traitor to the black race/cause, etc. by not supporting him. If I don’t directly address the ways in which my thinking grows out of a concern for black people then I have no hope of persuading him of anything. In truth, I believe that getting rid of Barack Obama would’ve been of benefit to all people, not just blacks, but most of all blacks, since blacks have done relatively the worst under his leadership.
Blacks as a group in America are materially worse off than average by almost every measure. I don’t think you have to be racialist in order to be particularly concerned about helping them to improve their situation.
No and hell no!
The conflict between the West and Islam is just a subset of the wider conflict between Islam and everyone who doesn't subscribe to it. They aren't any kinder to Nigerian Christians or Indian Hindus than they are to Western Europeans. From what I understand, it's been the same situation since Mohammed came on the scene: if you are not willing to submit to Islam, then you have your head chopped off. Doesn't matter who you are, or what else you believe.
It was a mistake to try to force banks to lend to those who didn't qualify, and a lot of those who faced foreclosure had no business in their houses in the first place. But regardless, banks were still ultimately in charge of their own affairs, and there were plenty of banks that didn't go so far into the subprime game so as to need a federal bailout, including Wells Fargo. My vote would've been to deny them a bailout and let the chips fall where they may. But if they were to get a bailout, I would've voted to put strings on it for the benefit of those homeowners who were facing foreclosure not because they got in over their head, or refinanced twenty times, etc., but because of the decline in the entire housing market and then the economy itself.
Opposite actually. My in laws are Ibo and I consider myself an American, but racially most would categorize me as "black".
In which case, wait a few months and then point out to his wife that they will need you in their declining years more than you need them. Let your mother-in-law see the light, and she will shine it up his a**.
I think you wasted way too much time on this letter.
He quoted half of a sentence. The complete sentence read:
As I've studied world history and geopolitics, I've come to the conclusion that there is not a conflict between the West and Islam as some have claimed; there is a conflict between radical Islam and everyone who does not subscribe to it.
Thanks, that’s some better. But the reality is that majorities of Islamic countries support sharia—which is in conflict with the West, as do significant numbers of Muslims in Western countries (e.g., the UK).
Are you against federal income tax?
Are you against paying FICA tax?
Are you against local building codes?
Are you against wearing seat belts?
Are you against Medicare?
I am guessing you are meekly obeying the government in every one of above “forced” situations. But you object when people who end up in hospital without insurance and I have to pick up their bills through higher premiums on my health insurance? Well, thanks for forcing me to pay the freeloader’s bills?
I may have slightly misstated my point. My main point is that the conflict between Islam and the West is actually a part of a broader conflict between Islam and everyone else. The relationship between “radical Islam” and the majority of Muslims is another issue entirely. I think the reality that you cited is correct, the majority of Muslims do appear to support Sharia.
For the most part, you are going to pay for their medical care anyways. The vast majority of the emergency room “freeloaders” that you’re referring to are either are illegal aliens who aren’t subject to mandates, or lower income people who will qualify for taxpayer subsidize health insurance.
Fair enough. The only other distinction I might make is that most often Islam = sharia = radical Islam. Many ‘radical’ Islamists fairly, I think, make the point that there is no radical Islam: there is and it is simply Islam.
Unfortunately, that appears to be the case.
In MA, Romneycare has affected significant number of people who could afford health insurance, but chose not to buy it.
That includes young people who do not see the need for insurance.
What we need in this country is total relaxation of restrictions on health insurance. We should be be able to buy insurance from out of state. And get away from the deluxe insurance Obamacare requires us to buy. How about a catastrophic health situation only insurance which would be lower cost and young people would be willing to buy it.
The lower income people you refer to will always be a burden on others. No change there. Romneycare has changed nothing for them.
-— How about a catastrophic health situation only insurance which would be lower cost and young people would be willing to buy it. -—
This leaves the problem of pre-existing conditions. Rand Paul has suggested 30-year health policies, like life insurance plans.
Makes sense to.me.
It wasn't a "mistake." It was a gun to the head. When the government (with all it's mechanisms for force and enforcement) tells you to lend to, you lend.
And who pays for that "mistake?"
All the people who played by the rules. They didn't buy homes that they could not afford but they sure as hell lost all that equity in their homes and are still dealing with the fallout of decisions they had no part in.
That "planned real estate/Freddie/Fannie" crash caused the BIGGEST theft of American wealth EVER. Not just bank bailouts but lost equity. It's impossible to know exactly how much wealth was looted and redistributed.
"But regardless, banks were still ultimately in charge of their own affairs"
Sounds a lot like blaming the victim. Oh, sorry our stupid, greedy, marxist, blame-whitey-to-get-minorities-free-houses plan caused the crash, but well you should have known better. And even if we stand outside your bank and protest and call you racist and stop you from doing business and threaten to go to your home where your children are, it's your fault for giving into to the our childish and dangerous desires.
We did know better but that doesn't stop the IRS or union goons.
Like all former Obama supporters, you only care now because "the bell now tolls for thee." Before, you thought someone else was going to get it.
Seems like your sudden conversion to conservatism (dubious)and biggest concern is that Hispanics are upsetting the black lock on "white guilt" and most favored minority status.
Tell me, if blacks were better off after four years of the same illegal machinations of Obama would you care? No, you wouldn't care about all his treachery. You only care because your ox was gored.
I agree. The so-called freeloaders should be offered catastrophic only health insurance at low cost, as opposed to being forced to buy expensive insurance that they are statistically unlikely to use.
Congratulations on coming around, but it's no wonder you supported Romney. He didn't come to that conclusion himself until he decided it was his "turn" to be President.
I confess that I don't personally have a very strong opinion on gays in the military. If the military leadership said, "we can't do this, it would hurt morale, discipline, etc.", I would support them. The current military leadership (and I certainly understand those who believe that they are illegitimate or somehow compromised in being able to express the truth) seems to be OK with it, so I'm probably OK with it.
If you believe that, and you truly do believe as you said that gay "marriage" is really okay. you're posting on the wrong forum. Take a look at the purpose of this website -- pro-God, pro-family.
There were major banks that didn’t need or want to be bailed out by the government, and they were playing by the same rules as everyone else. The people who lost equity and homes through no fault of their own are the people that might have been protected if the banks had been either forced to take their losses or forbear from foreclosing to an extent. The people who bought houses they couldn’t afford would not be saved by any amount of forebearance.
Making it personal about me is sort of silly. I have marketable skills and I’ve been conservative in my finances — I’m doing fine for now, as is my immediately family. The future does look bleak, as it does for all Americans, in my opinion.
If you’re talking about “illegal machinations”, then no, no amount of being better off can compensate for the loss of our rights under the Constitution. As I tried to explain to my father in law, if we do not have the Constitution and the rule of law in force, then we are not free. We might be more comfortable as slaves/serfs, or not, but I’d certainly rather be poor but free, than “comfortable” in a state of slavery.
But yes, if Obama had put into place a set of free market policies, based on the Constitution, that had the effect of bringing about a growing and prosperous economy, and black Americans were participating in that growth and prosperity, then I’d have certainly not opposed him on that basis. I suppose you could say that if his socialist policies had succeeded in the same, then I also would still support him, but I now understand that to be an impossibility.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.