Photo By Patrix

This Blog is a Member of:

This Blog is a Member of:

Monday, October 19, 2009

Video Lunch: President Obama Speaks at Texas A&M

Sphere: Related Content

President Obama speaks about volunteerism and public service in College Station at Rudder Auditorium.
Posted by Teddy Wilson at 12:00 PM
Labels: , , ,

10 comments:

Evan said...

ah, so i posted on the wrong thread:

look, i watched the speech and to say this is not a political event is skirting around the issue. this was a promotion of the serve america act. im all for volunteerism, but why does the money have to go to washington so that the bureaucRATS can take a cut and then, and only then, distribute it to philanthropic causes. you don't see that they have created a middle man where there ought not to be one?? the partisanship is blinding. people once critical of the government when 43 was in are now gleeful followers of 44. ignoring all the credible fears of government they presented appropriately against the past administration. the serve america act was originally presented with language that made it a mandatory service. it was taken out before it was passed, but whats to say a government loving republican doesnt step in make it mandatory? making you "volunteer" in abstinence education for young children or maybe a grand compulsory stint in the army would be a good way to serve. would you, only then, see that this may not be the best direction to go in?? you dont need government to volunteer and you can better judge where your time and money goes.

October 19, 2009 1:48 PM
Teddy Wilson said...

Evan-
So you think that the government should not promote volunteerism in any way?

October 19, 2009 3:09 PM
Anonymous said...

I can hear Evan's axe grinding.

October 19, 2009 4:44 PM
Evan said...

no they shouldn't. just as they should not promote marriage as being between a man and a woman. they don't have a legitimate role in promoting marriage in one way or another whether through soap boxing or public policy.

so ted, why do think they ShoulD promote volunteerism?

October 19, 2009 5:27 PM
Teddy Wilson said...

I believe the government has a legitimate role in promoting the common good; from national programs like the National Endowment for the Arts to locally the Brazos Valley Arts Council. Also, I do not believe that the government should “promote” marriage; I believe that the government should recognize marriage.

October 19, 2009 5:48 PM
Evan said...

please ted, tell me what the "national good" is. to 330 million people, the "national good" has 330 million different interpretations.

marriage is already incentivized (promoted) via the tax system. there are state and/or federal level tax breaks for joint filing and dependent children. and even though you don't feel the government should be used in that manner, there is a vast amount of people that would like to use it in that way. so whats the greater good?? why does a government NEED to recognize a marriage? would there be a drive for gay marriage if there wasnt something to gain? the simple recognition presents legal ramifications.

for instance, hear me out progressive, is gay marriage better for the national good than polygamy?

October 19, 2009 6:42 PM
Teddy Wilson said...

There is such a thing as a national good. And because there are over 300 million people with different ideas of what the national good is that is why we have elections. To determine what the national priorities are, and therefore what the national good is.

The government needs to recognize marriage because it is a civil contract, and there is a drive to recognize gay marriage because there is a group of people that are being denied the same rights as others. The greater good in this equation would be that denying one group of people civil rights disturbs the greater good.

You're question about gay marriage compared to polygamy is simply a straw man argument. And by the way, I'm a liberal not a progressive.

October 19, 2009 6:52 PM
Evan said...

great, so when elections take place and consensus is reached that, for the "national good", a certain group of people should not nor will not get the full rights that they are entitled to. does that not prove that the govt illegitimate in regards to civil matters such as these?

i do believe there is discrimination against gay marriage. but what are the rights that you see are being denied to them?

i dont think my example is too abstract. polygamy is a real relationship within societies. because they do not get recognized as a marriage, they lose out on rights as well. this leads to terrible situations like the compounds. are they truly less entitled to recognition simply because of who they are and how they live their lives?

marriage exists with or without the govnt. the reason why we have ceremonies is so that people may wed themselves in front of god and community. after the ceremony, if a couple does not file a marriage license, are they not wed? can the community not attest that they are man and wife? when govnt is allowed to recognizes and incentivizes one thing over the other, or anything at all, it allows for abuse and discrimination of a set of people.

October 19, 2009 7:44 PM
Anonymous said...

Evan doesn't realize that when governments fail to recognize marriages, couples lose benefits. Where's the Libertarian Spirit?

October 19, 2009 11:18 PM
Evan said...

but thats my point, couples do lose out when the govnt doesnt recognize marriage but that is only because the govnt has inserted themselves into marriage recognition in the first place. why should anyone miss out on rights if the government doesnt recognize something about a couple that is there whether they recognize or not?

October 20, 2009 3:22 PM

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)