I am Not Going to be Your (Right) Wing Man

Alright, I don’t normally write here for any other reason than to express my creativity or experience through poetry or short story. However I feel compelled by the negative atmosphere I have read, watched and experienced first hand through people about the up coming Presidential debate. There is almost a palpable hatred or dislike for the current president that I find highly uncharacteristic and disturbing. Not to mention a good deal of effort to harass his character and frame him as some evil socialist.

First off Medicare: Source http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120904/GJOPINION_0102/709049979/-1/fosopinion

First, we need to discuss the Ryan plan for Medicare. The Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. It would provide a flat premium support payment, a voucher, that senior citizens would use to shop around to buy private insurance or Medicare. This would intentionally undermine Medicare, since the private plans would take the healthiest away and leave Medicare with the most expensive, least healthy seniors, making it too hard to compete. Even worse, the Ryan plan ties any voucher to the growth rate of the gross domestic product (called GDP) per capita plus one-half percentage point. It would cost them thousands more out-of-pocket each year, using this formula.

If your eyes are rolling already, just consider this. Health care costs grow faster than the GDP, so seniors would have to make up the difference. They also would be responsible, along with the insurance companies, to pay the bills. Medicare currently is a remarkably easy and efficient program. Older people do not have to submit their paperwork to Medicare. When people are not feeling well, it is extremely difficult to keep track of paperwork, so this is a blessing. Also, Medicare has about a 3-7 percent overhead, so it is very efficient, which helps to hold costs down. All this would change with the Ryan plan. This is truly a terrible deal for older people in this country, and they should reject it.

As for the Republican claim that President Obama and the Congressional Democrats "robbed" $716 billion, this is an outrageous claim. That $716 billion is just savings from the program, and not one dollar is taken from seniors or traditional Medicare. That savings, a good effort to control costs, comes from several sources. The Affordable Care Act addresses the difference in costs for traditional Medicare vs. private Medicare Advantage plans. Private Medicare Advantage plans were costing the taxpayers 14 percent more than traditional Medicare. That was stopped, and will save a lot of money. The Affordable Care Act also instituted administrative savings. Everyone should be happy that money is saved. Here is the kicker though. Paul Ryan’s own Budget includes that savings — they just don’t return it to the Medicare program.

Obama didn’t rob Medicare. He preserved it like a fine jar of hot pepper and pineapple jelly. He is not raising the cost on budgeted seniors he is preserving their rates and not making them pay more out of pocket for care they need but could not afford otherwise.

Second Paul Ryan on Unions.

Paul Ryan would destroy unions and hinder the fair and equal rights a worker has to challenge the industry for which they work. I ask why would you want a man like that in office if you are a working citizen of this country? Do you not enjoy having protected rights as a worker? Do you not enjoy getting paid what you are worth? Under the Republican ticket lately we have seen the Romney/Ryan — putting entitlement reform on the table, signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall, undermining unions by failing to support fair trade or the Employee Free Choice Act, backing experiments in education, and welfare that let those left behind fend for themselves. These are an inexcusable attack on our rights as workers by men who have never had to taste desperate or worry about how to take care of their bills or families.

Gay Rights and Abortion:

Why is not ok for 2 men or women to have a civil contract of union so that they can share the rights and love they have for each other like any other monogamous couple? Oh wait it is ok. I mean hell they should have the same right be as miserable as the rest of us miserable schmucks who walked down the bloody aisle right? I am joking of course about the last part in my own experience at least but is that not a constitutional right to pursue happiness. Let us look at marriage as it originated.

Anthropologists have proposed several competing definitions of marriage so as to encompass the wide variety of marital practices observed across cultures.[6] In his book The History of Human Marriage (1921), Edvard Westermarck defined marriage as "a more or less durable connection between male and female lasting beyond the mere act of propagation till after the birth of the offspring."[7] In The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization (1936), he rejected his earlier definition, instead provisionally defining marriage as "a relation of one or more men to one or more women that is recognized by custom or law".[8]

The anthropological handbook Notes and Queries (1951) defined marriage as "a union between a man and a woman such that children born to the woman are the recognized legitimate offspring of both partners."[9] In recognition of a practice by the Nuer of Sudan allowing women to act as a husband in certain circumstances, Kathleen Gough suggested modifying this to "a woman and one or more other persons."[10]

Edmund Leach criticized Gough’s definition for being too restrictive in terms of recognized legitimate offspring and suggested that marriage be viewed in terms of the different types of rights it serves to establish. Leach expanded the definition and proposed that "Marriage is a relationship established between a woman and one or more other persons, which provides that a child born to th

e woman under circumstances not prohibited by the rules of the relationship, is accorded full birth-status rights common to normal members of his society or social stratum"[11] Leach argued that no one definition of marriage applied to all cultures. He offered a list of ten rights associated with marriage, including sexual monopoly and rights with respect to children, with specific rights differing across cultures.[12]

Duran Bell also criticized the legitimacy-based definition on the basis that some societies do not require marriage for legitimacy, arguing that in societies where illegitimacy means only that the mother is unmarried and has no other legal implications, a legitimacy-based definition of marriage is circular. He proposed defining marriage in terms of sexual access rights.[6]

Though I will recognize the idea of same sex union is not recognized in the definitions here but then neither is religion. Religion is an irrelevant crutch to use to ban same sex partners the right to marry. Marriage predates the use of religion in the recognized union so thus if you choose your marriage in a religious capacity that is your right. Not your right to place it on anyone else. Even the states recognize only the civil contract of marriage not under which religion you were married under. For all intent and purpose it is a form of legality of which people are being taxed under. What religion you are affiliated under doesn’t determine anything else for the government than monies owed.

Lastly abortion:

I am very much a pro life person. I do not feel it right that if you are stupid with your sex practice that you should just have the right to say "Ops! My bad." and walk into a clinic and get that taken care of. For me it is more a moral and empathic feeling that I would never choose to be a part of or condone such an act. However I am not a woman it is not my body and if she chooses that is the course for her then it will happen anyway. Whether through some barbaric means or some form of medication loading. So why not provide a safe and sterile environment for it? I sincerely believe that person should have to pay for it out of pocket with no financial help but I still think it is that woman’s right to decide what happens with her body. It is hers not yours, mine or any government’s. In cases of rape and incest yes absolutely that should be the woman’s choice, right and it should be covered by insurance or financial aid if she doesn’t have it.
No woman "asks" to be raped by what they wear or how they look. this is backwater chauvinistic bull shit. Rape is the product of a person willfully forcing another into intercourse against their will. These people who are rapist, studies show they are generally egotistical narcissist who enjoy power and dominion over others. So please tell me a woman "asks" to be raped and I’ll give you a mirror and show you a great fool. http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199211/round-rapists here is an article on a rapist psychology if you need further convincing.

Sorry but the world is already too full of bigoted, arrogant, sexist morons to elect such mentally and culturally stunted fools such as Romney and Ryan. You may thump your Bible at me and speak about out dated and outmoded methods of thinking but the fact is we really don’t need backward thinking on these issues. People are not a commodity to be changed, bartered or abused. They are the vitality of where you live and the pride of what make the USA great. People should remind their politicians of that.

Sorry Mitt I am not going to be your (right) wing man.