I mentioned in my last post that my friend Philip has blogrolled me as "Coach GOP Sal" because I blogged on some conservative topics. He offered to change it, but I demurred. Still, I thought it might be worthwhile to blog about why I tend to ally with the GOP (Grand Old Party, for the acronym-challenged, AKA the Republicans). I want to first offer a couple of disclaimers: first, I'm NOT a registered Republican. It just so happens that I voted for a Democrat for mayor just a couple of weeks ago. I've also voted Dem for several state offices, and even once for US Senator. But in my voting lifetime (since '88), I have yet to vote for a Democrat for President. That's not to say I couldn't, but that has never been even a close call thus far. Secondly, I'm not really a Republican as much as I am a conservative. Which is why if the GOP nominates a liberal, like Rudy Giuliani, my loyalty slips a good bit. That said, and this has been the case at least since '88, if the other choice is even worse, what's a body to do? Finally, I firmly reject cartoonish stereotypes--of both parties. Yes, "my" party has some fat-cat northern businesspeople, plus some percentage of gap-toothed rednecks. But that's the fringe, and don't represent me. Likewise, I recognize that not every Democrat is a borderline communist who thinks America is the source of evil in the world and considers abortion a sacrament. Those bozos are out there, but my differences with the Dems lie not in that straw man. If anything, I'd like to think I'm reasonably thoughtful, and that I fight fair.
OK. So what does it mean to be "conservative" nowadays? Well, for starters, I'm a Reagan Republican, not a William Howard Taft or James Blaine, or even a Nelson Rockefeller Republican. You may remember that Reagan used to be a Democrat himself (voted 4 times for FDR, as I recall, and I think once for Truman). What I want to "conserve" includes most of the "safety net" of the New Deal, as well as the Civil Rights gains of the 50s and 60s. But as the Gipper himself said, "I didn't leave the Democrats. The party left me." Since 1968 or so, the muscular defense policy of the Truman and JFK Democrats has given way to the peace-at-any-price weakness of George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and their successors. One of the legs that holds up my conservatism is peace through strength. I find that more in the Republican party (since '80 or even since Ike) than in the Democrats since the 60s.
The next thing--actually, an even bigger thing, for me--is my faith. Now don't get me wrong--I'm not going to be one of those people who claims that one cannot be simultaneously a Christian and a social liberal. Many of my Christian friends have made their peace with that, and I respect them. Nor do I buy the argument that the "Christian Right" in a political sense speaks for every evangelical. But despite those allowances, the fact remains that up until the 1970s, most southern evangelicals found their home among the Democrats. The 1960s and Roe v. Wade changed that somewhat, and Reagan's embrace of anti-abortion religious people in 1980 sealed the deal. Now, a key part of being "red state" is being pro-life. And that's a bedrock issue for me. I will entertain discussion on exceptions for rape, incest, and the life of the mother--which together account for maybe 2-3% of all abortions. I'm not an absolutist. I'll even take incremental change in the right direction--the partial-birth abortion ban, parental notification. Shucks, if we could even go back to the original ruling in Roe which allowed only first-term abortion, that would be a good move. But in my view, a fetus is a baby, and killing it is WRONG. Despite lip service from the Democrats about "safe, legal, and rare," the fact is that the Supreme Court has upheld that "health of the mother" exceptions include anything the pregnant woman and her abortionist decide, and mainstream Dems have stood firmly against even the most reasonable restrictions. Their refusal to even let a pro-lifer speak at their '92 convention shows how limited the options on that side are. I just can't go there.
Moreover, on the "socio-con" or "theo-con" side, the increasing allegiance between people of faith and the Republicans has led, or at least contributed, to what I think is even further erosion of respect for religion and its practicioners by the Democrats. Their world-view is already more secular and relativistic, but there is, in some quarters among their elites, barely-veiled hostility to those of us who believe in a creator and absolute morality. I think I can sympathize with how some minorities must feel about the Republicans... "my" side may take me for granted and only pay me lip service, but the other guys pay me no attention at all unless it's in the form of an attack. And hand in hand with that is my biggest issue--the judiciary. If I want to see my world-view prevail over time, I believe that the Constitution needs to be interpreted as the framers wrote it, not seen through the lens of late-20th-century social engineering. And since judges serve life terms, I've gotta vote for the party that at least PRETENDS to respect my world-view. As much as old George W. Bush may have fallen out of my good graces in the last couple of years, it has never, never occurred to me that I'd be happier if John Kerry had named the last two Supreme Court justices.
Last, and also least in my mind, is economics. As I have blogged about extensively in the past, I am FAR from a "party of the rich" Republican. I have the utmost sympathy for the "working poor," for the stretched-too-thin "middle class" (of which I am a member), and those who need help. To the extent that it would actually work, I would welcome more equality of resources across the board. However, I generally believe that 1960s-70s style welfare doesn't work. And in general, what little economic history I know leads me to believe that supply-side (low tax) economic theory does work. Also (maybe it's the touch of Calvinism in my formerly-Presbyterian upbringing), I tend to have a rather low view of human nature. So, sadly, I don't think that, in most cases, taking from those who work and earn and distributing it to those who don't works all that well, either. Insetad, I think it fosters a culture of entitlement and dependency which in the end is more damaging to the very people that the good-hearted liberals are trying to help.
So, there you are. A committed Christian from the south who is pro-life, favors a strong defense, judicial originalism, and low-tax, pro-growth economics. If that makes me "Coach GOP Sal," fine. But let the GOP beware--I'm only with them, so long as they are with me. I could have voted for Truman. At the turn of the century, I would have been a Teddy Roosevelt Progressive. And if ever there's a party realignment where some old or new party best represents my views, I'll jump in a heartbeat. Don't think it can happen? Ask a Whig!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
.jpg)
15 comments:
Obviously, you know I have a very different view of all of this and would dispute much of it, but I just wanted to make a factual correction: Bob Casey wasn't allowed to speak at the Democratic convention in 1992 not because he was anti-choice but because he refused to endorse the ticket. There are many respected members of my party who are anti-choice to varying degrees, including the Senate Majority Leader.
My parents did a good job of brainwashing me at a young age to embrace my Republican heritage and dislike the evil Democrats. One time when I was quite small I saw a guy who seemed like kind of a shady character with his hair all slicked back and shades on his face and I commented disdainfully that the guy looked like a Democrat. I heard all about "environmentalist wackos" and "tree huggers." I could barely get through a "new" Disney movie ("Lion King," etc.) without getting a lecture on how it was all just liberal/New Age propaganda. I became quite familiar with the Rush Limbaugh theme song. I learned to associate being Republican with being a Christian.
Fortunately, in the past few years I have been able to get my head out from under the sand and look around me a bit. I still would definitely side with you on all of the issues you mentioned, and I am not prepared to say that I would vote for any of the Democrats I see running now. But, I think my view of Republicans and Democrats (even conservatives and liberals) has changed a lot. I have been disappointed by the Republicans lately, and I have made some great Democrat friends. At some point, it hit me that my conservative upbringing was, in some ways, very hateful. We talk about the "bleeding heart liberals," but at least they care about people. I may not agree with the ways they try to help people (welfare, etc.), but I believe that their intentions are good. These people are not "evil" just because of their political views. Even the most communist-like liberal could truly be trying to do what they thought was right. Shoot, the behavior of the disciples in Acts 2 could be seen as very communist (although I would be strongly opposed to a communist government because it fails to account for human nature). As for the environmentalists, sometimes I think maybe we should be a little more "green," not that I think we as humans really have the power to destroy the earth, but out of respect and appreciation for the earth's Creator. It's not crazy to avoid styrofoam. (However, it is crazy to put the needs of animals/plants above the needs of humans.) Anyway, my point is that sometimes we think that we are so right while the other side is so wrong, but sometimes we need to be really honest with ourselves and evaluate what we are buying into or rejecting. I have had to do that recently, as I have ended up with my foot in my mouth on way too many an occasion. Because of this, I am now more conscious of how I speak about politics to children. I hope that once I have kids I can teach them to think for themselves instead of simply parroting me. (At least my parents did teach me that, even though "thinking for myself" has led me to reject some of the other things they have taught me.)
Matthew, of course you disagree--and you're one of the reasons why I can't demonize the Democrats. I disagree with you on most premises, but I think you're smart, and a good person with the best of intentions. If you disputed me line-by-line, you'd make very good, coherent arguments, and in the end, (as always) we'd agree to disagree. BUT... we'll also disagree about Casey. The party line may be that he was not frozen out because of his pro-life views, but Casey himself, and even CNN, say otherwise. And, so long as I'm in a Reaganesque mood, "there you go again." Why do you call him "anti-choice?" Why not the preferred adjective of "pro-life?" If I called your side "anti-life" or "pro-death," you'd howl. Oh, and while I'm at it, Harry Reid may be pro-life (not anti-choice) at some level of his innermost being, but he is FUNCTIONALLY pro-choice, particularly as it informs his votes on judges and his embrace of the laughable "health exception." On a completely unrelated note, Google won't log me on right now, so I'll be posting as "anonymous" on my own blog.
-Sal
I did a bit of research on the Casey thing in 1992. It is questionable whether he had endorsed the ticket at the time of the convention. After the convention, he indicated to the New York Times that he did indeed support the ticket. But other anti-choice Democrats were allowed to speak, including Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, and Senators John Breaux and Howell Heflin. The difference was that Casey wanted to give a speech focusing on his opposition to abortion, while the other anti-choice speakers spoke on other topics. If Arlen Specter wanted to give a speech at the 2008 GOP convention urging the party to become pro-choice, should they let him? Will they let him? Even if he supports the ticket, I don't think so.
As for my terminology, I use anti-choice because the disagreement on the issue lies not in who is in favor of life but in who is for or against choice. I am pro-life. The ideal number of abortions is 0. We agree on this. We are both pro-life. But where we disagree is on the question of whether a woman should be allowed to make the CHOICE of whether to have an abortion. I am pro-choice, you are anti-choice. But we (and all mainstream Democrats) are pro-life. If you called me pro-death, I would howl because it's not true. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you are anti-choice, are you not?
Harry Reid has a 29% rating from NARAL. Not exactly effectively pro-choice. And he will be speaking at the convention next year. Here are the details of his record on the issue:
http://www.ontheissues.org/Social/Harry_Reid_Abortion.htm
And after last night's debate, I'm more confident about my Huckabee prediction.
Sal, you should write a socially conservative text book. Dude (yes, I just called Larry "Dude,") I'd love to sit in a history / governement / economics round table discussion with you and a whole host of others... heck, even as a spectator.
As for what you said in your post, that is the best written explanation. You have so eloquently put into words that which I believe most conservative christians think. The thing that scares most of us at this point in the Presidential Race is not that Hillary or Obama are running, but that the best we can throw at them is Gulliani & Romney.
I admit, I make lots of those stereotype jokes about Dems being "Anti-gun, tree-hugging, gay communists..." partially to stir the room, partially because I know many of them, partially to solicit a laugh... admit it, you laughed when you read that.
But the truth is, there are Dems that have a real heart for people. Have you ever read: Blue Like Jazz? To me, that guy comes across as simply a socially conservative Democrat who loves people in spite of their short comings. Be they gay, poor or minority... If you listen to SOME of the messages of the Dems, I think you've got a real winner.
I don't think Becky was suggesting that we all turn communist and everyone have the exact same pay when referring to the actions of the Christ followers in Acts. Not that our government should force charity upon us (taxes) to support the lazy and the poor, but that our charity-love would pour out of a willingness to help those who need help.
Like Reagan, sometimes the best way to help a person in need is let them fall on their face or butt. But I don't want the government telling me that my capitalistic manner is evil and that I have to hand over half my check to them (which gets eaten in administration to less than 3% of the original amount) to be redistributed to people who WON'T work.
I wish we had a benevolent Dictatorship... i.e. the Creator governing the Created. But that is still a ways off. Until then... I say:
LARRY SALLEY FOR PRESIDENT!
mbellison: I don't know you at all. I am acquainted with Sal, however.
First, I don't want to come across as an uneducated Bible-Thumper who simply believes "all that mess because his redneck parents didn't know any better." But the argument of Pro/Anti-Choice vs Pro/Anti-Life is a marketing Ponze scheme. You should expect both sides to title their stance with something more appealing to the public... In fact, i think that if George Lucas had called the Death Star something different, that war would still be going on... and no one would know who Luke's dad is. ok, i digress.
Does a woman have the RIGHT to choose to end the LIFE of her baby... the answer is... to both of you... YES!
The truth is, the names are both misleading: Are you pro/anti abortion when the (vast majority) mother/father's choice was to have sex outside of the intended (Marriage) union?
I am Anti-Abortion... Like the coach, there are exceptions that he skillfully listed in his blog... i won't repeat them.
The question is: when does the "Life" part begin? When is this little conglomerate of cells considered a human? When is it a PERSON... when is it unique? When does this glob of cells actually "matter?"
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be. Psalms 139: 13-16. Now the question becomes, Is there really G_d who created us... do we matter to this creater.
I am 100% pro choice. "This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live..." Deuteronomy 30: 19
But if you put no weight to what these writings have to say... if there are no moral absolutes... where does it end? Abortion is not new.
What is more frightening: many pro-abortion people are anti war to "stop the killing."It's as if they're protecting the wrong end... yet they say the same thing... how can a "Pro-Life" person be "Pro-War?" To this we say, that person who we're killing was "Pro-Choice" and they chose to try to kill a person or attack someone.
From the dawn of creation, even G_d is pro choice.. but he begs that we choose correctly.
Matthew, Matthew. Your youthful exuberance overwhelms me. We've been having this same discussion since 7th grade, and you have yet to give an inch. I go out of my way to stake out exceptions, exemptions, and caveats, and even to compliment you on your intelligence and good intentions. And in return I get, "are you, or are you not, a member of the anti-choice party?" Future senator, at long last, have you no shame? :-)
OK. I'm anti-choice if the choice is to murder an innocent human for the sake of convenience. I'm also anti-choice when it comes to gang rape, bank robbery, and dealing heroin to 6-year-olds. And I have tried (albeit unsuccessfully, it seems) to allow for the fact that you, and many others, really may believe the rhetoric that the "ideal number of abortions is zero." But when it comes to party platforms and the votes of the undisputed leaders of your party, there is almost lockstep opposition to even the most reasonable or incremetal of restrictions. It seems the only thing most democrats want to do to solve this problem is distribute condoms to kindergarteners. Once again, that bumps up against my deeply-held values. Which brings me back to the original point--not that "your" guys are evil, but that I have no choice, believing what I do, but to oppose them. I'm unapologetically pro-life. Your best argument ever on my weakest day won't change that. And the Democrats are, in the main, not. Again, I know some folks who have made their peace with that. I can't.
As a quick aside, on the topic of the "big tent," I'm pretty sure that Schwartzenegger made at least some mention of his pro-choice beliefs when he gave one of the big prime-time speeches for the GOP a couple of years ago. And the fact that our front-runner right now is pro-choice indicates to me that our tent is bigger. On the Democrat side, you've got a woman, a black guy, a hispanic guy, a metrosexual (with great hair), and a troll (Kucinich) who all believe the same things. On the GOP side, we've got people who are fiscally liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-life, pro-choice, anti-gun, pro-gun, pro-gay marriage, pro-marriage amendment, even anti-war, all on the same stage. Which one is truly diverse?
Dang. You guys got me going. Pete, thanks for the plug, but I couldn't be President. If you gave me nukes, it wouldn't be pretty. I also could never raise the funds. My one hope is that Matthew becomes the first Democrat I vote for and pitches me a plum appointment somewhere. Maybe an appellate court slot on a mostly-liberal panel where my dissent really doesn't matter anyway, yet he can still get credit for a token conservative. As for writing a textbook... ouch. That would mean WORK. I'm not a real acadmeic, I just play one online. I love being track coach and "voice of the Cyclones" way too much to ever be the kind of guy who writes more than this blog. Besides, I know a prof who did just that--took his great lectures and made them into one of the definitive French Revolution texts in the USA. All it meant is that if you did you homework, it ruined the story. I'll stick to changing the world, one kid at a time. As you can tell from listening to my favorite student Matthew, I'm a lot more into learning how to think than what to think. Now if only I could get him to not call me names!
Actually, I agree with mbellison about the terminology issue. The rub lies in whether or not women can chose for themselves whether or not to get an abortion. I would say that I am anti-choice because (except for the reasonable exceptions mentioned) I don't think any random human being should have the power to kill another innocent person. That would be like giving grown children the option of having their senile parents killed once they start to become a burden. However, even if someone were in favor of giving people the option to kill off their parents, it would still be an issue of pro-choice vs. anti-choice. We wouldn't say that these people were pro-death. (Well, at least not to their face.) :)
If I were to refer to myself as pro-life, it would be true, but to me that's like, "Duh, OF COURSE I am in favor of life? Who isn't?"
Like Pete said, we try to use words that make our position sound the friendliest; thus, we say "pro-life" to put the other side in a position where to oppose us makes it sound like they are "anti-life" or "pro-death," but I don't think that is really fair. It's just another political trick, and I find I keep getting sicker of political tricks.
Anyway, I just thought what mbellison said about that made sense.
Thanks Becky (you go by Becky, right?). Just to belabor the point a bit, there are some things (like abortion) that I don't like but I am pro-choice about. I am anti-people getting fall-down drunk every weekend, but on that issue, I am pro-choice. I am also anti-drunk driving, and on that issue, I am not pro-choice.
You want me to give a little on the issue of abortion. Okay. This might surprise you. I'm taking Constitutional Law this semester, and although we have yet to read the sex and privacy cases (and I reserve my right to change my mind after I actually read the cases next week), I don't know that Roe v. Wade was rightly decided. I have no problem with Griswold v. Connecticut..i think the Constitution does include a right to privacy, stated all but explicitly in the 4th amendment, and the 14th amendment incorporated that right to the states. But if a fetus is a "person" under the 14th amendment definition, then it cannot be deprived of life without due process of law, which abortion would clearly do. So the question becomes: is a fetus a person under this definition? I think there is a strong case to be made that this is an issue that the Court in Baker v. Carr labeled a "nonjusticiable political question," as there can be said to exist "the impossibility of deciding without an initial policy determination of a kind clearly for nonjudicial discretion." Under that argument, I would tentatively argue that the Court should have stated that if Congress wanted to forbid states from banning abortion, it could, but the policy determination of whether a fetus was a human life should not be made by unelected judges. This is a Constitutional argument and has nothing to do with my policy views on the subject (if the Court had decided this way in Roe and I had been in Congress, I would have lead the fight to pass such a law), but it's a concession of a sort. Happy? (Hopefully no one will read this when I'm running in a Democratic primary :) )
As for your point about which party is more diverse, I find the whole debate about which party is a "bigger tent" ideologically to be pretty silly. Democrats run more conservative candidates in red states, and Republicans run more liberal candidates in blue states. Both parties don't care who votes for them, they care that they get 51%. And if the only Democrat who can get 51% is anti-choice, the tent is open. Finally, you discounted the fact that the Democratic primary field and electorate are demographically diverse. But do you have no problem with the fact that every single racial minority group votes overwhelmingly Democratic? Do you really want to be a member of a party in which the people who look different than the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable?
"But do you have no problem with the fact that every single racial minority group votes overwhelmingly Democratic? Do you really want to be a member of a party in which the people who look different than the majority of Americans don't feel comfortable?"
Wow. the race card. There ya go again! Typical. Race card plus the "exclusivity" game with a mix of that sophisticated sounding "diversity" babble. Your comment reminds me of something I heard when I was in 4th grade: "You're still wearing a Gotcha shirt? That's out of style." Yup. You're right. We right wingers are white-upper-middle-classed, christians who detest those who don't look or dress like us. You got me matt. Red handed. If I run, you'll just have to read this out loud on air to Fox news or CNN. But of course, be sure to leave out this next sentence... Those 2 statements I quoted are full of Fecal matter. (Fecal Matter is like maneur... it's crap.) You're using minorities as if they're a fashion statement.
I'm not saying that the Repubs are all correct. Let me ask this question: when does it matter what color your skin is? Simple. It matters when you vote. It matters to the party that wants to prostitute out a race or minority.
Now the question is: Why? There is a majority of the low-income minorities who vote Dem because the Dems promise a socialistic-utopian pipe dream. The Dems do this to minorities. They prostitute them by "buying" their votes with promised increased entitlements and class warfare. They promise wealth redistribution to those of lower income. They ignore the fact that people need personal responsibility and equip them with excuses.
Lord how i wish we were all one color some times! If we could just get rid of black/white or other skin tones... well, then it would be eye color.. or hair... or nose shape... You look at the outside appearance and the outward differences that the Dems possess. Have you thought to look at the merits of many of their arguments? Wealth redistribution... let's not give it a cutesy little politically correct marketing name... let's call taxes what they are: Robbing from those who are financially sound and giving it to those who are not. Forced Charity. Let's call pro/anti-choice exactly what it is: it's pro/anti abortion. Quit the stupid political marketing.
If you're wondering when life begins, ask the one who made life. But no one argues with the scripture. They either think we're just uneducated for believing that there is a G_d and that the bible is true... or they just ignore it as if it were some quaint, cute little crutch.
I've heard it rumored that Alan Keys (a 2004 black primary nominee of the Republican Party) would frequently go to churches that were dominantly black memberships and ask a few questions:
1. Do you oppose gay marriage: (resounding yes)
2. Do you want the government to lower taxes? (again, a loud YES)
3. Do you want to stop frivolous abortions of convenience? (even more YES)
4. Do you want equality among all people? (YES!!)
Then he would congratulate them that they were all card carrying republicans (meaning conservatives).
But the Dems propose wealth redistribution. It is thinly veiled Marxist Socialism. Heck, they even propose socialized health care. The Constitution my friend grants the Right (or should I say responsibility) of Life! Liberty! & the PURSUIT of happiness. Yet the Dems seem to believe it is the responsibility of the Government to GUARANTEE happiness.
If i can make one thing abundantly clear: The US Senate & Representatives rarely do anything for the good of the everyday US citizen. They seek reelection and higher pay packages. They over administer and under manage nearly every project. They spend too much (both parties) and fit us with the bill. Sorry, there's nearly no politician that is trustworthy when they're out of earshot.
You see, those of us Reaganite Republicans... or more correctly - Conservatives - are for equality and fairness. But we're not just going to hand over financial success because a person just wants it. they have to work for it.
Your 2 race card statements are typical political BS. They're meant to stir people to Rally around a political flag. It's the typical white person saying "see, i have more black friends than you do." And no, i'm not calling any one of them AFRICAN Americans... They're Americans, We're americans. Unity comes when you abandon all other allegiances, and choose... even cling to one. But then you get idiots like Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton who stir up the black population by playing the Race card every time they get the opportunity.
As for the GBLTI minority, I don' think I'll lose sleep over the fact that I don't support their issues and that they don't support mine. Though I love the people of that group dearly, to the point of shedding tears over their rejection of the Father. I will not lose sleep over the fact that the homosexual agenda doesn't align with my voting ilk.
You can quote every case known to man, it will not budge on one thing: The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul. The statutes of the LORD are trustworthy, making wise the simple. The precepts of the LORD are right, giving joy to the heart. The commands of the LORD are radiant, giving light to the eyes... By them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.
When one makes these laws his center, his point of reference, you will notice that they begin to move away from prejudice and away from killing... even abortion.
Becky, I don't want to argue semantics. As I conceded, you can fairly call me "anti-choice." But it's a question more of attitude and respect than anything else. If you were African-American, and I were to insist on calling you "Negro" because literally, that's your racial group and because you've never really been to Africa, I might be right semantically, but I'd be rude. And chances are (unless I was 80 years old and couldn't break th habit of using what was once the "polite" terminology of a different generation), my doing so would betray bad intentions on my part. I love Matthew, but I also know what he's doing. It's a subtle rhetorical dig, maybe even involuntary. I argued that way, too, when I was in my 20s. My point was (and is), that it's not necessary. As I think this conversation shows quite well, we can disagree without being disagreeable.
And Matthew. Wow. Even YOU admit that Roe may have been wrongly decided? I take back every bad thing I ever thought about you. Better watch out--it's a slippery slope! I'll have you using your super-powers for the good side yet!
Well, Larry, what can I say? You know I'm a "details" person.
And, Pete, I think you need to learn to not hold back so much. Let it out. Tell us what you REALLY think. :)
BTW, what's up with Blogger? I guess they changed how you can identify yourself. Not cool... I don't like change.
-Becky
becky,
LOL... yeah, i get a fire in my eyes and a growl in my throat when i start talking about the word of our Lord. It's that passion that won't die.
I'm being too reserved.
oh, yeah. someone in our small group said that "paying off your house was just silly and borrowing money is smart because you're buying money... and money has never been so cheap!"
Let's just say, Debt Free Pete had a hard time holding his tongue on that one... but i was more surprised that Beks actually was the steamroller there. I want you guys to get to know that chick better. She's a-friggin-mazing! She's the Robin to my Batman.
pg
Post a Comment