Democrats & Liberals Archives

Maybe the documents should be released after the confirmations. Republicans lie to get their way, maybe they need a taste of their own medicine.

This post is incendiary!

Maybe there should be a fire!!

Who’s burning here?

With all the problems we are havimg now with the economy and companys going under and unemployment growing, Korea, Iran just to name a few, I don’t think the President is really wanting to hurt the image of this country even more than it already is, I think Obama is a lot smarter than that. Most people already know that torture was going on, and most other governments at that matter.
As far as the nominations, maybe the republicans are going to give the democrats a little taste of their own medicine. How many of Bush’s nominations were held up by DEMOCRATS?

One other thing. Why some small time rag? Something this big I would think the major media groups would have a field day, especially the liberal media.

There is probably nothing to this story. You have to assume that this clown Horton got the inside story when nobody else could.

It is pathetic how much Bush still controls the minds of liberal Democrats. There are like the thirty-year-old guy who insists on bringing up his parents when describing his failings.

The Democratic Congress did nothing from 2006-2008 because they were so interested in making trouble for Bush. Now he is gone and some are still focusing on him. Move on and do the country’s business. It really will be hard to blame Bush for too much longer. Haters don’t prosper.

KAP,
What you are forgetting is that Spain is investigating American Officials in their Country for torture and other supposed war crimes. So why President Obama and Congress must deal with the other issues I do believe that the Republicans are facing a double edge sword on this issue.

For why they may ask Their Friends not to release the memos here in America I do not see them having any sucj luck with their coubterparts in Spain. And with political leaders like former VP Cheney and Newt Gingrichstill running around saying the Sky is Falling, I hope most Conservatives in America as well as the Liberals realize that it is better if “We the People” hold these Citizens Accountable than allowing the Justice System in another Nation do the dirty work for us. Because IMHO if America can stand up to the Council of 12 in the 70’s than this issue of torture will become just another page in history. A lesson learned well.

henry

you’re kidding right? cheney and gingrich? it’s amazing how far obama and the democrats will go to deflect attention from themselves. bush, cheney, gingrich, whatever. no one cares about some kangaroo court in spain holding trial in absentia for non existant war crimes. this is nothing more than liberal wet dream. obamas popularity is falling. people are starting to realize they’re going to have the crap taxed out of them to pay for this monsterous budget, and this is nothing more than a distraction. the fact that obama is going to release private documents just shows how desperate he is to deflect attention from what will be an absolute disasterous of an administration. BTW henry just what was it that gingrich did? while i won’t predict a republican majority in either chamber, i guarantee the democrats will lose some of thier gains in 2010.

This has more information: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/04/06/memos/index.html

And here: http://www.truthout.org/032909Z

Just because you don’t like something, or believe it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or isn’t true.

dbs said: “the fact that obama is going to release private documents just shows how desperate he is to deflect attention from what will be an absolute disasterous of an administration.”

That comment emulates conspiracy theory against what we would all wish for a more transparent and accountable government and politicians. Releasing secret documents, provided they will not compromise national security and safety, is what most Americans would want to have occur regularly, often, and as completely as possible.

To call such a release of documents who have a right to see the evidence of whether motive and intent of the previous administration to violate our Constitution, laws, and treaties, a political ploy, is demonstrable of only one thing. The caller being an apologist for the last administration. Absolutely nothing else makes sense save, being an enemy of the U.S. defending actions to undermine the Constitution and rule of law for select partisans.

Dbs,
Didn’t you watch the hews? It seems that because North Korea shot a failed missle that did not hurt a single Human Newt wants America to drop everything that we are doing and go start another war by bombing a country that is still in the Dark Ages.

And why I am sure that you will find more people agreeing with President Obamas’ Point of View than advocating that America spends another few trillions on an unecessary conflict. Or are you of the mind that America can just wipe out North Korea without the Worlds’ Blessings and Consent. Because with it you do know that America is unstoppable, right?

dbs said: “i guarantee the democrats will lose some of thier gains in 2010”

How can such a guarantee be made with any credibility? It can’t, quite simply. So, why make such unsupportable statements for all to review at a later date?

Like your comment to gerrold in 2007: “this shouldn’t suprise you, comming from someone who believes that over the top rhetoric has some integral place in a reasonable debate.”

Over the top rhetoric? You mean like “i guarantee the democrats will lose some of thier gains in 2010”. Is it not just as likely at this point that the economy and employment numbers give voters a real sense of optimism by the Summer of 2010, resulting in Democrats gaining even more seats? Of course it is. And many in the business community are predicting just such a time table for the trend change in the economy and employment numbers.

Comments like yours, guaranteeing a future over which you personally and individually have no control, establish a public record. Like your opposition to democracy in America on Aug. 21, 2007 in a comment made to Bills when you said: “this country is a republic, not a democracy. the majority should not be able to infringe on anyones rights by popular vote.”

You mean like the previous right of White males to exclusively be entitled to the vote? After all, prior to universal suffrage, women and people of color had no right to vote. The majority determined to alter that right of exclusivity of White Males.

Was this a wrong turn in history in your view due to the majority determination of universal suffrage? The public majority preceded the state’s and Congressional majority on this issue and forced the government’s elimination of White Male’s exclusive right to vote, and indirectly, to even hold office in the U.S. government for the better part of the length of our history.

Preferring an elitist and minority rule is entirely consistent with Republican and GOP governance. So I compliment your comment’s integrity with your Party’s view. But, I can find little else in the way of merit to recommend that record of your comment on democracy in America. And it gives no small room for doubt as to the credibility or efficacy of your guarantee regarding the 2010 election outcome.

Democratic election of this president is such a pain to the GOP and their supporters these days, as the majority chose a candidate to clean up, after Republicans had their brief pendulum swing of power, again demonstrating to the newer generation the reason for the historical GOP role as a minority party.

But, hey, at least the GOP is still the biggest minority party. If conservatives continue to leave the GOP however, as some Republicans are discussing may be the case, one has to ponder if that status can be maintained going forward in this century.

The simple truth of the matter is, Democrats are doing very much what Republicans would now be doing to rescue the economy and salvage the financial community. Had Pres. McCain and a Republican Congress done otherwise, they clearly would have lost their majority rule status in 2010 and 2012, have perpetuated and elongated the recession, while cutting revenues to the government even more and continuing their record of unprecedented growth of the national debt, past tense and of historical record. Republicans demonstrated a true love for deficit spending and debt growth when in power.

The hypocrisy of lambasting such deficit spending directed toward salvaging the economic crater left by a departing Republican rule, with its working class job losses, and diminished employment futures for the children of the middle class going forward, is not a D.C. insider source of information and laughter, you know.

The majority of the public is very aware of the Republican record on deficits and debt of the last 8 years, and the hypocrisy of their “Just Say No” to every effort by Democrats to rectify the economic threat to the working middle class.

The Democrat’s legislative measures may or may not prove to be what the middle class worker’s and the economy need to preserve their middle class status in our culture. But, the middle class greatly appreciates the extended unemployment benefits, and COBRA assistance to keep health insurance for their family, even if these are creating further deficits. Another year and 8 months will tell the tale on the economy’s recovery.

But, the majority of Americans, as evidenced by the polling, prefer Democrat’s intentions and efforts to those of Republicans. That is a matter of historical record, now. To change the status of that record, the GOP must work to insure Democrat’s failure. How to do that without ending up wearing the responsibility for failure themselves, has to be the most fundamental issue being debated in GOP inner circles.

And frankly, it has even the brightest and most philosophical of them, like Newt Gingrich, scratching their heads and looking to the ceiling for an epiphany. Rather humorous imagery, as one would think that if salvation was to come from that upward direction, it would have come before the 2006 and 2008 elections and the economic collapse which Republicans are now owners of in the public eye.

David,

The simple truth of the matter is, Democrats are doing very much what Republicans would now be doing to rescue the economy and salvage the financial community.

I disagree with that a bit. While I think that Republicans did, and would do a lot of what Democrats are doing, I think it is clear that Hooverism still abounds in the Republican party, and I think and the majority of the electorate thought that we’d be a lot worse off with McCain.

It is their clinging to idealogies that clearly don’t work that lost them the election.

We tried the “You are either for us or against us” and the “We are above the law” and the “We need to take our citizen’s rights away from them to protect them” tactics for 8 years. That didn’t fly so well. I have friends that have been abroad that come back to say that the World hates Americans; they paint is all with the same brush as that of the previous Administration. Nice.

It is understandable that certain people (political party) don’t want their dirty laundry aired. Perhaps they should have thought about that BEFORE they sullied it. They are more concerned with our 43rd President’s in-the-toilet legacy than our Country and its status/stature in the world community.

We need allies; a little honesty for once could be viewed as a good beginning.

Why it would be wrong to take DBS up on his offer that the Republicans will win back seats in 2010. I do believe that if the Conservatives keep playing on the Idelogy of the Anger White Man than over the next few years they are going to lose their status of a National Party.

Because what started out as a Noble Cause now has the majority of Americans wondering if they are living in the 1970’s or at the Dawn of the 21st Century. No, the far right is going to have to learn that Money and Entitles Societal Rights does not meet the Principles and Standards of the Founding Documents of America or any Nation in Humanity. For though we may be proud to see that President Obama is leading the Democratic Party away from the Old School Ways of Washington. I do not know of any Liberal today calling for Complete Government Control of the Private Sector.

So I have to ask DBS and others how does the Republican Leadership plan to take back seats in America if their stance now is to do nothing to help the Average American Worker regain their ability to become Economically Viable and Financially Independent? For I really do believe that if a serious 3rd Party was formed to challenge the Democratic Leadership insistance that Government and Private Industry leads the way to Energy Independence that the Republicans National Status would be put to the test since by President Bushs’ own words have many of them convinced that America cannot build a Sustainable Green Civilized Society.

Christine What about the constitution? what about the rule of law? Why do the repubs/conservatives drop their ideals so fast and run to protect the previous administration at any cost? So quick to call Geithner a tax fraud, so quick to call others Bush haters yet so slow to want to see justice work it’s magic on those that would torture against all signed treaties and regulations. Such shame you cast upon the repubs/conservatives by defending this illegal action on the part of the previous administration.

gergle said:

“I think and the majority of the electorate thought that we’d be a lot worse off with McCain.

It is their clinging to ideologies that clearly don’t work that lost them the election.”

While I agree we would have been worse off with McCain, I disagree with the reason. It is their clinging to ideologies that made it possible for BHO TO WIN. There was absolutely no excitement among republican voters, until Sarah Palin entered the race. McCain did not and never had represented the ideals of conservatives. To have elected McCain would have meant; the democrats passing their own agenda and McCain willingly signing everything they passed. The difference would have been, when it all failed, the dems would have laid the blame at the feet of a so-called republican president. To prove my point, all you have to do is listen to the blame place upon Bush at a time when the dems controlled the congress for the previous 2 years of his administration. The democrats could have done something to prevent our current situation, or at least tried, but as said earlier, they only wanted to hurt Bush.

Sarah Palin represented the conservative ideals of republicans and the democratic leadership knew this. Hence the reason for such vicious attacks on her and her family. Why else would the democrats attack her? I never heard the talking point “vetting” used so much. If the dems were so concerned about her lack of qualifications (vetting)and believed she didn’t have a chance of winning, why the attacks on her family? The fact is, she represented the beliefs of conservatives and this was the threat. Those of you who have the mindset of Pelosi and Reid do not represent a majority. The majority of Americans hold to a more moderate view. These were the ones called the “Reagan Democrats” and they voted for a very conservative republican president (Reagan).

My belief is that very conservative candidates will be chosen for the 2012 election. Jindel, Palin, Gingrich, Huckabee, and perhaps others will emerge and there may be a battle within the republican party. There is a power struggle within the republican party between conservatives and moderates. The reason such a big deal is made about Rush Limbaugh, is that he represents truly conservative ideals and he is not only attacked by moderate republicans, but also the far left. The democratic leadership would love to identify RL as the leader of the republican party, but this is not true. If he is so bad and out of the mainstream thought of Americans, why would the left attack him so viciously? But, the big question is, how long before the above named republican conservatives and their families are attacked? It will come.

HS said:

“I do believe that if the Conservatives keep playing on the Idelogy of the Anger White Man than over the next few years they are going to lose their status of a National Party.”

It was Murtha who called his constituents, red-neck racists, it was Senator Byrd of WV who was a member of the KKK and frequently used the word “niger” in his conversations and justified it by saying “that was the way we talked back then”. It was BHO who said of flyover country americans, “they cling to their guns and religion”.

The only angry men I see are democrats and their not all white.

Oldguy,
Why you are entitled to your opinion the fact that the Conservative Leaders are calling for a revolution and President Obamas failure as well as lowering the living standards of the average american does wonders for casting a positive image don’t you think?

In fact, I wonder how Wall Street is going to react since the Republicans keep insisting that they should not bailout the Banks and Financial Institutes that contribute to their election. Given the Conservatives love of money, I wonder if they could raise the necessary funds to put on a decent showing come election time.

HS:

Perhaps you could provide some stats about the amount of money given, by financial institutions, to republicans vs. democrats?

Oldguy,
The question is not how much money has been given in the past, but how much money will be given by the special interest groups to those who believe that they should have not been saved due to the lack of oversight of the Republicans. For surely Enron and World Com along with Madoff and that other guy Sir Somebody will be poster children in 2010 if the Republicans stay on their current course of action.

Oldguy says “Sarah Palin represented the conservative ideals of republicans and the democratic leadership knew this. Hence the reason for such vicious attacks on her and her family.”

speaking of vicious attacks, what about the way the McCain/Palin lapdogs attacked Obama? Questioning his citizenship, his religious beliefs, his ties with distinguished professors as associating with terrorist and so on. The reason Palin was so scary was her obvious lack of ability. She was a heartbeat away should McCain have won the election. Scrutinizing of Palin was not nearly as vicious as what the cons did to Obama.

oldguy,

“It was BHO who said of flyover country americans, “they cling to their guns and religion”.”

It’s very easy to take that statement out of context and make something out of it. If you listen to the entire quote it actually makes sense.
However in the “heat” of the campaign it was easy for Limbaugh to remove the context of Obama’s statement and use it as a club to bludgeon him with.
I listen to Limbaugh and I actually check his “facts”. This is something that I highly doubt many of his listeners do.
“America’s truth detective” wouldn’t know the truth if it bit him on the ass, and if this is what you define as “representing truly conservative values”, I’m not surprised that the Republicans went down in flames in the last election regardless of whether McCain is a true conservative or not.
Limbaugh used “operation chaos” to get Obama elected and it backfired on him.
You guys on the right have only yourselves and your chosen representatives to blame for the mess that is the Republican party.

Rocky

Henry Schlatman,

Conservatives have love of freedom.

I, as a conservative, love the freedom to make money, to loose money, to enjoy life way I see fit. I don’t like when some one else makes decisions for me, I don’t like being told what to do, I don’t like when I am looked down upon and especially when some community organizer is apologizing to Europeans for my country and for me. The Europe collectively and any one of those countries individually (with the exception of eastern Europe) have done nothing to earn my apologies, let alone my countries!!!

Just because I am not part of the Manhattan elite socialite scene doesn’t mean I live in a cave. Liberals have successfully convinced themselves that being progressive = being an intellectual, and somehow that compelles them to speak on my behalf. I don’t like that and never will.

I believe it’s Democratic party that has more millionaires contributing to it than a Republican party. How many patriotic Democrats failed to pay their taxes? I thought that was our patriotic duty? It’s a U.S. Congressman from California, a Democrat, Pete Stark claiming his $1.7 million mansion in Maryland as his primary residence so he doesn’t have to pay higher property taxes that loves money. It’s the US treasury secretary that “forgets” to pay taxes, that loves money. It is Tom Daschle that forgets to pay taxes that loves money.

Let’s look at some of the biggest contributors to the Democratic party and BHO:

1.Goldman Sachs $6,9 mill D74% R23%
2.JPMorganChase $5,7 mill D54% R36%
3.CitiGroup $5,4 mill D61% R33%
4.FennieMae $4.8 mill D57% R32%
5.MorganStanley $4,3 mill D53% R33%
6.BoAmerica $3,9 mill D46% R35%
7.UBS AG $3,1 mill D56% R43%
8.Lehman Brothers $2,5 mill D65% R31%
9.BearStearns $1,7 mill D43% R33%
10.AIG $452k D75% R20%

Do I need to go on? When a presidential candidate raises $1.2 billion to get elected, you can no longer claim that Republican party is party of the Rich. That myth is dead, has been dead for some time. The conservatives are members of the middle class, who don’t want to surrender their freedoms to the rich and their wallets to the poor. I think that should be simple enough definition even a liberal could understand.

henry

“Republicans keep insisting that they should not bailout the Banks and Financial Institutes that contribute to their election.”

the top two recipients of AIG campaign cash were ( you guessed it ) barak obama, and christopher dodd.

Just because you don’t like something, or believe it, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, or isn’t true.

It also doesn’t make it true no matter how much you want it to be. Those two links only link back to the original article by Horton, we have his single word and that of his ‘inside informer’ that there is any kind of blackmail going on.

In fact, this administration has been attempting to keep those documents secret since taking office, long before there were any nominations to blackmail. Something else is going on here, but the entire premise of this article, using a single source with no factchecking, is not only called into question but is pretty much a waste of time IMO.

We have all kinds of conspiracy theories to discuss, why get into an imagined blackmail attempt unless we get some actual facts presented to us?

david

i made a prediction, or if you prefer, it is my opinion that democrats will lose ground in 2010. you right guarantee was the wrong word. sorry my mistake.

you said:
“Like your comment to gerrold in 2007: “this shouldn’t suprise you, comming from someone who believes that over the top rhetoric has some integral place in a reasonable debate.””

thanks for the trip in the ( as rhinehold would put it ) the wayback machine. BTW i’de be curios to see the comment i was responding to, in order to put it more into perspective, since that without gerrolds comment it is some what out of context.

you said:
“Is it not just as likely at this point that the economy and employment numbers give voters a real sense of optimism by the Summer of 2010, resulting in Democrats gaining even more seats? Of course it is.”

IMO not likely. i’de like a pair of those rose colored glasses though. if by some chance you’re right, when the time comes i’m willing to eat my share of humble pie, how about you?

you said:
“establish a public record. Like your opposition to democracy in America on Aug. 21, 2007 in a comment made to Bills when you said: “this country is a republic, not a democracy. the majority should not be able to infringe on anyones rights by popular vote.””

i have no problem with this quote. this country is actully a representative republic. the const. protects our individual liberies from mob rule. can the majority vote away my right to freedom of speech?

you said:
“Was this a wrong turn in history in your view due to the majority determination of universal suffrage? The public majority preceded the state’s and Congressional majority on this issue and forced the government’s elimination of White Male’s exclusive right to vote, and indirectly, to even hold office in the U.S. government for the better part of the length of our history.”

it is my opinion the those rights bestowed upon us by our creator ( whatever you believe that to be ) belongs to all of our fellow americans, so continuing to bring up this and other things such as slavery is pointless. you can try and discredit the founders ideals by pointing out that they were hypocrits, but it does not diminish the merit of the principles which penned in our const. just because i believe in the teachings of the church does not mean i condone the misdeads by its clergymen.

KAP-
The Bush Administration failed to be straight with us, and the Republicans are trying NOT to remind people about why they’re a minority party now, even if it means covering things up.

The damage to this country regarding torture has already been done. Part of undoing that damage entails facing the truth of what was done. That can’t happen if we continue to lie to ourselves, and continue to have the government lie to us.

As for the Liberal media, is it really that liberal, or are the people critiquing it so far to the right that they don’t recognize centrism or disinterested perspectives when they see them? That’s the problem. The real hardline Republicans couldn’t be pleased by any media that didn’t constantly give their people a break.

Some Democrats complain about media coverage, but an anti-Democratic Party bias is not so much of a concern for most Democrats. We’re far less concerned about apologizing for politicians from our party who are dragging our image down.

Christine-
Bush’s legacy will haunt us for some time to come. Some would like more nasty surprises to remain, and worse, for the Obama administration to be complicit in keeping those secrets.

Your party has not been a shining example of accountability recently. I think you folks should be less concerned about cleaning house of the ideologically impure, and more concerned about getting honest people in charge. Your folks, because they practiced Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment, have refused to undermine the corrupt and the extreme, and those people have been allowed to dictate the party’s direction, even after two terrible national election losses.

Finally, it is not at all true that we spent all our time attacking Bush. The reason not much of value came out of the 2007-2009 congress was the record levels of filibustering that came out of the GOP, a tradition they continue to pursue, but which has been weakened by 2008’s losses in the Senate for the Republicans.

The Democrats have been pushing through legislation since then, and their population has risen. That should be the objective answer to anybody who things it was liberal politics that was dragging down Democratic Party numbers.

Your real concern is that your party is wasting its power trying to stand in the way of a more popular party, and against an extraordinarily popular president.

Everyone-
In my mind, the problem is, the Republicans have not come to fully face what their dilemma is in America today. They are not facing that they essentially lost the initiative everywhere it counted. Instead, they try and once again force through shear will what they were able to force before: their minority views on the majority of the country.

Before, people were receptive. Now, they’re not. Now they’ve got the collapse of the markets, the fiasco of the Iraq war (even though it got better), and the cavalcade of failures during the Bush administration which undermined all the points the Republicans used to make about the superiority of their party.

The Republicans must prove themselves repentant, capable of change. They don’t have to become liberals. They have to become pragmatic. They have to dump their support for the crazies in their party. They have to quit relying on the failure of the Democratic Party, or fast-fading resentments against the policies of the seventies. They have to stop working for his failure now, and start working for America’s success. They can propose alternatives, propose changes to moderate the items liberals have the power to push through. They can do any number of things rather than make the GOP into a freak show of political grotesqueries, like they’re doing now.

Unfortunately, the leaders folks have put in charged are not done yet with the policies that have taken the party into the dumpster. I suggest to the average Republican that they toss these jokers over the side and give themselves a real opportunity to regroup, and re-aim their party towards a new, more moderate base.

“When a presidential candidate raises $1.2 billion to get elected, you can no longer claim that Republican party is party of the Rich. That myth is dead, has been dead for some time. The conservatives are members of the middle class, who don’t want to surrender their freedoms to the rich and their wallets to the poor.”

Crusader if you look at the history of the repubs you will see that they always start with this false line you mention and then end up using the middle class conservatives they fool for their own purposes. Just as now when they have been brought to task by the voters for their corruption and incompetence they purport to be for the middles class. Why do you guys always fall for it?

The fact is these contributors you mention go where they think their money will but them the most ear time with our elected representatives. Anyone that thought McCain had a chance after 8 years of GWB was only fooling themselves. Hell, the dems elected a liberal black man to the office of president by a wide margin. This was after an onslaught of misinformation and falsehoods by the repubs/conservatives. To think that because the wall street types threw money at the dems makes the repubs the party of the middle class is just ridiculous. As long as the conservatives believe buying candidates with money is free speech then the moneyed class will continue to spend the money to buy the legislature they need to keep the wealthy in the money and we will continue to get the best politicians money can buy. But it hasn’t a thing to do with the middle class.

j2t2

Let’s stick to the subject. The statement by gergle was, ““I think and the majority of the electorate thought that we’d be a lot worse off with McCain.
It is their clinging to ideologies that clearly don’t work that lost them the election.”

My answer dealt with why McCain lost the election and why Sarah Palin represented the same ideals of conservatives, and why democrats fear Palin and other conservative candidates. You have completely changed the subject by complaining about how conservatives viewed BHO. We are not talking about how conservatives viewed BHO.

But if you want to change the subject and talk about how we view BHo, he is a joke. He is a joke to conservatives and to the rest of the world. Europe, N.K., and Iran are laughing at him for his weakness and waffleing.

Rocky:

Are you denying that Murtha made these statements?

Thank you Crusader, I’m not sure Henry understood what he was talking about, but you answered the question.

oldguy,

“Are you denying that Murtha made these statements?”

If you’re talking about this statement;

“It was BHO who said of flyover country americans, ‘they cling to their guns and religion.’”

Yeah, I am pretty sure that Obama said this and not Murtha.

It was your quote, what do you think?

Rocky

oldguy,

I agree that most Americans do have a conservative bent. I think, however, it is the reactionary, radical economics of today’s “conservatives” that scared many Americans. While it may not fit into the rhetorical position of today’s “conservatives”, to me, the conservative economic position is more like Roosevelt rather than Hoover. I’m hardly a proponent of Pelosi.

The continued drip, drip, drip of outright theft by those that use Republicans to steal from working class Americans and Taxpayers didn’t help.

I think most Americans don’t have much of a clue about economics. They know what has worked and what didn’t work, however. Republicans have overplayed the starve it until it dies, let the robber barons run free form of government. Reagan was great at reading lines. He didn’t involve us in major wars, and the economy grew for most of his term. Thanks to Paul Volker. Other than that, what exactly did he do? (besides fund Sadaam?) He was a great feel good president. By the time his term was over, he was clearly a dottering old fool. No one wanted to put him in jail for the Contra fiasco. Bush II tried to carry on his policies and look what happened. If Regean hadn’t become senile and was allowed a third term, his image would be in tatters.

oldguy

why democrats fear Palin and other conservative candidates.

I think the majority of Americans do fear her. Mostly her similarities to GWB. Stupidity.

The Republicans did not receive the memo, or did not have it read to them, from the last two elections, this Country demanded change from the incompetant and lawlessness of the past eight years. Yes, the Republicans have a lot to want be swept under histories rug and torture is just part of it.

Oldguy-
Palin should show you your problem: she energized the Republican base, and enervated everything else.

Also, if you look at her actual actions, it’s not clear at all that she’s a pure conservative. She’s almost certainly a religious conservative, but that doesn’t sound an encouraging note for most people, given the problems they had with the last one, and the increasing social liberalism of the younger generations. She’s not a doctrinaire government conservative- after all she addicted her hometown to earmarks as mayor, and was more than happy to seek them as Governor.

She takes the standard Neocon line on defense issues and the standard oil company line on energy interests, but neither of these encourage people much.

Substantively there’s not much better evidence of the Republican’s decline than the fact that they ran somebody who had close personal ties to advocates of State Secession.

With all the efforts that the Republicans have gone through to appeal to folks in the South, to become their regional power, we have to ask ourselves if anything remains of the original party of Lincoln. It’s ironic that the Confederacy has become the last major bastion of the GOP.

You don’t need a Sarah Palin. The Republicans need to drop their addictions to the hardline.

McCain lost in no small part because he wasted or never really had a real connection to what the majority of Americans wanted. Instead, he was forced to be beholden to the dozen and a half special interests that dominate Republican policy, which often forced him to sacrifice relatively moderate views that could have let him appeal more broadly to voters.

The hardline interests in the Republican Party have become extraordinarily jealous of sharing the GOP with Americans of moderate politics, and essentially threatens to walk anytime folks in the GOP don’t kiss up to them. This jealousy is preventing the Republicans from becoming a more normalized Party.

These folks will have to learn that the party has to be accessible to most Americans if they want to be a viable choice, and if they choose to have the Republican party chained to their on interests, they will have their wish of a party all to themselves, and will very much regret that wish’s granting.

S.D.
This grocery store tabiloid that Paul was refering to gets hold of a story like Paul was writing about. To me it seems strange even to think that Spain is trying to charge some officials with war crimes and no where in the MAJOR MEDIA, MSN, CNN, FOX. MSNBC, there is not even a hint of this BULLS—T going on. If their was a leak to this tabiloid, especially when the documents are secret there should not be an investigation? Yes there was torture going on but I’ll bet a dollar to a donut that some of your own party had knowledge this was going on and did nothing until it was made public and they’re probably the ones who cryed the loudest. As far as war crimes goes don’t you think those in the taliban and other radical muslem extremist should be held accountable for the innocent people that lost their heads.

SD:

“They have to dump their support for the crazies in their party.”

Are you really sure you want to make this statement?

“The Republicans must prove themselves repentant, capable of change.”

We have nothing to repent over, unless this is a pre-requisite to becoming a democrat. BHO has spent the last week making a joke of himself, groveling in the dirt and apologizing to Europe. What a circus?

The democrats are doing a good job all by themselves. Why should the republicans get involved in the destruction of our nation? All we have to do is set back and watch the liberals self destruct. It will begin on April 15th.

Rocky:

I think you said, “It’s very easy to take that statement out of context and make something out of it. If you listen to the entire quote it actually makes sense.”

You admit BHO made the statement, perhaps you could explain how it was taken out of context and how it makes sense?

Gergle:

“why democrats fear Palin and other conservative candidates.
I think the majority of Americans do fear her. Mostly her similarities to GWB. Stupidity.”

This statement comes from the party who thinks BHO is the smartest man that ever lived. If it wasn’t for Teleprompters, he wouldn’t be able to say anything, unless you consider DUH-UH-DUH-UH as intelligence.

SD:

“McCain lost in no small part because he wasted or never really had a real connection to what the majority of Americans wanted. Instead, he was forced to be beholden to the dozen and a half special interests that dominate Republican policy, which often forced him to sacrifice relatively moderate views that could have let him appeal more broadly to voters.”

Untrue, McCain lost because he never really had a real connection with his base. He is and was a moderate and the conservatives knew exactly what he would do if elected. Don’t presume to tell me what conservatives believe. I am a conservative and I know exactly what and why I believe, and I also know McCain never represented my beliefs. The basic mentality of conservatives and the election was to vote for the lesser of two evils. I personally believed that if BHO was elected, then the Democratic Party could take complete responsibility for the results. This is exactly the reason you guys on the left want us to sign onto what the dems are doing. This is what BHO and the dems in congress want; to have republicans in congress align themselves with liberal policy. They call this partisanship. So when the house of cards falls and fall it will, dems will say, “the republicans voted for this too”.

The American people are going to get mad, wait and see. Your liberal views do not represent the views of working class Americans.

The link provided by Paul gave reference to a link to a CNN report which in essence said;

” Government officials have privately acknowledged to CNN there has been an intense internal debate about whether the memos can be released without harming national security.

Intelligence community officials have led opposition to the release, saying making them public could provide important information that could be useful to any suspected terrorists captured by the United States in the future.”

I never take seriously any reporting that uses “unnamed sources” and then expounds upon what this could mean. It is silly and not worth the time to read. Hell, I have an unnamed source who claims that Santa Clause isn’t real…imagine that.

Then, we are treated to the usual tired old crap about who is responsible for our financial woes as though one senator or one congressperson or one president or one party is at the root of our problems. We had an election and PO and the liberals won and they are doing their best to change the U.S. into a socialist society. Will they succeed…no one knows. If America believes they are better off in 2010 they will vote their approval. If not, we will see some new faces.

I’ve been around politics long enough to know that pubic approval and popularity is very fleeting. PO right now has a majority approval and is very popular here and abroad. So what…that can change rapidly and he knows it and so do the liberals in congress. That they are rushing to install their socialist policies just makes good sense for them as they may never have another chance.

It is the responsibility of conservatives to object to and thwart the socialist agenda wherever it rears its ugly head. America has its head up it rear end right now and fear rather than reason is ruling the day. As always, there will be an awakening and reassessment and new leaders and new policies will become popular. What is being done today by PO and his liberal stooges can be undone.

Now, we have all these great thinkers on this blog telling conservatives that we have to change or become obsolete. Did liberals disappear during Reagan’s time. No, they rebuilt their grassroots and found a moderate in Clinton who got elected. Then after all the errors of the Bush presidency, and with no credible opponent, the nation elected a man who oozed charm and promised everything to everybody. PO was elected and now he must lead.

Now, liberals would have us believe that the future belongs to socialists…forever. Hardly. Only a fool would believe this baloney. Read your history…the only thing constant is “change”.

oldguy,

This is from a Fox.com article dated Friday, April 11, 2008;

“Our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives,” he said. “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.
And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Those are Obama’s exact words as quoted by the article. Obama was criticized as an arrogant, elitist, intellectual for saying these words, but I have to ask;

Is this not reality?

Do people not get bitter when they feel they have been abandoned by Washington, when they have not received help after years and years of promises from various administrations?

Now you can spin this anyway you choose, and oh, BTW you choose to only use one phrase from the quote, just as Limbaugh and his ilk did to belittle Obama, but I see no insult here.
I see nothing here that I would feel insulted by if I was in the shoes of those facing the reality of the situation he was speaking about.

“perhaps you could explain how it was taken out of context and how it makes sense”

I think this is self explanatory, I see no reason to explain it any further.

You may parse this statement any way you choose, but as I said, this is the reality for many folks, and IMHO, those that were insulted need to listen with better ears.

Rocky

Rocky, I appreciate reading the entire quote again. And, isn’t PO making exactly the same promises? That government is the answer to their problems rather than doing something about their plight themselves?

Just how many people can government bail out with PO’s trickle-up poverty policies? An honest person would have said simply that government isn’t the answer and can’t solve any problem permanently. Moving money from one American’s pocket to anothers isn’t a solution, it’s an “ism” as in socialism…and where has that worked well for very long?

I am from the government and I am going to help you is a frequent refrain of politicians of all stripes. When they fail they get thrown out of office. Do you or does anyone really believe that government is going to save us? From what…ourselves? Government simply can not, and never has been our salvation. We must do that for ourselves.

PO and the liberal congress will surely fail as their policies are not sustainable. Massive, horrendous debt or American outrage will end this socialist dream of poverty for all and subservience to government. American’s can be fooled…but not for long. Reckoning is coming…and it won’t be long.

Is this not reality?

Do people not get bitter when they feel they have been abandoned by Washington, when they have not received help after years and years of promises from various administrations?

No. The people he was referring to don’t WANT Washington in their lives. That is the real point that Obama and his followers seem to miss. There are a lot of people in this country that would feel much better if they didn’t have to worry about what the government was ‘doing for them’ because that really means ‘to’ them.

And by missing that point, by trying to say that the reason that people don’t trust Washington or want Washington in their daily lives is just because they have been not ‘helped enough’.

It is insulting, the people that it was directed at were insulted and the fact that people still seem to miss this fact continue to insult those people being talked down to by Obama.

What you don’t understand, and I doubt you ever will is bitterness is not constituted by me exercising my constitutional right. read the statement “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

I am religious not because I am bitter, but because I believe in the loving God. I own a gun not because I am bitter, but because that is my hobby and my protection from those who wish ill on my family. I am an immigrant so it’s not anti-immigrant sentiment that makes me bitter, but anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant sentiment and yes it frustrates me that I had to wait 4 years to become resident and another 5 to become citizen, and others want to jump the line. I learned English, didn’t receive a dime of public money and when my wife had an emergency, we had to wait in a emergency room lobby because some people use emergency room as a free medical assistance. My good friend was almost killed by an illegal, who run a red light, jack-knifed his car and didn’t have an insurance. Only by miracle he was not killed or permanently disabled. That is why I have a anti-ILLEGAL-immigrant sentiment.

Jim M said: “It is the responsibility of conservatives to object to and thwart the socialist agenda wherever it rears its ugly head.”

You mean the way they sweated in efforts to object to and thwart the Medicare Rx drug trillion dollar socialist program passed by Republicans, in order to meet the needs of the people in the hopes of garnering their votes?

Fact is, when Republicans have power, they find ways to cater to the needs of the people. Democrats are now doing no less. They hypocrisy of the Republicans is so blatant today, as a result. And I thank them for insuring their brand of doing the least for the people estimated as needed to stay in power, will not be returning to power anytime soon.

Republicans have created a situation in which many voters, witnessing Democratic policy failures, will nonetheless rationalize that at least Democrats tried, across the board, to fulfill the needs of the people, whereas Republicans sought the least assistance they deemed needed to stay in power, and favoring the corporations and wealthy with the rest of their policies. Even if Democrats fail, many independent voters will continue to vote Democrat instead of Republican. Motive and intentions are now perceived very differently between the two parties, in Democrats clear favor.

RNC Chair Steele says this week: “I campaigned on a need for responsible change for our Party. Not a change of our core values, but real change of how we go about listening to our supporters, how we communicate our message to all Americans and how we organize and win elections.”

He doesn’t get it. He doesn’t understand how those moderate and independent voters that went Democrat perceive the Republican Party. It is the real core values that will need to change in the GOP before they can win back a great many of those moderate and independent voters.

As Steele highlights so adroitly, there is a big difference between core values and message. Core values are reflected in policy making, and the policy making of Republicans harmed our international image and role as leader, and severely damaged our economy with attending very high opportunity costs to remedy it.

Steele admits freely that his GOP will change their advertising and message, not the way they govern or policy directions. Poor dumb Steele, just doesn’t haven’t a clue that that is absolutely the reverse direction of where the GOP needs to go to win back voters. His candor, however, and obvious position of the GOP is why so many independent voters are not going back to voting Republican, even if Democratic policies are only marginally effective in meeting the needs of the American people.

With any luck, independent voters will put forth some good independent candidates going forward, and take a bite out of the cadre of hypocritical Democrats in office, to boot.

“My answer dealt with why McCain lost the election and why Sarah Palin represented the same ideals of conservatives, and why democrats fear Palin and other conservative candidates. You have completely changed the subject by complaining about how conservatives viewed BHO. We are not talking about how conservatives viewed BHO.”

Oldguy, you blame the election loss by McCain/Palin due to vicious attacks by the dems on Palin. If vicious attacks were the cause as you say why did Obama win when he endured extremely vicious attacks from the cons/repubs? IMHO it wasn’t the vicious attacks as you claim but a defective conservative ideology brought to light the past 8 years. Palin was just more of the same. The repubs had the good sense to choose McCain over Tancredo, Hunter, Romney and Huckabee only to see McCain choose Palin as a running mate to placate the conservatives that drove the party into the toilet. So whether you deem me to be on topic or not I think you guys need to realize the real problem and not hide behind the “vicious attacks” theory if the repubs are to become a functional part of the politics of this country, of course that is JMHO.

my prediction:

2010 democrats lose some of there gains, or control of one house in congress. 2012 obama loses his bid for re election. US defenses decimated by liberal policy. nancy pelosi has another face lift, and her b#*bs are now on her chin.

Rhinehold,

“No. The people he was referring to don’t WANT Washington in their lives.”

So we all can assume that you personally have never needed government assistance?
Never needed an unemployment check?
And of course you’ve lived in these towns, with these folks so you know for a fact that they’ve never wanted any help from the government at all, ever?

I myself have only needed unemployment once, and then only for a couple of weeks, and I have to say I was very glad to be able to get it.

“It is insulting, the people that it was directed at were insulted and the fact that people still seem to miss this fact continue to insult those people being talked down to by Obama.”

And you know that how?
Was Obama talking down to you?

This is what I love about conservatives. They make vast claims based on half-vast assumptions.

Rocky

J2T2 (and Stephen)

If there is legal action to be taken, TAKE IT. IF someone broke the law, charge him. That is why we have laws and that is why we have courts. We hear a lot of BS about policies being illegal. When all the partisan smoke clears, there is no fire there. Or more correctly, it is only the fire of burning Bush hatred.

The thing that is important about the law is that it is the law. If there is a case, I think it should be brought. It doesn’t require an act of Congress to prosecute a specific crime. Nobody can filibuster it. If the individuals are found guilty, they should receive the appropriate punishment. But that is not what the haters are asking for.

They want a trial by media and innuendo. They want the sentence first and the verdict later, if at all.

Yes, I believe in the Constitution and the rule of law. That is why I don’t fall victim to this kind of hatred and hysteria. Let’s have rule of law. Bush haters bring shame on themselves for trying to get around the law by enflaming public opinion here and abroad.

This is a public relations fiasco. The fact that the small time blogger broke the story shows the amount of commitment.

Liberals are finding themselves in the uncomfortable position of having to actually do something, put up or shut up. Democrats control both houses of Congress AND have since 2006. They control the presidency. They dominate the media. They are the deciders. Instead of using this power for good, too many just want to continue to play the innocent victim.

Perhaps the reason is that they KNOW that much of what they say is either BS or practically impossible to implement. They have overpromised and over demonized the opposition. They were accustomed to being able to claim that they would indeed do great things if those naughty Republicans would just stand aside. Well, they are gone or not in positions to stand in your way.

The good news is that the road is open. It is all yours. It is really all up to you. You got what you asked for. No Republican president has had these kinds of majorities and media support since Theodore Roosevelt, a century ago. Let’s see how you like the reality of choice. Do something … or not, but please stop blaming others for your choices.

You know that a liberal is someone who is happy to assume anything… except responsibility.

Oh, and Rhinehold, one other thing,

I am quite sure that Obama felt that the absolute best way for a mixed-race black man to get elected President of the United States would be to “talk down” to the people he wanted to elect him.

Rocky

I noticed on the internal pages of the paper that US anti-AIDS efforts in Africa have saved more than a million lives since 2003. It was just an AP story. The local papers didn’t bother to rewrite it. Not news. Who cares?

I wonder why this is not big news. Is it because it might mess with the liberal world view, since this was a Bush program. Or is it just that journalists think Africans don’t matter. A million African lives pale compared with a couple of terror suspects claiming they were treated badly. That is the choice they made.

If you want to dwell on the past, maybe think about that. I suppose it will be bigger news when you figure out a way for Obama to get credit and Bush the blame.

You guys just don’t get it! Which is why you are where you’re at today. The terror suspects you’re being so flip about, are only a fraction of what the major concern is. True to form, you’re being ever-so-selective about an issue leaving the not-so-condemning parts out of your diatribe. It’s about the violation of rules and laws, all while the Constitution was totally ignored. It’s about the mindset of a mental midget wanting to make a big name for himself.
Not to diminish the success of the Aids program in Africa, it’s a wonderful thing. But don’t go getting too puffed up about Bush being so totally responsible…….remember the broken clock……

Jane
You guys are holding all the aces now. It’s either put up or shut up time.

“It is insulting, the people that it was directed at were insulted and the fact that people still seem to miss this fact continue to insult those people being talked down to by Obama.”

Rhinehold who do you think these comments were directed at? Obama wasn’t talking to anyone other than a group of his supporters that were leaving from the west coast to canvas in Pennsylvania and other states. The response that the righties, and you it seems, claim have them feeling insulted to the point they have to exaggerate his quote out of context and proportion was an answer to a question put to him by one of these canvassers. He was merely giving his troops some perspective on what to expect from some of the people they would meet while doing their jobs for the Obama campaign. Lets face it there are lots of people who do base their vote on god guns and gays without taking into account other issues such as economics. The job of the troops in the field working to get Obama elected is to convince voters to vote for Obama. His remarks when put into context are entirely appropriate and only when these remarks are subjected to the spinning and intentional exaggeration used by the righties do they have any bad connotation.

Jane

Rule of law requires evidence to go along. That is what you are lacking. For many years we hear all sorts of allegations, but not much comes of them when the rule of law is actually applied.

So please don’t talk to us about rule of law until you have a rule of law case. With all the lawyers and all the investigators and all the inuendo, you come up with almost nothing.

Unlike you guys, I am concerned about the Constitution and the rule of law. IF you have evidence, bring charges. If the evidence leads to conviction, punish the offenders. These are the steps you want to skip. These are the steps that are the rule of law.

You guys want to apply the rule of law to terror suspects and give them the benefit of every doubt, but deny it to your fellow Americans from another party.

Talking about AIDS in Africa, the US policy has been a big success. Be proud of it. Pretty soon you can give the credit to Obama. http://www.pepfar.gov/countries/index.htm

Rocky:

When I was a boy with 3 siblings at the time. My dad was laid off from GM and we lived off the land. He farmed and we ate what we grew or raised or hunted. I made the mistake, during show and tell time at school, of telling our situation. The principle and my teacher came to our house with groceries. Needless to say, I had some explaining to do when they left. My dad was furious. He was laid off and had a wife and 4 kids to support and my mother did not work. But he had enough self-respect to not ask anyone for a handout. During my life, I worked and believed those same principles. I never received or asked for a handout, especially from the government. The constitution gives us the right to work and lift ourselves up and there is no guarantee that we will be taken care of by the government. The mentality of the left is to make everyone dependent upon the government. This creates a class of lazy people that think they are owed something. The old saying, “if it sounds to good to be true, it usually is”, applies to government handouts. Nothing is free, somebody had to work for it.

What kind of statement is this: “Do people not get bitter when they feel they have been abandoned by Washington, when they have not received help after years and years of promises from various administrations?”

I get bitter when government sticks their nose in my business and I don’t believe my ideals are any different than those who took up arms against England.

DRR:

“You mean the way they sweated in efforts to object to and thwart the Medicare Rx drug trillion dollar socialist program passed by Republicans,”

This very program is what helped the republicans to loose control of the congress. Conservatives were against this socialist program just as they were against Bush’s bailout last fall.

Republicans do not want Steel to change our core beliefs. We know what we believe and you try your best to convince us to waffle or compromise.

J2t2:

“Oldguy, you blame the election loss by McCain/Palin due to vicious attacks by the dems on Palin.”

I feel like I’m talking to a child. I do not blame the loss of the election on the attacks upon Palin. I blame the loss of the election on the fact that the Republican Party forsook their core beliefs by nominating a moderate and trying to run him as a conservative. As a result, there was no fire in the bellies of the conservatives. My words were, “McCain lost because he never really had a real connection with his base.”

Palin built a fire and the conservatives were willing to fan those flames. The democrats saw the same fire in her belly and sought to put it out by personal attacks.

KAP-
The Reason why nobody pays it much heed, takes it much seriously is that these kinds of in absentia decisions are mostly political stunts. Even if its at Bush’s expense, I really don’t think they’ll ever make these charges stick.

As far as the Taliban and others, you’re absolutely wrong. But since you don’t trust a thing I say, I’m unable to correct you on that. But if you were willing to take me at my word, I would say that our integrity must be composed of the willingness to subject our own to the rule of law, even when it’s not convenient or expedient for us, because that’s what makes us who we are; their arrogant lawlessness and fanaticism is what makes them who they are.

We ARE better than them, so long as we stick to the self-moderating, integrity re-inforcing laws and traditions that elevate our character beyond theirs. We can lower ourselves to their standard, or raise ourselves to a higher one.

Crusader and Dbs,
Thanks for proving my point that the Republicans are losing their ability to raise money from Wall Street. And though I cannot prove the trend will continue in 2010 and 2012, I do realize that there is a tipping point where the Republicans will no longer be able to compete on the National Stage against another political party that can raise more money and show they have a larger following.

For as you pointed out the Presidention Election in 2008 took about $1.2 billion to win. And why that is not the only factor that makes or breaks a candidate, given the Republican poor showing in fund raising since 2004. I wonder if a 3rd Party could be formed that has the ability to raise more funds than Rush and Company pushing their agenda of No-Nothing.

Because why the bulk of Conservatives may believe the bailout is not needed I wonder how much their candidates could raise if the average American had less than $.03 on the dollar for the property and investments they enjoy today? A point that would make for a very interesting political point come 2010 and 2012 if marketed properly.

Oldguy,
Why Governor Palin may of used the 20th Century talking points of the Republican Party to fire up the conservatives. Unable even today to show a plan to make America Energy Independent or build a Sustainable Society I hope the Conservatives of America pick her to run in 2012.

For why I do not wish a personal attack on anyone seeking Elected Office, I for one would enjoy challenging her in a Game of Being Politically Ignorant or Politically Stupid. Especially since her presence in the 2008 Election she gave me an Unbreakable Political Argument not of my own making.

HS:

Speaking of being ignorant and stupid, perhaps you could explain the link to me?

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/04/06/if-obama-believes-austrian-language-so-will-ap

Poor BHO, he didn’t have a Teleprompter in front of him, to tell him there is no such thing as the Austrian language.

Or perhaps the Teleprompter lied to him, who knows?

Oldguy,
Yep, being ignorant and stupid does put one at a disadvantage these days with the internet being at their finger tips. For someone needs to tell the reporter that a quick search on the web produces: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_German
which clearly shows that President Obama was correct is speaking of the Austrian Language.

Do you think that a journalist having gone to college should of known of such thing? IMHO it speaks wonder of the Education System and the people who pay $1,000’s for a piece of paper. Wouldn’t you agree?

“I feel like I’m talking to a child. I do not blame the loss of the election on the attacks upon Palin.”

Then why bring it up at all, it sounds like whining and is inaccurate to boot oldguy. Yet I’m the child. Go figure.

“I blame the loss of the election on the fact that the Republican Party forsook their core beliefs by nominating a moderate and trying to run him as a conservative.”

“Well oldguy at least we can agree that the republican party is the party of the conservatives as well. For a while there your side was in denial on that. But once again lets face facts, conservatives as well as others in the republican party voted in the primaries for John McCain, not Mitt Romney, not Ducan Hunter, not Tom Tancredo and not Mike Huckabee. Yes it is true they voted for McCain over more conservative members of the party. That is the mistake you and others on the right haven’t yet figured out. It is your core values in the image of GWB that was rejected by the voters, and rightfully so, It was the “core values” of corruption and incompetence that the American people voted against in the presidential election. The repubs made many attempts during the election process to remove themselves from their “core values” president and Congress, they were not able to and as a result lost the elections.

” As a result, there was no fire in the bellies of the conservatives. My words were, “McCain lost because he never really had a real connection with his base.””

The way I recall there was plenty of fire after they voted McCain in, until they then let the Limbaugh talk them into not liking McCain as their choice, as a face saving measure IMHO, yet they voted for him when the time came as the “fire in the belly” was ignited once again by Sarah Palin according to you. Yet despite this turn around due to Palin’s “core values” the election was still lost by the repubs. IMHO it was self inflicted based upon the deeds and actions of the conservatives themselves demonstrating their failed ideology at work the previous 8 years. What you refer to as vicious attacks was nothing more that the “fire in the belly” of the American people who rejected what Palin was bringing to the table, more conservative “core values”. It was the conservative “core values” that was soundly rejected based upon 30 years of conservatism and conservatives at the helm of the ship running it aground.

OldGuy said: “We know what we believe and you try your best to convince us to waffle or compromise.”

Me? The GOP’s elected officials are the ones waffling and compromising on the campaign trail and in office. You even admit this with the Medicare Rx Drug plan in your previous comment.

I wouldn’t dream of trying to convince Republicans to be anything other than what they have already shown themselves to be in Congress, and as voters who vote Republican regardless of how badly they govern or disappoint their voters. Loyalty to a fault, now makes up the core of the Republican base, tolerant of incredible inconsistencies and contradictions in their elected leaders and candidates.

Palin taxed the oil industry heavily in order to give the people additional rebates. And loyal Republican voters loved her by all accounts on the campaign trail. Ted Steven’s acts of corruption of office and taking bribes, now has Republican voters supporting his reinstatement, now that an honest Democrat AG threw out the judgment against him based on dishonest prosecutorial conduct. I simply cannot imagine a Republican AG like Gonzalez doing such an honest and just thing for a person from the other party.

The GOP sought the very voters who now represent the party’s gratuitous tolerance for corruption, incompetence, and ineptitude. One Republican personage or candidate a few days ago referred to the “GettyBurg” Address as having been delivered in the 1960’s. That is the new caliber of the GOP’s candidates. Any dimwit willing to profess themselves a Republican has immediate support from Republican voters. The GOP courted this constituency with Newt’s revolution. Well, now they are the party’s core constituency, and the primary reason Republicans will remain a minority party for a very long time, again.

The voters who held the GOP to a higher standard were branded RINO, and driven from the party to elect Obama. Way to go GOP. Dumb. But, way to go. And this dynamic within the GOP is still very rampant. Any critique that would elevate the Party’s credibility is labeled RINO and not True Republican. Hence, the GOP has lost credibility with the majority of American voters. And justifiably so.

The “Just cut taxes”, and personal responsibility crowd, (code for: you are on your own with Republican governance unless you are a wealthy GOP contributor), as the answer to all our nation’s ills, is the mantra of the under-educated loyal base, and the Party has no other direction now but to continue to lose ground with the rest of voters as a result.

Hell, Republican Alaskans would be cut off from the U.S. save by sea and air, were it not for Federal government infrastructure spending on the Alaskan highway running through Canada to Fairbanks, back in the FDR years. And these same Alaskans now bash Obama’s bid to put Americans to work building new infrastructure for our economic present and future.

The inconsistencies are humongous. Palin now calls for federal dollars to put in place a missile defense shield for Alaska, even as Alaskan Republican voters call for secession from the United States, (Palin’s hubbie).

A Party just can’t get more divided, confused, and at odds with its own self, as this.

Crusader, I am with you on the guns, god, and illegal immigrants. Great reply above.

This illegal immigration issue is one of the achille’s heels of the Democratic Party. They would do well to get behind Obama’s comprehensive approach with satisfies the need for a holistic approach which objectively satisfies the best arguments of all sides of the American citizens on this issue. But, Congressional Democrats can’t seem to let go of their Party mechanics to embrace a policy which will truly solve resolve and get rid of the issue going forward.

Obama, as I have written since long before his election, will face his toughest opposition to a successful presidency from Congressional Democrats, not Republicans.

dbs, I predict, your prediction, might be right, if, Congressional Democrats don’t get behind Obama’s initiatives and campaign promises which got him elected.

A basic tenet of liberalism,(American Heritage Dictionary), is the rule of law. Everyone gives it lip service but as a fundemental basis for political decision making it is the liberals that actually embrace the concept. That is “the rule of law “, as opposed to the devine right of kings, the wealthy and powerful etc. That is why serious criminal activity is more apparent from the GOP. Watergate, Iran-Contra, invasion of Cambodia,to name a few. Theirs is a political bent than rejects the rule of law.

DRR:

“I wouldn’t dream of trying to convince Republicans to be anything other than what they have already shown”

That’s not true; the sole purpose of anyone writing on this blog is to convince the other side to reconsider their views and change. The problem is that socialism is at the core of liberal views. On the other hand, freedom, personal responsibility, and “be all you can be”, is at the core of conservative beliefs. If this statement is untrue, please explain?

The next 4 or 5 paragraphs of your post is nothing more than unsubstantiated liberal talking points, taken out of context, and used during the elections.

Your last statement: “A Party just can’t get more divided, confused, and at odds with its own self, as this.”

I have never disagreed with this summation. I have even written, several times, there is a power struggle within the Republican Party. The Republican Party was always the party of conservative, Christian ideals (now I will have to endure rants against the use of the word Christian). There is a liberal element that has always tried to hijack the Republican Party. It is the elitist, cocktail party group in the east and north-east, that can’t bring themselves to identifying with the bible believing, smaller government, lower taxes, prolife, gun toting, and redneck group from flyover country. Snow and Collins of Main, and Spector of Penn. are perfect examples. McCain wanted to tout himself as a maverick, but most of the time he stood against his own party. The problem I have always had with the Republican Party is that they always want to run someone who says it is their turn to run. As if being in DC their whole life qualifies them for a position in the WH. Dole and McCain are two examples. I am a conservative republican from flyover country and my position allows me to be in personal contact with hundreds of others of the same mindset. I know from talking to them, there was great concern during the last election primaries. We wanted someone who could win and at the same time held to our core beliefs. Most of the people I know, including myself, voted for Huckabee, mainly because he most closely represented our own beliefs. Most did not trust Romney or McCain, but many voted for McCain because he was better known than the others, and thus, had a better chance of winning. But, as I said before, there was no fire for him, because he could not be trusted. As a result, by the time election day came, the general thought was to let the democrats take the blame for the disasters that would come about. You have said yourself, that Pelosi and Reid control the agenda and if McCain had been elected, the disasters would have been placed on McCain, even though liberal dems in the congress passed the laws. With the dems in control, they are going to rush through every socialist program under the christmas tree and nobody can stop them.

If the Republican Party does not support a true conservative in the 2012 election, the same thing will happen. The goal of the moderate republicans is to be able to win an election without the support of conservatives. It can’t be done. As I have stated before, no matter how people vote, the core of Americans have basic conservative ideals and if the republican party runs a conservative, especially after 4 years of BHO, Pelosi, and Reid, republicans will win the WH.

bills:

Mirriam-Webster defines liberalism as:

“a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties dcapitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party”

Let me expain this:

Liberals believe the Constiution is a work in progress, constantly changing to meet the needs of the times. In other words, if you don’t like it, just write your own.

The “essential goodness of the human race”, is in direct conflict with God’s Word, that states “man is evil from the soul of his foot, to the crown of his head”.

“standing for the protection of political and civil liberties”, as long as it is for the promotion of liberal thought. There is no protection of those who oppose liberal thought.

I assume you were joking about liberals being the defenders of the “Rule of Law”. That was very funny!

Oldguy-
I know McCain’s connection with his base was weak. But what Some of the more unrealistic folks on the right unfortunately believe is that Palin had any better of a chance with everybody else. I never said that McCain succeeded in appealing to the right. I just said, more or less, that political necessity drove McCain to change his publically stated positions in order to appeal to that base.

The base on the right is positioned in such a way that most Republicans can’t get elected without them. Unfortunately, though, a strong divide has developed between that base and the rest of the country.

Which is why I have doubts That the Republicans will reclaim any house in 2010, much less politically benefit by having been unanimously against Obama’s plan. People haven’t forgotten what got us into this mess in the first place.

As for that Teleprompter bit? I would tell the GOP commentariat to get a life on that one. People regularly speak of Obama as intelligent off Camera, and his answers, though more halting than his speeches, reflect that thoughtfulness and intelligence. Bush? Bush probably had fewer real press conferences than Obama’s had in his short tenure in office so far. Bush you couldn’t trust at all without a teleprompter, and with it, he sounded like he was lecturing Kindergarteners.

Also: Obama did not bring the Teleprompter in as a news and wonderful invention. Ronald Reagan did, or somebody before him. The Republicans are attacking Obama on what is objectively a strength, trying to fool people into thinking Obama’s secretly a moron who’s well coached.

Maybe you should ask Harvard or the University of Chicago, which employed him to teach constitutional law whether he’s a closet dumbass. But I guess folks on the Right are going to find reasons to deny or undermine in their own minds whatever positive aspects Obama’s background shows of his intelligence.

Old Guy
Look also in American Heritage. Its not the “rule of law” as in always going the speed limit. Its the “rule of law” in the sense that the rulers are not allowed to violate the law. Big Brother is not above prosecution. Even presidents are not allowed to to order criminal acts and cover-ups for political purposes or illegally sell arms to fund illegal wars or violate approved international treaties regarding the treatment of prisoners.
I read in another column that you consider yourself well versed in the Bible. In that case may I ask you if torture of another human being might,just might, be one of those things you go to Hell for?Who would Jesus torture?
BTW. The Constitution contains specific provisions for allowing changes to made and there have been several, ending chattel slavery, women’s suffrage etc. Currently the push to change the constitution is not coming from the so called liberal party. It is coming from conservatives, outlawing abortion, gay marriage and anti-flagburning amendment proposals ad nauseum.
I find it appalling that you regard my 4 yo daughter as evil from “the souls of her feet’ blah, blah, but who am I to argue with scripture.

Leviticus 33-34
When an alien lives with you in your land,do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself,for you were aliens in Egypt.I am the Lord your God.

So I must assume that you are in favor of unconditional amnesty for every alien and to treat them as native born they should also have the right to vote, or is it ok to argue with scripture now?

Christine
Obama and other Democrats have repeatedly given Bush credit for his anti-aids work in Africa. Sorry you missed it. As for the AP story not being more of a big deal, typically what happens in black Africa is not big news in the US. I hope this changes some day as does former president Bush.

“No. The people he was referring to don’t WANT Washington in their lives.”

So we all can assume that you personally have never needed government assistance?
Never needed an unemployment check?

Nope, I haven’t.

And of course you’ve lived in these towns, with these folks so you know for a fact that they’ve never wanted any help from the government at all, ever?

Yup, I have lived in them nearly all of my life.

I myself have only needed unemployment once, and then only for a couple of weeks, and I have to say I was very glad to be able to get it.

You realize that you are getting back mostly your own money at that point, right? If you had put that money you put into ‘unemployment’ into the bank instead you might have actually come off better.

I know, silly thought, how would we take care of ourselves without government’s helping hand I’ll never know…

“It is insulting, the people that it was directed at were insulted and the fact that people still seem to miss this fact continue to insult those people being talked down to by Obama.”

And you know that how?
Was Obama talking down to you?

Yes, I am in that group being referenced by Obama. I have no religion to ‘cling to’ but do own weapons and will continue to do so no matter how much Obama’s administration may want it to be different.

This is what I love about conservatives. They make vast claims based on half-vast assumptions.

And this is what I love about liberals, you don’t even know if I am a conservative or not (I’m not, btw). But if I find some fault with Obama, I must be an evil conservative!

I am quite sure that Obama felt that the absolute best way for a mixed-race black man to get elected President of the United States would be to “talk down” to the people he wanted to elect him.

You assume he cared if ‘these people’ voted for him or not.

But, I have no idea why his race matters to you, why is that?

Oldguy ,i’m rolling on the floor, Huckabee A True Conservative? Quote From 1996 to 2004. He supported five tax increases, leading the ‘Club for Growth’ to call him a liberal in disguise …”

Roeser also points out that “The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank with heavy ties to the national GOP, gives him an F grade for spending and taxes in 2006 and an overall grade of D in his governorship. During his tenure, the number of state employees increased over 20% and Arkansas’ general obligation debt rose by almost $1 billion.” (The Wanderer, September 6, 2007).”“
Ike Was a True Conservative. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/03/ike_the_forgotten_conservative.html

It’s about the violation of rules and laws, all while the Constitution was totally ignored. It’s about the mindset of a mental midget wanting to make a big name for himself.

Really, so why is Obama not only reiterating the same defenses of the programs that Bushed used but is now expanding that defense into territories that even Bush dared never go?

I’ll be posting an article about this this afternoon, perhaps you can defend Obama once it is posted now that you are clear that you are only about ‘the rule of law’ and all.

Stephen,

Harvard was asked to release his grades and they sealed them from the public. So, only thing we can go by is all the liberal “Oh my power of universe, he is so smart and well spoken”.

57 states visited one more to go? I don’t know if he counted his overseas voyage into those but last time I checked, the US is made up of 50 states.

From a recent trip to Europe:

“We don’t consider ourselves as a Christian, Jewish or Muslim nation…”
“Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.”
Bowing down to a Saudi King.
NOT VISITING US SOLDERS CEMETERY THAT GAVE THEIR LIVES IN WWII, because he didn’t want to offend Germans?!
Allowing IMF to dictate regulations on our financial system.
Proposing a unilateral nuclear disarmament.

I don’t know how smart this guy is, but one thing is obvious, he couldn’t have gotten good grades in History. I am convinced that his goal isn’t being a President of the United States of America, but he wants to be a Secretary General of the United Nations. Someone should let him know that he will be out of office in 4 years and then he can run for that job but while he is in the White House, just pretend he is our President. It would fit him well, UN Sec. General doesn’t have any responsibilities and travels around the world giving lot’s of speeches. Obama would be a perfect candidate for that job. He has my vote!!!

Even FDR (who has been placed on a pedestal), and JFK believed we were a christian nation. BHO is either too stupid to understand it, or he thinks if he says it enough, we will all start to believe it, like the rest of the cool-aid drinkers.

When BHO has to talk without a teleprompter and all you hear is DUH_UH_DUH_UH, the left goes (Oh, look how smart and thoughtful he is, he’s thinking every thought that comes out of his mouth). I believe what he is trying to do is say something without saying anything.

Why do Republicans need to win a “Black Vote”?

Republicans need to win an American vote, be it black, white, pink, brown, or any shade of rainbow. Democrats may want to divide the country into the “focuse” groups, but conservative message should be for America, it should be equal for every citizen of this great nation with no exeptions. If we are a minority, so be it. The declaration of Independence said it the best:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I think this sais it all.

Perhaps the GOP and Dems should join and become one huge, overwhelming, big-spending liberal socialist party bringing paradise to the people.

Erm, you mean this hasn’t already happened?

Hortons article is just Liberal BS. Nothing will come of this because there is nothing to it. Check the facts Liberals.

j2t2,

Don’t concern yourself too much when Oldguy speaks of you as a child. I’ve been called childish by Christine, Oldguy and Jim M. It appears to be their favorite ploy…’if you can’t make a point against someone, tell them they are childish’…I, personally think it is childish to always refer to others as being childish…but, then, that’s just childish me…

bills:

“I read in another column that you consider yourself well versed in the Bible.”

In the words of one of our greatest presidents, “there you go again”. Stretching the truth and falsely quoting me: is that what I said? Or did I say, “I have been a student of the Bible for almost 40 years”. There’s no place in that sentence where I said I was well versed. Studying the bible is similar to studying the truths our founding forefathers tried to tell us in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s a never-ending learning process. The more you study, the more you realize how little you know.

It is obvious from your remarks, that you do not believe the bible to be anything other than just another book. It would make no sense for me to try to refute your miss-interpretation and taking out of context the Scripture. So I won’t. We are told to not cast our “Pearls before Swine”. So I say continue on your path.

“So I must assume…” Do you know the definition of assume?

“So I must assume…” Do you know the definition of assume?”

I think you have to be one of the few and the best to know that!!! SemperFi

Oldguy,

So, you are saying you won’t defend the bible because the person you are defending it against doesn’t believe in it… ?

I thought the idea was to convince others of the truth of the word, not just preach to the already converted.

Myself, I used to be a preacher and am no longer, so I am probably a worse candidate than you since I’ve been where you are and have come out the other side much the better.

MD has an issue with being referred to as childish. Perhaps, as MD says, I have said this about him. In the future I will try to remember not to use that word and instead perhaps use “politically immature”.

Jim M.
You do realize that the last conservative Republican administration presided over the largest expansion of government since WW2,don’t you. Freedom? They weakened habeas corpus, wiretapped without warrants,imprisoned people without charges, demanded the power to see what library books you were reading, etc.Government control of every aspect of our lives? It was not the Dems pushing to control what goes on in my wife’s uterus. I mean really. And you expect Dems to diminish freedom?Perhaps you may argue that the GOP leadership did not hold faith with conservative principles and you may be correct but if that was the case how did you let yourselves be fooled so badly,for so long.
The GOP can come back if they put forward candidates like Eisenhower. Practical ,competent problem solvers that are wary of the dangers of too much government but aware of its proper uses and potentials. The GOP had some great leadership. Goldwater was pro-choice. Eisenhower launched a major stimulus program and sent troops to integrate schools. Nixon was pushing a health care delivery plan very similar to Hillary’s proposal.The current crop of GOP leadership has gone so far to the right,drank so much of their own cool aid that you all run the risk of no longer being a national political force. Becoming the “Know Nothing Party” is not acceptable. America needs a responsible opposition as a check on liberal excesses and I am saying that as a liberal.

I miss Jack. Now there was arch nemises that could put out a good arguement. He was definately a spin master, I think he was practicing here for his real job in the Bush State Dept., but at least he was cogent and respectful. Just look at the quality of debate we have been getting. “Obama is dumb,so there”,He’s a Communist anti-Christ, ad nauseum.

I was Navy, amphibious forces, but I hung around with a lot of grunts:)

rhinehold:

Let me use two examples:

I Corinthians 14:37-38, ” If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord. But if any man be ignorant,let him be ignorant.”

Luke 9:5, “And whosoever will not receive you, when ye go out of that city, shake off the very dust from your feet for a testimony against them.”

Why would I want to waste my time arguing scripture with someone who does not believe it. Even Jesus kicked the dust off his shoes after leaving the city.

Perhaps you could explain this sentence:

“Myself, I used to be a preacher and am no longer, so I am probably a worse candidate than you since I’ve been where you are and have come out the other side much the better.”

Meaning, you are better off after turning your back on God?

Old Guy

Apologies. I made the mistake of expecting that after 40 years of study one might be well versed. How can the simple command ,” The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born.” be mis-interpreted? Seems clear to me. Of course that’s Leviticus, which also calls the eating of shellfish an abomination and allows poligamy,(but you can’t marry both the mother and the daughter,darn).
I would point out that it was you that brought the Bible into a political rant. I respect the Bible as a carrier of some great truths but I am also wary of those that would use it to re-inforce their personal viewpoints.There appears to be a verse to rationalize nearly every belief, no matter how absurd or hurtful it may be. The Bible has been used to justify a lot of evil like slavery and wars of conquest,has it not?
BTW This country was never legally a Christian nation, nor were the founders particularly Christians. Jefferson for example was a Diest as am I.

““Obama is dumb,so there”,He’s a Communist anti-Christ, ad nauseum.”

And what speacial words there for Bush, Cheney, Palin, and others. You guys set the tone over the past 8 years.

assume definition

as·sume (ə so̵̅o̅m′, -syo̵̅o̅m′)

transitive verb assumed -·sumed′, assuming -·sum′·ing

1. to take on or put on (the appearance, form, role, etc. of)
2. to seize; usurp to assume control
3. to take upon oneself; undertake to assume an obligation
4. to take for granted; suppose (something) to be a fact
5. to pretend to have; feign to assume an air of innocence

My specific use of the common English term was # 4.. Does that answer your question?

Jim M:

When you say MD, are you refering to Marysdud? I haven’t seen him in a while.

bills:

Okay, I’ll take the bait:

“Leviticus 33-34
When an alien lives with you in your land,do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself,for you were aliens in Egypt.I am the Lord your God.”

It didn’t take 40 years of study to realize there are only 27 chapters in the book of Leviticus. Did you get this quote from the new Liberal Unabridged version of the bible?

Now don’t WE feel dumb?

Bills,

let me take the liberty and vers you in a language which you will learn only when you hold in your hand the life of another man:

assume = ass+u+me used in a sentance: BS, assume only makes “ass-” out of “-u-” and “-me”!!! Are we clear, leutenant!!!”

Favorite answer of any CO or a Master Sargent to a 2nd Leutenant or a PFC, respectively. (I assure you, this this mistake is made only once so you do not run into them at higher ranks).

Meaning, you are better off after turning your back on God?

If by that you mean, better off after turning my back on the invalid notion that an invisible, all powerful sentient being was monitoring everything I do and judging me accordingly and instead focused my time and energy on helping as many people as I could because it was the right thing to do, not because I was afraid I might get sent to hell for not doing it, then yes, I feel much better off now. Because I know the truth, that we have only the time we have here on earth so I am making sure I help as many people as I can enjoy that existence.

And I have never started a war or blown up anyone else based on my beliefs… I don’t oppress anyone else just because they choose to live their lives as they want to, not how I think they should. It affects me *0* if two men want to marry and spend the rest of their lives together, etc.

Oppressing others, even in someone else’s name, is just not my bag.

Why would I want to waste my time arguing scripture with someone who does not believe it. Even Jesus kicked the dust off his shoes after leaving the city.

But he entered, didn’t he? You are not even entering the city…

P.S.

usually the explanation of “assume” is followed by action which is ALWAYS fresh in your mind so you do not make that same mistake EVER again.

Crusader,

It has been around for a while, I saw that done on an episode of The Odd Couple many many years ago… :)

Dear Rhinehold

Let me take a shot at this one:

“20But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?” James 2:20

“15And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey…
…
24Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:

25And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.

26His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:

27Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.

28Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.

29For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

30And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Matthew 25:15, 24-30

Think about those passages. Also, read the parabel of the prodigal son in Luke Ch. 15. You will be well served. Our God is a loving God, you need not fear failure because failure is assured due to our imperfection. What wards us from this fear of failure is the Mercy and Forgivness of our Loving God.

“21And the son said unto him, Father, I have sinned against heaven, and in thy sight, and am no more worthy to be called thy son.

22But the father said to his servants, Bring forth the best robe, and put it on him; and put a ring on his hand, and shoes on his feet:

23And bring hither the fatted calf, and kill it; and let us eat, and be merry:

24For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found. And they began to be merry. ” Luke 15:21-24

Oldguy, I think the reference was to the 33rd and 34th versus of the 19th chapter of Leviticus.

http://bible.cc/leviticus/19-33.htm

Oldguy asks:

When you say MD, are you refering to Marysdud? I haven’t seen him in a while.

Yes, See comment #279786.

Rinehold writes:

“If by that you mean, better off after turning my back on the invalid notion that an invisible, all powerful sentient being was monitoring everything I do and judging me accordingly and instead focused my time and energy on helping as many people as I could because it was the right thing to do, not because I was afraid I might get sent to hell for not doing it, then yes, I feel much better off now. Because I know the truth, that we have only the time we have here on earth so I am making sure I help as many people as I can enjoy that existence.”

Rhinehold says he was once a preacher (only Christians call their spiritual leader a preacher so I must assume he was one) and would have us believe that at one time he was a Christian, saw the light, and denounced his beliefs in Christ.

Now, he would have us believe that he has outgrown the need for Christ and his new found wisdom has replaced his past foolishness. He writes; “I feel much better off now.” I wonder why? Is feeling better about yourself obtained from denying God? Was it just too difficult to believe that God loves you?

That he has willingly turned his back on God and Christianity is a matter he will deal with in time. It is sad for all Christians to see one who has disavowed his religious beliefs but we all have free will. He clearly doesn’t understand hell or judgment and was apparently mislead into thinking good deeds or some other formula was the “get out of hell free” card. Salvation is free and can not be earned. Christ died so that all who believe in Him might be saved. He died, once…for all who will accept Him. That this simple concept escapes so many is unfortunate.

As we approach the celebration of Easter I would remind everyone, believer or not, that God loves you. Christ died for you, it’s a gift of love and can not be purchased by deeds.

Very good Jim

I wonder why? Is feeling better about yourself obtained from denying God? Was it just too difficult to believe that God loves you?

Considering there is no god, yes I feel much better that I am not wasting part of my precious time alive dealing with that foolishness.

It was too difficult to believe that god exists because there is no proof or logic that can support it.

but we all have free will.

Not according to Oldguy who says that the future is already determined and written down. How can that be AND us have free will? If god already knows everything we are going to do in our lives, then he is just playing with us, is he not? Why do you believe that god gives us free will and then takes it away by already knowing what we will choose to do?

That this simple concept escapes so many is unfortunate.

It is as valid as the ‘notion’ that we were all created by the flying spaghetti monster, Jim M. What do you have, other than your faith, that would suggest any of what you said is true or has taken place exactly?

Please provide me one single piece of evidence that a) the bible is believable and infalable or b) god exists.

Knowing that the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists and eventually everything that exists will no longer exist at some point in the future, how does god get around this? And try to use something other than ‘it’s magic’. And if there is such a thing as ‘eternity’ then how would anything we do now matter in the least in 2,000,000,000 years?

Once you have seen eternity for what it is, the rest just falls away in the dust of reality. It may not be as peaceful, but it is a ton more honest and based in reality.

Crusader-
America is a secular nation. It beats the living hell out of people having real political disputes about religious issuses with government. We let Americans themselves resolve for themselves, what God, Gods, or spirits they worship, if any. Like Jefferson said, it neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg to have somebody worship no God or twenty. It may not fit some people’s sense of how America was historically founded, but their sense of America’s founding neglects the potentially problematic issue we dodged, in terms of what America’s national religion would be.

We decided we wouldn’t have one, that people would be free to find their own.

Seriously: do you want to look across at your neighbor, and know that the elected governments giving their sect or denomination handouts, supporting their people’s proselytization, while your religion is at best benignly neglected, and at worst persecuted? Now imagine a nation of people fighting over that. No, actually, don’t imagine it, recall it, as you look across the world. Much of the pain and suffering that’s come of religion in this world has come of states and the religions they support getting their priorities mixed together, of the corruption that inevitably results of the confluence of church and state.

We don’t bother with opening that can of worms. We set this government up as an exercise in rational self-governance, and it works best when you recognize that some of the people who are part of this grand experiment don’t agree with you, but nonetheless have a voice, and deserve a voice in the process.

America’s been arrogant, dismissive and derisive. Remember Freedom Fries? I remember from my history lesson America giving that treatment to Germany in WWI, renaming Sauerkraut Liberty Cabbage, Hamburger Salisbury Steak.

But Jesus, man. Those were our enemies Still it comes off juvenile. And doing it to an ally in mutual self-defense? This is what we call Arrogance, dismissiveness, and derision.

But let’s not forget: he took them to task for anti-Americanism, about its insidiousness, the lowered expectations of America that don’t give us enough credit for all we do. He stood up for us, just as he admitted our faults as well. This wasn’t “please take a free shot at us”, this was “let’s stop this silly stupidity and get down to business.”

The bowing to the Saudi King thing? I sincerely hope I don’t have to wade through eight more years of such silly twaddle. Unless you hold the conspiratorial view that Obama’s going to sell us out to them, it’s merely a sign of respect from one head of state to another, and it doesn’t mean something until some folks get overheated and have a temper tantrum about it.

Something else I’m pretty sick of: walking on eggshells to please conservatives. I’m diplomatic enough as it is. I don’t tend to use ad hominem arguments, because I think they prov4e absolutely nothing. But I don’t take being attacked very well, so I will counterpunch, and while I might not hit below the belt, I will make my response felt.

Obama did something that was well within the realm of good manners, and since he’s not now writing up a suzerainty treaty with the King, I doubt his bow was anything more than formality.

Formalities. That’s something Republicans will have to learn about. It used to be, you had some people with class and restraint representing your diplomatic wing, folks who knew how to keep their mouths shut in a negotiation, and not depend on long-term idle threats.

On the subject of the troops visit? Obama just shuns the hell out of our honored dead, now doesn’t he?

This is what I f***ing despise about Republican talking points. Ten seconds, TEN SECONDS with google, and that f***er’s dead. Yet this is common wisdom on the Right. This is how your side operates, whether you like it or not. They jump on one single solitary detail, rip it out of context, and make him out to be some sort of monster.

This isn’t like the systematic, problematic, comprehensive stories of misdeeds from the Bush administration, where we have pages full of details, names, dates, and locations, where we have memos and e-mails determining the truth of our claims.

This is not even merely nitpicking. This is defamation with reckless disregard for the truth. If Obama wasn’t a public figure, it would be fodder for libel and slander suits. Obama has honored our troops, and will honor them once again. I think Our troops appreciate him as much as he does them.

On the subject of the IMF, don’t try my patience. As I understand it, the IMF stuff is just Guidelines. You know, suggestions? As in we make up our own minds? Of course, that’s not scary, so GOP pundits leave it out, or at least don’t bother to research any further than the talking points memo.

As for unilateral disarmament, do yourself the favor of listening to what he actually said: He said the goal was a policy of world wide disarmament. The definition of unilateral, as proponents of the Iraq war should know, is “you’re the only poor sap doing it.” Obama suggested a number of things, that wasn’t one of them.

I would not mind Barack Obama one day becoming Secretary General of the UN. But I would vastly prefer at the moment to see his intelligence and good judgment, notwithstanding the insipid drivel of the conservative media to the opposite on that subject, in the White House.

Oldguy-
If you have any pride at all, you will ditch the Teleprompter BS. Nobody buys it, at least not outside of conservative circles where anything negative about Obama seems plausible. Is this some attempt, as seems to be the habit on the right, of folks trying to turn criticisms that worked on Bush back on his Democratic successor? My Lord what a cheap shot. I think Obama’s already had more Press Conferences in the last few months than the grand silver-tongued gentlement who preceded him had in his whole tenure as president.

More to the point, Obama’s occasional halting, usually occurs around him saying things that demonstrate intelligence. Bush had a way of saying things that made people doubt his intelligence. Obama’s not perfect, but at least he doesn’t put food on people’s family.

Rhinehold-
People have different attitudes. For my part, I am glad of the social safety net, because it meant I didn’t grow up in poverty.

But hey, results aren’t what matters, it’s what people believe, right?

People have different attitudes. For my part, I am glad of the social safety net, because it meant I didn’t grow up in poverty.

And I did grow up in poverty despite the social safety net, interesting that…

Yes. I would much rather accept failure that was my failure than to have success thrust upon me if I didn’t deserve it.

Unfortunately, progressives are more of the ‘ends justify the means’ approach to things I suppose.

Rhinehold-
That you grew up in poverty is unfortunate. You think it’s bad to want to avoid that? We have our misfortunes, and we measure them by our lives, not the lives of others.

The difference here is, I celebrate my good fortune, the reprieve. But let me tell you: Me and my family never wanted to remain in that position. My father may not have much of a choice at this stage in his life. I won’t elaborate, but suffice it to say that he’s medically retired now, with good reason.

But the safety net has helped us fight our way to staying afloat. I don’t see how my misfortune, nor the misfortune of many out there would have saved people money. If my father had had good access to healthcare before his health took a turn for the worse, then a lot of expensive care and hospitalization would have been unnecessary, preventable. My father worked his heart out, earned his social safety net. He didn’t take it because he liked taking handouts, he took it because that was what was necessary to keep our family afloat.

I am not ashamed of the help my family’s availed itself of. That was the social contract we signed. When my dad couldn’t find work, we didn’t starve. When he no longer could work, having practically worked himself to death, he didn’t fall through the cracks, his family going with him.

The system we’ve got set up doesn’t give people handouts, but instead gives them insurance for premiums they pay. This isn’t free ride mentality at work. This is about creating a system that smooths out the bumps and the declines so we don’t have a population of chronic poverty that exists merely because of unaddressed misfortune like this.

I believe if you take care of your fellow Americans, they’ll take care of you. This is not about the rich being soaked or the poor being lucky-duckies. This is about reducing the shared misfortune of this country, so that everybody benefits from the wealth of this country, the wealthy included.

Science’s Alternative to an Intelligent Creator: the Multiverse Theory

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creator/article_view?searchterm=Science%20Alternative%20to%20Intelligent%20Creator&b_start:int=0

I found this article very interesting and fairly presents the dilemma faced by noted physicists.

Rhinehold wrote; “Once you have seen eternity for what it is, the rest just falls away in the dust of reality. It may not be as peaceful, but it is a ton more honest and based in reality.”

I suggest Rhinehold take a look at reality as follows:

“Our universe is perfectly tailored for life. That may be the work of God or the result of our universe being one of many.

“Physicists don’t like coincidences. They like even less the notion that life is somehow central to the universe, and yet recent discoveries are forcing them to confront that very idea. Life, it seems, is not an incidental component of the universe, burped up out of a random chemical brew on a lonely planet to endure for a few fleeting ticks of the cosmic clock. In some strange sense, it appears that we are not adapted to the universe; the universe is adapted to us.

Call it a fluke, a mystery, a miracle. Or call it the biggest problem in physics. Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi­verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.

The idea is controversial. Critics say it doesn’t even qualify as a scientific theory because the existence of other universes cannot be proved or disproved. Advocates argue that, like it or not, the multiverse may well be the only viable non­religious explanation for what is often called the “fine-tuning problem”—the baffling observation that the laws of the universe seem custom-tailored to favor the emergence of life.”

” “If [dark energy] had been any bigger, there would have been enough repulsion from it to overwhelm the gravity that drew the galaxies together, drew the stars together, and drew Earth together,” Stanford physicist Leonard Susskind says. “It’s one of the greatest mysteries in physics. All we know is that if it were much bigger we wouldn’t be here to ask about it.”

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg, a physicist at the University of Texas, agrees. “This is the one fine-tuning that seems to be extreme, far beyond what you could imagine just having to accept as a mere accident,” he says.”

“On the other hand, if there is no multiverse, where does that leave physicists? “If there is only one universe,” Carr says, “you might have to have a fine-tuner.

If you don’t want God Rhinehold, you’d better have a multiverse.

I guess it’s time for a medication?

I stated what was reported in the press (liberal press by all accounts): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5096803/Barack-Obama-rejects-Normandy-trip-to-avoid-offending-Germany.html

Now, take your medicine, calm down and read the statement issued by the White House spokesperson.

Now, I distinctly remember Obama shaking Queen Elizabeth’s hand not bowing down to her. She is, by all accounts, nominal Head of State in the UK, isn’t she? He is bowing down to Saudi King because he is an imbecile. He is way out of his league. The king of Saudi Arabia is at best on par with the President of the United States and in reality he should be bowing down to us because if it wasn’t for the US military, he would be hiding in some European country paying off European official not extradite him back to his country. He is the President of the United States of America, he is not his own man, when he does something outside of this country he does it on behalf of us and I doubt very many American’s would appreciate our President bowing down to anyone! It is customary to kiss the pope on the hand, is he going to do that?

As far as the US being a secular nation. You might want to believe that, and you are welcome to that opinion but as far as I know our declaration of Independence clearly states “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”, our constitution and laws are based largely on the Magna Carta which is by it’s own preamble, created by King John, with the grace of God….and reverence for God and for the salvation of our soul and those of all our ancestors and heirs, for the honor of God and the exaltation of Holy Church and the reform of our realm, on the advice of our reverend [church] fathers” (Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World ).

I do agree that we are government by a secular laws, which do not place preference on a particular religion or absence of there of, but to state that we are a nation of citizens is plain false. We are a Christian nation, we have Christian traditions that are part of our laws. Our president places his hand on the Bible when he is sworn into the office, not on the Pacific Bell’s Yellow Pages or his passport for that matter. Before he made that statement, did he ask the Americans if they consider the US a non-Christian nation and if they consider themselves just a nation of citizens?

You might want to believe that but until people express their opinion that is just one person’s opinion.

And as far as calling America arrogant. We have the right to be arrogant be cause, unlike Europeans, we stand for values of humanity. Unlike Europeans, we spill blood to bring freedom to those who Europe deems “unworthy”. I will tell this every European in face because it’s true. Unlike Europeans, we freed a nation of 30 million from a tyrant while Europeans were making money on Oil for Food program. Europeans, particularly Germans and French, have no problem dealing with blood demons from Africa, or blood oil from Sudan, or Blood money from Arab countries. I lived in UAE, I know how the “enlightened” Europeans treat “undesirables”. I know how they look down on others because of their color, their ethnicity and etc. Yea, you don’t see that on TV or their speeches but you will see their true self when you are among them.

Though Serbs aren’t without sin, ask Germans what their involvement was in Kraina. How the German government sponsored mercenaries to “cleanse” Kraina from Serbs. We have the right to be arrogant when dealing with Europeans because they stand for nothing. They know only money and society, not humanity. Europe is dead, because it’s morality is gone, and by that I mean their respect for the human condition. When Russia invaded Georgia, it was the US who spoke out, Europeans were too worried about loosing their cheap Gas and Oil coming from Russia. When, Chechens were exterminated by Russians, Europeans closed their eye because Putin promised them access to Russia’s natural resources. When African Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in Darfur Europe was quiet. So yea, we have the right to be arrogant when dealing with those appeasers and sell out because just like Reagan said, we have a moral authority to do so!

When a President of the US forgets that, that pisses me off, and I have a good reason to be pissed!

“It didn’t take 40 years of study to realize there are only 27 chapters in the book of Leviticus. Did you get this quote from the new Liberal Unabridged version of the bible?

Now don’t WE feel dumb?”

Well after 40 years of study couldn’t you tell the quotation Bills was referring to is Leviticus 19 verses 33 and 34? So rather than the diversionary insult why not enlighten us with your version on what appears to be direction on dealing with immigrants.

M. Daugherty could injure himself should he fall from his high horse.

There is no one I know of any political persuasion that does not advocate helping those who can not, thru unfortunate circumstances or mental inability, help themselves.

Would M. Daugherty care to justify all the current spending as being necessary to prevent hunger, homelessness, or death? From his life example he extrapolates that all this spending is to alleviate what he has endured. That is simply not true. Huffing and puffing to justify trillions in new debt may make M. Daugherty “feel good” about enslaving future generations to government largess and draconian taxes but then…he won’t be paying the bill.

As far as the US being a secular nation. You might want to believe that, and you are welcome to that opinion but as far as I know our declaration of Independence clearly states “they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”

Their creator, not our creator. That means that whoever they believe created them, even if it were ‘cosmic chance’. In no way does this stated which god or goddess or whatever. I think you are inferring a bit?

our constitution and laws are based largely on the Magna Carta

Yes and no. In fact, it is actually opposed to the Magna Carta because that document viewed the rights that man was given as being given to them by the lords of the land at the time, the ruling class. It detailed which rights they were giving to the common man. Our constitution starts with the premise that we have rights because we exist and then goes on to list the things that government is given the power to do, not the other way around. It’s a very large difference and much larger than the fact that that document mentions a god in the preamble…

I do agree that we are government by a secular laws, which do not place preference on a particular religion or absence of there of, but to state that we are a nation of citizens is plain false.

Actually, it’s exactly the same thing. The fact that we have christians constantly trying to push their religion into the governing of the country does not make it a christian nation. And just because we have some tired old traditions does not make it so either. The rule of law and what it stands for is what we are.

Stephen,

There is a difference between choosing to help someone and being forced to help someone at the point of a gun in ways that you don’t agree with.

Or are you inferring that only by agreeing that we should be using force to help others are we truly compassionate and caring?

Crusader said: “I do agree that we are government by a secular laws, which do not place preference on a particular religion or absence of there of, but to state that we are a nation of citizens is plain false. We are a Christian nation…”

What a blatant contradiction! Both your statements above cannot be true, logically.

Jim M, personal religious beliefs are not an appropriate topic for WB, unless the anecdotal recount refers to public or political policy.

Please discontinue critiquing Rhinehold’s personal religious preferences. Instead, critique their application to public or government policy. WB is a political debate web site, not a religious debate web site.

Thanks you for your assistance in this matter.

Rhinehold, WB is a political debate web site. Personal religious beliefs are not an appropriate topic at WB unless they refer to government or public policy.

Please insure that discussions of your personal religious beliefs bear directly up an argument for or against political or governmental policy, philosophy, or direction.

Some care must be taken to insure that religious discussion on WB is integral to public policy debate, government, or political philosophy.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter.

Jim M said: “M. Daugherty could injure himself should he fall from his high horse.”

This kind of flame baiting will not be tolerated. Your comment privileges are hereby suspended.

On the United States being formed as a Christian nation:

As a Christian, I hope not. I don’t want the blame for slavery.

Why everyone is entitled to read the Founding Documents and come up with their own personal opinion of what or what was meant by the Founding Fathers I would like to remind the Left and Right that there is a huge gap between what you know as a Citizen and a Human. And though not intended to be a political stance or a religion, I do believe everybody needs to look at their Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights as a Citizen and their Unalienable Right as a Human and discover why America tends to lean toward Christianity.

Not as it is taught at the Sunday Pulpit, but as Jesus, the Man and what he did some 2000 years ago to the Scholars and Historians of his time. For why some religious leaders and followers may believe that Rome (the State) is ruled by evil men, I do believe that even Jesus said give unto Ceaser what is Ceasers. And thus, as an American it is not what we are being told by the Status Quo of our eledrs and parents, but what have we learned in our lifetime as a Citizen and a Human that allows this generation build a “..more perfect union…” than those of past years.

True, explaining to a Man that they Partake instead of Consume may take a few more generations; however, as Ladies and Gentlemen Americans can do almost anything we set our mind to. So for those on the Left and Right that want to fight over what the Founding Fathers meant by “Their Creator” I ask you who gave you the Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge to exist as a Human and who has taught you what it takes to live in the Reality of Mankind.

Maybe I need to state this with more simplicity.

What does it mean to be a Christian nation?

Does it mean that we replace the US Constitution with the Bible? No!

But being a Christian Nation, IMHO, means that we have a set of values, which are derived from our Christian heritage which guide our daily interaction with each other. If we are a nation of faceless Citizens, we would be much like a Soviet Union, which I know a lot about, and we would not care for a fellow man. We wouldn’t mind spying on each other because a faceless Citizen’s duty is to the state. It is our humanity which we derive from our Christian heritage that compels us to be compassionate. You might not believe in Jesus, but the fact that you consider killing another human being as wrong is the result of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The fact that you think cutting a thief’s hand off is a cruel and unusually punishment is the result of your Judeo-Christian heritage. The fact that you believe that accusation has to be collaborated by more than one witness is the result of your Judeo-Christian tradition. You, personally, might not agree with the faith of Christianity, and you are free to choose that road but I will argue with you till the kingdom come if yo tell me that our nation was not built on a Christian set of values and principles.

We are governed by a secular law, because our founding fathers believed in the right to believe in what ever God you as a Citizen choose, AS LONG AS IT DOESN’T INFRINGE ON OUR VALUES WHICH WERE DERIVED BY OUR CREATOR!!! Now you can believe that creator was Allah but that wouldn’t jive very well with the whole idea of separation of Church and state, you could believe that creator was Apollo but that wouldn’t explain why American citizens’ votes are thrown out of the courthouses thought out the country forcing them to accept the idea of Jack marrying Frank.

We are a Christian nation because our values, whether some of us like it or not, come from our Christian heritage. That is why this Friday I have a day off. That is the reason why I have December 25th off and not the 21st of August or 19th of September off. That is the reason why I don’t have today off, even though today is the first day of the Passover.

You might not like it, you might want to change it but as of right now that is the fact whether you like it or not. When it changes, than we can have a discussion about the US not being a Christian nation.

Crusader,

“We are a Christian nation because our values, whether some of us like it or not, come from our Christian heritage.”

These same values have been passed down through time, and as we have become more civilized the rules have become more refined.
The basics of the laws we follow today predate Christianity by millenia.
The Babylonians, the Greeks, the Romans, all had rules of law, and all of these civilizations predate Christianity.

Rocky

Cruasder
Thats ever so cute what your definition of assume is. Most often we try touse English definitions here.

All
Treaty of Tripoli

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

This is a ratified treaty and carries the force of law.

Oldguy,

As far as personal attacks against President Bush, President Obama, and others who seek the Elected Offices in America. That is part of what they sign up for when they run because is it not their Actions, Beliefs, and Words that we hold them accountable to?

Bills,

I specificaly said, we are governed by secular laws, but that doesn’t mean we are not a Christian Nation. If that is the case, why didn’t Obama state those views during elections?

As far as our civilization going back to the Greeks, Romans and others; I would challenge you to point out which of the Roman “traditions” do you practice in your everyday life. Is it “galdiator fighting”, public orgies, slave trade, poligomy, legalized prostitution, crusifiction, sacrificing Christians in the arena? Or any of the Greeck draditions of pedofilia?

I am sure that statement sounded much better in your thougts than it turned out in a real life. I pointed out specific areas where the Christian faith has affected the American jurisprudence and our everyday traditions. I ask any one of you who claim that America isn’t a Christian nation and our “civilization” derives its roots from further back than Christianity to show me the example in our everyday life.

Also, if that is the case, why didn’t presidential candidate Obama, make a case to the American people when he was accused of being a Muslim. He could have easily addressed the nation saying we are a nation of citizens, we are not a Christian nation and hense my faith is my private matter and no one elses business. I might have disagreed with him but at least I would have respect for the honesty. Now, I am convinced that he will tell enyone anything just to get an applaude.

Crusader,
Begining with the Senate and moving right through to the way the streets are laid out in your town any good Scholar or Historian should be able to produce the Founding Documents necessary to show the Founding Fathers of America used Greek and Roman History to establish much of the foundation on which we operate daily on.

And though I am sure that there are those who will tell you the names of the people in history from which we learn how to build and maintian roads (Roman) or the blueprint of how a city should look like (Greek) as told by Pluto I think, but am not sure it wasn’t the other guy. The very fact that the Bible does not explain how to build a home, scholl, or a police/fire department or a whole list of things like grow food, make clothing, and set broken bones should speak loudly that America was not designed or intended to be a Christian Nation.

However, in defense of those citizens who believe America was founded on a Higher Belief System let’s speak of the Bold Experiment of Man which IMHO is one of the most important part of the Founding Documents. For just in the last 100 years, Americans have broken the Speed of Sound, sent a Man to the Moon, and mastered the Art of Flying just to mention a few. And though now founded on hard evidence of science I ask you where did the Inventors of these once impossible ideas get their Knowledge and Wisdom from?

And for President Obama not making the case that America is a Nation of Citizens I do believe that if you care to look at his Degree in Constitutional Law the answer is apparent. For why every American has the Unalienable Right to envision Their Creator in a maner that makes sense to them as an Individual. Held to the same Argument of Logic and Reason that govern those citizens learned in Law and/or Criminal Justice under the Federal Common Sense Law of 1830/40 and keeps the crooks stupid. This American Layman Citizen for one am glad that President Obama can seperate his private life from his sworn duties and responibilities as President of the United States of America.

Crusader, logic and reason are alone sufficient to arrive at the recognition that if one steals from others, one must be concerned about being stolen from. If one kills others for personal gain, one must concern oneself with being killed by others for personal gain. Therefore, it is in one’s best interest to neither steal from nor kill others for personal gain. Trust and confidence for an entire society can be built between its members on such logic and reason.

And to add the obvious, most thieves and murderers in prison were exposed to religious teaching. Religious teaching is no more effective or ineffective in guiding behavior than logic and reason which arrive at the ethical behavior in one’s own self-interest.

The authority of the Koran or Bible has no more effect on behavioral prohibitions than does the rule of law. And the rule of law carries with it far more contemporaneous consequences than does judgment in the afterlife.

The White people who landed on these shores were self-professed Christians, co-existing with native Americans whose religions ranged from pantheism to deism, and the same for African Americans from the West Coast of Africa. It is not even accurate to say that our land was founded by Christians. It clearly wasn’t.

The Constitution was drafted by a combination of deists and Christians, who carefully avoided establishing Christianity as the religious foundation for this new nation, preferring instead to keep religious choice and tenets and prescriptions an individually free choice, not to be mandated by the state or majority.

It can arguably be said that the history of our culture is predominantly built upon Judeo-Christian values. That however is a far cry from the statement that our nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian principles. Our nation was founded upon many principles, some predating Christianity and some from cultures which Judaism borrowed from, and some from cultures which had never heard of Judeo-Christian history, like the American Indian tribes.

OldGuy’s last comment violated WB rules and was removed per WB rules, and his comment privileges have been suspended.

If we are a nation of faceless Citizens, we would be much like a Soviet Union, which I know a lot about, and we would not care for a fellow man. We wouldn’t mind spying on each other because a faceless Citizen’s duty is to the state. It is our humanity which we derive from our Christian heritage that compels us to be compassionate. You might not believe in Jesus, but the fact that you consider killing another human being as wrong is the result of our Judeo-Christian heritage. The fact that you think cutting a thief’s hand off is a cruel and unusually punishment is the result of your Judeo-Christian heritage. The fact that you believe that accusation has to be collaborated by more than one witness is the result of your Judeo-Christian tradition. You, personally, might not agree with the faith of Christianity, and you are free to choose that road but I will argue with you till the kingdom come if yo tell me that our nation was not built on a Christian set of values and principles.

Tosh. I’ve already address this several times before, especially here.

The argument that I hear, though, is that in order to be moral you have to have religion or believe in god. That if the country isn’t founded on religious values there is nothing keeping us from tearing each other apart for purely selfish gains. Well, while that may seem silly to some it is a persistent argument that those wishing to force their views onto others just can’t let go. Which is why I was refreshed when I heard the Dali Lama speak recently.

First, the Dali Lama is a great man I think we can all agree. I am not a Buddhist by any means but that doesn’t prevent someone from acknowledging that a man who has dedicated his live to the single idea, the simple notion, that we can all live in peace, is someone that deserve respect. But he is just a man, as he will freely admit.

During his talk he moved onto the subject of morality without religion or god. He pointed out that when he was three years old he had no interest in god or religion. He was not the Dali Lama then, he had not been chosen yet. So he says he was not religious at all. But he knew that killing another person was wrong, that stealing from another person was wrong, that harming another person was wrong. But how? Why, he learned these concepts from his mother. Not in a religious context, but in a simple, factual, this is how civilized people act way.

He went on to explain that there is a wrong connotation with the word ‘secular’. It does NOT mean ‘anti-god’, just an absence of god. In other words, there is nothing wrong with admitting a secular morality exists and we all accept and live by it while still believing in god and accepting a religious morality as well. And that is what we need to be making sure exists, a secular ethics.

We don’t need to interject a religious morality into our government to ensure that people don’t break down and kill each other, devolving society in to a hedonistic free-for-all. All we need is to ensure that individual rights are protected and let each individual make up their own mind as to how they choose to believe in an after-life, a supreme being and an additional set of ethos that they choose to live by.

I don’t understand how the Dali Lama knew not to kill other people without christian values?

Another great man, Harry Chapin, was not religious in any way, yet he went on to do more for fighting fascism and feeding the hungry than most people could dream of. So much so that he won the Congressional Gold Medal after his death for these tireless efforts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Chapin

Again, I’m not sure how the Ancient Greeks managed not to wipe each other out and end human existence without christianity being around to stop them…

“I’m not sure how the Ancient Greeks managed not to wipe each other out and end human existence without christianity being around to stop them…”

Or the Egyptians, or those in India.

The idea of Dharma, a central concept that is used in order to explain the “higher truth” or ultimate reality of the universe, existed long before Christianity.
There is no civilization without civility. The thought that Christianity is the basis of “our” civilization is just wrong headed.

Rocky

Should we take it all the way back to 15,000 B.C. and the Myths that seperate the Mason and Freemason?

Or better yet IMHO let’s take the debate to the First Campfires of Man. Because as in any village, community, or city is it not the interaction of Man and His Society that has caused the need for Rules and Regulations.

Because having grown up knowing to go Bold or stay Home I do believe that My Peers and Their Children need to have a 3rd Generation Discussion about why the Elders and Powers-that-Be of the 70’s limited Their Children to the sky. For Crusader, go look up Upanishads of Sanskrit and read why America and Humanity needs both politics and religion. For enlightenment at the time America was founded makes one wonder why “We the People” even believe the Myths of Man.

Rhinehold-
First, nothing of this kind passes without majority consent. The majority of people must have made this a priority.

Second, government forces all of us to submit to decisions we don’t like. The point of Democracy is that we have some say so beforehand.

Third, sometimes it goes beyond compassion or caring. The sick don’t get better as they are ignored, or force to endure. The get worse, then they show up at emergency rooms with disabling illnesses. You lose the person’s productivity and you impoverish those who depend on them.

The old folks used to either have to move in with their kids or exist in destitution.

Folks tried to address these concerns through private charities, but they never really made a dent in the problems.

I don’t think you can move a society like ours forward economically without taking care of people, because ultimately, the folks able to deal with all these problems without a second thought are a minority. The rest of us, confronted with healthcare problems, unemployment, the prospect of retirement, don’t have so many options.

Besides, social security provisions are not charity. People work for their benefits. It is insurance, insurance against many of the hazards of life. You might argue that it is philosophically bad, but is not practical to avoid losing the economic strength of many of the recipient altogether?

Crusader wrote: “As far as our civilization going back to the Greeks, Romans and others; I would challenge you to point out which of the Roman “traditions” do you practice in your everyday life.”

You must be kidding! How about the very concept of our government, a constitutional representative democracy with checks/balances and separation of powers. Or, how about the rule of law providing protection for individual rights and due process.

Crusader, how about indoor plumbing, flushing toilets, bathing, skin emoluments, strip center shops, stadium spectator sports, arches, massages, suturing of deep cuts, relieving brain pressure through skull drilling, public schools, centers of higher education, and this doesn’t even begin to approach what we use daily in America from Roman militarism. Then there is the Senate as check and balance upon an emperor or president, the concept of a republic with the people represented by the Senate, and then political contributions, legal bribes, and the list goes on an on in medicine, government, politics, consumerism, engineering, and that now ubiquitous specialization of labor and tiers of society by specialization of labor and income groups.

>I specificaly said, we are governed by secular laws, but that doesn’t mean we are not a Christian Nation. If that is the case, why didn’t Obama state those views during elections?
Posted by: Crusader at April 9, 2009 01:02 AM

Obviously, President Obama is a Christian…for that I forgive him…I would be satisfied if we could just call ourselves a moral nation, but Christain??? Hardly…that would mean our nation and its people would be compelled to worship the Christian God…piddle, that’s not the case at all, and you’d better all hope it never happens.

I guess I have to define the meaning of NATION for those who think the contribution of Roman Arch to architecture, or indoor plumbing, the Senate and hot bath corresponds to what is NATION and CULTURE.

Let’s start with a definition of Nation. There are Political Nations and there are Cultural Nations. We agree that politically, the US is not a Christian Nation and there can not be a “Politicaly Christian Nation” because Christianity, unlike Islam, is not a Political Religion. Christianity distinctly separates between the state and the religion. So, let’s look at the Cultural Nation which is relevant to the Christianity.

The Cultural Nation is a group of people associated with a political state who share number of distinct features such as language, religion, tradition, or shared history. Now let’s look at the US. We share a common language, even though English is not the state language. We share common history. And finally we share a religion and traditions. I think last pole done by USA Today suggests that 62% of Americans consider themselves Christian. I wonder how many of the other 38% share the traditions associated with Christianity such as Easter, Christmas etc. Now let’s look at the time of the founding fathers. Yes, it is true that not ALL founding fathers were devout Christians. This is irrelevant, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the Cultural Nation. As far as Cultural Nation is conserned, the colonies were heavily influence by the English and other European traditions which were largely CHRISTIAN NATIONS. So, I wouldn’t be venturing out on a limb if I mention that the populous of the Colonies and the Culture of the Colonies was influenced by Christian Culture of the 18th century Europe.

Some might have a hard time separating Political Nation from a Cultural Nation, but a Constitutional Scholar such as current President of the United States should not have a problem with this concept because it is paramount for that field of study. Hence, my point stands, though we are living in a Country governed by the secular laws and government, we remain a Christian Nation because only time Christianity applies to the definition of NATION is when you are talking about the Cultural Nation. Even though Christianity has contributed much to our Constitution, I distinctly separated the law of the land from the culture of the land.

Let’s address the Logic and common sense, which would eventually have guide us to this wonderful place called the US, as some of you are so convinced. In California alone there are 670 individuals on the death row for committing various crimes against society so grievous as to warrant the capital punishment. How come those individuals didn’t arrive to a logical conclusion that killing some would eventually get them killed? Forget them! Let’s look at Somalia, since it is in the headlines today. Why do Somalis choose to live in a lawless society which encourages (not actively but because of the circumstance) thieving and piracy? It is a Muslim nation by all accounts, and ISLAM prohibits thievery. It even has a very distinct punishment for thieves. If you ask an everyday Somali, they are Muslim, yet their logic doesn’t stop them from stealing. What happened to the LOGIC?!

Now let me explain to you why your idea of logic is not enough to govern our interaction with each other. There are many forms of logic but I will venture to guess that you are thinking of Informal Logic. Bien, as French would say. This flavor of Logic concentrates greatly on the study of fallacies. In your case, we are dealing with a Formal Fallacy. Your argument is build on a premise that what is bad for me must be bad for others and vise versa. This could be true, but what makes your argument fallacious is the fact that you are not supporting the idea of “why”. I could argue that if a person perceives his/her positions totally secure, he/she would not consider stealing from you as a threat to his/her positions hense bad. What your argument lacks is the X factor that would compel both sides, no matter the security of their current positions, to perceive thievery as bad. That X factor could be a religion, a authority, a law etc. In our case Christian religion. I believe, it was common among Indian tribes to steal from other tribes or settlers. It was common among Indians to slaughter other tribes. It isn’t a judgment on their morality but it serves as a premise to argue that our interaction which discourages thievery is not based on Indian customs.

A number of people, regrettably, associate Christianity with morality, and associate secular with deviltry…how silly. The belief that murder and thievery are anti-social and bad has NOTHING to do with religion. Atheists don’t go around killing people or taking their property because they are atheists, they might do it because they are murderers or thieves. Christians are not moral because they believe in Jesus…if that were so, Christians would not kill or steal.

Society, as a group of people, know that crime is not good for the group…nothing will convince every citizen in that society not be criminal. That’s why society needs laws, it is not why society needs religion.

Marysdude,

I would like to compel you to prove your statement.

I will argue that an atheist, who does not have a religios morality, could be a murderer. For example, Communist China and Communist Soviet Union. It was run by secular regimes which outlawed ALL religions yet kiling of its citizens was a comon accurance and was practiced as the means of keeping the order.

I didn’t say atheists are immoral. I said atheists in the US practice Christian morality which is previlent in the US. Can you tell me that an Atheist in the US has same set of morals as an atheist in China or in Russia? They would not because each one is a member of its own cultural nation which dictates unique set of moral principles.

Well Said? It’s the biggest load of crap I’ve seen strung out here for people to read in a long time. Self-serving, unmitigated, crap.

Do you really want to get into all of the ways that CHRISTIAN americans kill, abuse, maim, steal, etc?

The ethos are not set in by christianity. Christianity is a formal collection of those already existing ethics (with a few ignorant and hatefilled rules thrown in for good measure).

You ignore the MANY times someone has pointed out that those some ethos that you list as Christian existed before and outside of Christian influence all throughout history. Buddishm, Hinduism, Toaism, American Indian culture, Europe before the Christian invasions, etc.

Ignorance is not a strong place to stand upon to make your argument here, Crusader. And if there is one additional rule that Christianity gives us it *IS* the advancement of ignorance, no doubt.

Dear Rhinehold,

I think the saying is “those who live in the glass houses shouldn’t throw stone”?! When you call someone an ignorant, it is out of self respect that you are compelled to present a good argument for it.

To be honest, I struggled to figure out what was the premise of your argument, what was the conclusion and which method of logic did you use in arriving to your conclusion. I thought I’d use your previous statement about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but your conclusion of world exploding was even more confusing as 2nd law only applied to the closed systems and end result is not explosion but an equilibrium. So, with a little “creative” licence, I was able make some sense of your “argument”.

Here is what I got and correct me if I am wrong:

You are using deductive reasoning. Your conclusion is “Ignorance is not a strong place to stand upon to make your argument here, Crusader. And if there is one additional rule that Christianity gives us it *IS* the advancement of ignorance, no doubt.”

I, Crusader, am ignorant because “It’s the biggest load of crap I’ve seen strung out here for people to read in a long time. Self-serving, unmitigated, crap.”

It is the biggest load of crap because “The ethos are not set in by christianity.”

The ethos are not set in by Christianity because “Christianity is a formal collection of those already existing ethics (with a few ignorant and hatefilled rules thrown in for good measure)”.

That statement is true because I ignore “some ethos that you list as Christian existed before and outside of Christian influence all throughout history. Buddishm, Hinduism, Toaism, American Indian culture, Europe before the Christian invasions, etc.”

Now that I have arranged your argument in more coherent form, let me address it:

Let’s start with an obvious problems “The ethos are not set in by christianity” vs “Christianity is a formal collection of those already existing ethics (with a few ignorant and hatefilled rules thrown in for good measure)”. You have a contradiction. Your first statement is definative ethosis are not set in by Christianity!, but in very next sentence you are making a statement “with a few ignorant and hatefilled rules thrown in for good measure”. This doesn’t jive with your first statement because ethos in the manner used by you is synonym to “rule” in the manner used by you. So logical conclusion would be Not All Ethos are of Christina origin. Ok, I can buy that.

Next, “some ethos that you list as Christian existed before and outside of Christian influence all throughout history. Buddishm, Hinduism, Toaism, American Indian culture, Europe before the Christian invasions, etc.” Ok here is the classical version of Irrelevant conclusion.

Let me reconstruct your argument, so it supports exactly what I said:

“some ethos that you list as Christian existed before and outside of Christian influence all throughout history. Buddishm, Hinduism, Toaism, American Indian culture, Europe before the Christian invasions, etc.”

“Christianity is a formal collection of those already existing ethics (with a few ignorant and hatefilled rules thrown in for good measure).”

It can be described as a separate religion because it incorporated SOME parts of already existing ethos and introduced NEW ignorant and hate filled ethos.

Those who practice this new religion and are complying to ALL ethos collected under Christianity should be considered Christian?

Those who practice some of the Christian ethos, some Buddhist ethos, some Pagan ethos, some Hinduism ethos should be considered influenced by Christianity as long as all the ethos they practice are part of the Christian collection because it was Christianity that formally collected all these ethos.

Thank you, you just proved my argument. Welcome upon the place of ignorance! I will scoot down to give you more room.

P.S. Quick modification to my conclusion, which is the last paragraph starting with “Those who…” as long as these people were expose to those ethoses through the Christian teachings.

There, I just made even more room for you.

I thought I’d use your previous statement about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, but your conclusion of world exploding was even more confusing as 2nd law only applied to the closed systems and end result is not explosion but an equilibrium.

I never mentioned the world exploding…

I did mention that eventually all things will die and become dormant. All This will burn away and we will be left with a nothingness. In that regard, immortality is, as they say, impossible.

As for the bungling of the rest of my argument, you again seem to be misunderstanding what I am saying, much like you did with the entropy laws, which you kind of have to do in order to continue being a christian I suppose. Let’s try with where I think you really fall down.

Those who practice some of the Christian ethos, some Buddhist ethos, some Pagan ethos, some Hinduism ethos should be considered influenced by Christianity as long as all the ethos they practice are part of the Christian collection because it was Christianity that formally collected all these ethos.

Christianity did not formally collect ‘all these ethos’. What Christianity did was build upon an ethos of judaism, add a few twists, and then sailed upon its merry way. All the while the rest of the world was turning and developing similar, though separate, ethos. That those ethics included many of the same canards tell us that those similar canards are not of ‘christian’ domain but a secular ethics that exists outside of religion. Just because Paul put on a pretty bow and sold his new religion to gentiles does not make it any less built upon secular ethics.

Therefore, when we come to a society such as the United States which prides itself on non-religious sets of laws, we have to take out what is secular from the christian and other traditions so that those can be applied to law while leaving the more hate-filled and oppressive of those canards on the cutting room floor as it were. Therefore, though both the secular and the christian ethics include views of ‘not killing your fellow man’, it is the secular one that must exist in our set of laws. Otherwise you are forcing religious values onto others. Like with hate-filled anti-gay laws, anti-drug laws, anti-gambling laws, anti-prostitution laws, etc.

Either you are trying to insult me or you do not understand how to form an argument.

Could you be so kind as to point out which of the “secular” ethics are you referring to and explain how this “secular” laws came about? Because, as of right now you have not presented a single argument that is supported by facts, or a deductive argument that uses some trace of logic.

As for entropy, how exactly does entropy do with God? If you look at the “Christian” theory, you will find a very sound reasoning which corresponds to syntropy. As you are probably familiar with the Mario Ludovico’s theory about syntropy it states “
“The system’s evolution is represented as a stochastic process that consists of subsequent “cycles”. Every cycle is described by transition phases that bring the system

from an original unstable equilibrium state to either another unstable equilibrium state or to the system’s disintegration. At the end of each cycle, in fact, a change in the

system’s structure is necessary for the system’s survival and for making it possible the start of a new cycle. In an alternative, if no structural change intervenes, the system as

such disappears or turns into something that remains undefined because substantially incompatible with the original system.”

Hence the judgment day and second coming of Christ who will set up a kingdom of god on earth, as just such transformation once humanity reaches the point of either system disintegration or change to a new unstable equilibrium. So, again I seem to pick up a pattern here. You throw an idea out there and see if it sticks or not but when you are called to elaborate on it you start name-calling. Very interesting approach coming from a person who gave up a life of Church in order to help the people.

Crusader,

First of all, I have called no one a name. I would thank you to stop making accusations that are not based in fact.

Second, let’s break this down to as simple as we can so that it can be understood. Let’s take murder, for example. Now, Christianity says ‘Thou Shalt Not Kill’. Buddhism also has a canard that one should not kill another. As do many American Indian religions. So, the fact that several separate religious beliefs all have the SAME ethic, we can assume that it was not religion that created that ethic but a secular examination of social interactions and empathy that humans have towards one another. It was just imported into the religions of the day, depending upon where those people existed.

As for your ‘sound’ reasoning, well, as I have stated many times before, faith is a very powerful thing that requires the absence of critical thought. If something were to be supported by critical thought, it would not require faith anymore. That you are faithful that the known laws of entropy will somehow have this ‘saving anti-entropy’ exerted upon it displays that very well, absent of any evidence to support those views.

Jim M,

If Christians loved everyone, regardless of their faith or actions, that would be a noble thing. Unfortunately, that is not what happens. :(

As for two commandments, I thought there were 10? And if I remember right, not being gay wasn’t one of them. Yet, there is the church, making sure that one gets enforced…

I am sure all those people who died in the crusades or at the hands of the inquisition will be happy to know that they were loved by the people who killed and/or tortured them in the name of god.

Jim M,

So, what you are saying, is that the US was founded on Christian values and those values are limited to ‘love god and love your neighbor’. Everything else are just man-made rules, prohibitions or prescriptions and can be safely ignored?

I am surprised that a former pastor, is it, made such a blatant mistake. “Thou shall not MURDER” is part of the 10 commandments given to Moses by God. Exodus 20:3-17

Christ, in his sermon on the mount, Matthew Chapter 5, said following:

“21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

I believe a pastor would surely know such an important part of the Bible as Sermon on the Mount, if for nothing else but the doctrine of Christianity which is manifested in the following in that same Matthew Chapter 5:

“3Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

4Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

5Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

6Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

7Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

8Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God.

9Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.

12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.” Matthew 5:3-12

Now, pastor, for an enlightened man, you could surely see the difference between what you thought the Bible taught, and what it really teaches. I think you should come clean for not being quite honest about you being a former pastor, unless you received your “collar” on some Internet site.

As for several other religions believing the same thing leads you to assume things, well that is as scientific or logical as I am a liberal. Now, I can understand how you discovered entropy to contradict the existence of God, it was one of those assumptions. Here I was, wondering how in all the time I was studying to get my P.E. in Thermodynamics I couldn’t discover that connection. I was starting to doubt if 4 years of college and another year preparing for the P.E. test, and another 3 years of actual experience in designing heating and cooling systems for commercial buildings was for nothing.

I humbly thank you for this wonderful discussion and I sincerely hope that one day, you will be honest with yourself.

Crusader,
Define Christianity since at the founding of America there were several religious groups that called themselves Christians. Even today in the 21st Century you will find serveral differences among those who call themselve Christians.

So does follow Jesus’ Teachings mean that you intentionally allow poverty to stand in Society?Or how about not worrying about the 50% of Americans you accuse of not paying their fair share of taxes? Yes, Americans do owe a lot to the Founding Fathers of America for the seperation of Chruch and State. For without roads, plumbing, and a whole host of things not covered in the Teaching of Religion no one would have a Culture or Political Nation. Unless you consider living in caves a culture.

Crusader,

Hilarious comedy routine, I suggest you go out on the road with it.

What I find most interesting is that you attempt to accuse me of making a mistake of saying ‘thou shalt not kill’ instead of ‘thou shalt not murder’ and then quote Jesus making the exact same statement in reference to the commandment. Did you think no one would notice that?

The funny part is that the interpretation of the bible into English is probably the most damaging thing that was done to society as a whole, because the interpretations have screwed up so much of the meaning. For example, ‘virgin birth’ originally meant ‘birth by a woman who wasn’t married’, not who had never had relations, but because of the way it was TRANSLATED, well, we have the nonsense of a virgin birth today actually believed by so many of the faithful.

BTW, If you want to doubt that I was a preacher and a naval nuclear engineer in my past, please continue to do so. I can provide documentation if you like, but it appears obvious to me that evidence and fact are not what you are looking for…

As for what I have learned that the bible teaches, we can most definitely get into a discussion about that, but it won’t be on this site. I would suggest leaving a comment on my personal site and we can start a discussion there…

Dear Henry Schlatman,

That is a good questions which has an equally good answer. What is Christianity? I believe the definition of that word belong not to those who profess the teaching of Christ but to those who live Christ-like life. I can’t take a credit for this definition, it belong to the Greeks who described apostles with that word. I am not one to judge who is and who isn’t a Christian. But I can tell you that denominational differences between the Christians, even though most of them don’t want to admit it, are so trivial when compared to the overall message of Christ, that using different denominations as an “it” factor in defining America as a “Nation of Citizens” is little far fetched. I am a follower of Eastern Orthodox Christian teachings. We are “supposedly” the originalists. I married a woman who was a follower of a Nazarene flavor of Christianity. In theory those two doctrines should be diamertaly opposite but in reality they are not. There are traditional differences but the only difference between us that is a “deal breaker” is the communion. Now, I don’t mean to downplay the importance of communion in the Christian life, but do you think difference in how we treat the communion effects either one of our Christian morality based on the guidelines put forth by Christ in his Sermon on the Mount? I hope this answers your concern about denominational differences in Christianity and how it affects the Christian morality.

As far as Christian philosophy and poverty, I think I as a Christian am obligated to reach out a helping hand to all who are in need. But, we are talking about an act of faith, a voluntary act and not something you are forced into doing by those in power. Unless you equate Government to the All Mighty, I don’t see how my Christian faith and charity is relevant to the government’s war on poverty with my taxes?

Now let’s look at second part of your questions - “intentionally allow poverty to stand in Society”. This is a loaded question. I would argue that “If you give a man a fish, you’ll feed him for a day. Teach that man how to fish, and you will feed him for life”.

One man, who I do not know personally but who’s service to this country I admire greatly, once said “There are two ways of getting a man’s attention. One, you can slap him. Two, you can light him on fire.” Now, I doubt he meant in the context I am about to use it but it’s relevant none less. If I am content with my current state, only way to change my status quo if I am not willing to do it on my own is to motivate me to do so, sometimes matches are not readily available so slap has to do the trick.

Christianity, unlike Islam, is not a political religion. It is not designed to run a political system. It is a faith, it is a morality, it is the teaching of love and salvation. Roman Catholic Church recognized this “weakness” of the teaching and that is one of the reasons why Pope was bestowed with the idea of infallibility when he speaks on behalf of the Church. This was an attempt to levy a political influence for the Church that itself was based on the non-political philosophy. But again, this is a topic for another place and for another time.

I admire the foresight of our founding fathers. I think their collective genius was such that will not be repeated ever again in the History. I read Federalis Papers over and over again and can’t stop being amazed at the deapth of their humanity and the understanding of the subject of government. The first time I read the US constitution was when I was in the 9th grade in Soviet Union as part of my world history class. I was so impressed, as a 14 year old boy, that it became my life’s goal to be part of the nation built on those principles. So, you don’t need to convince me how great of a document we, as Americans, have had a privilege to build our country on. At that time, my republic was on the forefront of the independence movement and I, as an impressionable young man, started an “organization” to promote the idea of independence among our peers. The Declaration of the Independence was the single greatest motivator for me. That is why I believe in American arrogance, because the influence of American ideals are spread far from the shores of this great nation.

Crusader,
Why I can directly relate to your dtory, having grown up knowing that America is founded on an Ideology and Proven Argument of Law as an Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Feewill and Self-Nature I to believe in Americas’ Arrogance provided that My Peers and Their Children hold and protect the Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights of their grandchildren’s grandchildren.

For why I have the guaranteed civil and constitutional rights to hold My Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders accountable to a document called The Federal Common Sense Law of 1830/40. As one who rebel side leaves me to have others explain the Argument of Being a Parent and Grandparent vs. that of a 10-year-old Child, IMHO the Beliefs and Opinons you and every Human holds has more to do with their view as how the Hierarchy of Society Politics works.

For why are most Christians considered Conservative? Is it due to the fact that they believe what is stated by the Republican Pundits or hold homage to Authority?

Thus, the same can be said about a Liberal because who has to have Absolute Proof something exists and/or works when you can see by Self-Evident that it Just Does?

It would be horrendous to keep these memos out of sight and to delay or lose Dawn Johnsen and Harold Koh.

People should read The Big Sort , about the resegregation of America along political lines.

The funny thing is, Karen, that it is Obama himself that are keeping these memos out of sight.

Check the middle column article ‘Bushier than Bush?’

I appreciate the concern which is been rose. The things need to be sorted out because it is about the individual but it can be with everyone.

Cynthia Kurtz
Virtual Currency

Fact: Torture doesn’t get information. If it did, the right wing would be blasting it through their media as proudly as cat trots with its just caught mouse in its mouth.
Fact: Torture is used to cower and intimidate the population at large in order to destroy free speech and other activities of a free and just society.

Agreed, Stephen !! But one must possess morality to feel that way. So follow where that takes us.