Democrats & Liberals Archives

America First?

This is who voters were encouraged to pick over former Senator Arlen Specter. This is who ran the Club for Growth, that nice organization whose rigid fiscal policies and zealous pursuit of tax cuts put our country in its current position. His idea for avoiding dealing with raising the debt ceiling? Pay off China and America’s other creditors first. Like the guy in the article said, this is just default by another name.

It's like letting your family starve in order to pay the bills. It doesn't solve the problem, it makes things worse, and in the mean time, you're failing on an obligation that surely ranks higher than the others.

As it says in one particular obscure document:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This government was intended to do more than just sit around and send money overseas. For years, it seemed to be a no-brainer that America's government would support America's industries, America's workers, America's financial interests, that the government would take care of the public's interests.

Right now, we face a little bit of a problem, concerning green technology. First, many of he materials, the Lanthanide series chemicals we call the Rare Earth Elements, were allowed to become a Chinese monopoly. Second, the Chinese are working double-time to create the manufacturing base and materials base to dominate the green energy industry, while Republicans here oppose it in the name of continuing petroleum company profits, confounding the public's belief in Global Warming, and opposing any kind of positive policy advance by the Obama administration.

Truth of the matter is, this is one example of many, where the cause of globalizing the economy or winning political fights has taken precedent in conservative policy, over maintaining America's ability to see to its own interests. We're putting way too many eggs in China's basket. Bad things happen, and they can happen to China, the same as everybody else. And China, because of its position, can strong-arm us in ways that they couldn't if we weren't merely indulging the wishes of those short-sighted few in the business world who believe than anything that benefits them and their country benefits America.

We need to have a manufacturing base here in America. Imports may not always be so cheap, the importers so kind. Fuel prices may not always remain so cheap, nor actors in the market so rational. If we only plan for the best, we'll only see the worst results.

This nation wasn't set up merely to serve the interests of a few, while forsaking those of the many. The constitution speaks of general welfare, the good of all, as opposed to the good of the few or the best, or the most well bred.

For way too long, the zealotry of politics have lead many to pursue policies that took our domestic and foreign policies to irresponsible extremes. Folks threw tax cuts out like candy, but did not care to offset most of them with politically problematic spending cuts. They pushed free trade, but forgot to stand up for America's interests in negotiations, letting other country's make a travesty of the term, as they undermined our ability to import to their markets.

We're running a massive trade deficit because of years of failure to deal with our situation with fossil fuels, and our trade situation with other countries. So long as America's not manufacturing for export, and we're dependent on a fuel source that largely comes from overseas, that trade deficit will remain.

Which adds an interesting wrinkle to the calls for some on the Tea Party side to return to a Gold Standard, because as I understand it, a Gold Standard means that you only have as much money as you have gold, and if you start running a trade deficit (or already are), that means you're essentially sending your money supply overseas, which will literally make America a poorer country. People bolster the Gold Standard for ideological or moral reasons, believing it's some salvation agaisnt the prospect of inflation. The reality is, though, is that it would make nearly every one of our problems worse, from government's inability to pay for what it's offering, to trade imbalances, to the deflationary tendencies of our economy, which are weighing down its growth. The Tea Partiers claim it will build character, and if by that they mean it will inflict huge amounts of suffering on the American people, they're probably right.

Fervent belief in the rightness of policy doesn't necessarily mean good knowledge of how that policy worked out beforehand, or great foresight about it's consequences in the future. People can be ignorant, foolish, or blind on a particular set of issues, even if they're generally smart, generally wise, and generally observant on everything else. That's why we have democracy, a respresentational republic. We need that system so that each of us can compensate for somebody else's blind spot, and others can compensate for our own. When one faction gets too powerful, and jealously, continuously tries to insist on getting things their way, it becomes very difficult to create a policy that, on the balance, benefits the country, "promotes the general welfare." We need to be willing to let the currents of real events and the grit of genuine facts wear smooth the rough edges of what we imagine to be correct, to wear those ideas away entirely if that is the course that is correct.

If one views constitutional obligations as important (to call them sacred would be sacrilege), then one should not so easily disregard what is said in the preamble. It reflects what was important to them. Theirs was not to be a government that operated nominally for the good of the people and the good of the country. They wanted a government that functioned, and they thought that government could help them gain those things. They were not unskeptical about it, not with the Bill of Rights, or the Checks and balances built into the system, but they were not so virulently opposed to government, as a whole, that they maintained the system that would have kept the states decentralized and the national government weak. Rather than push policy to an unhealthy extreme in the interest of vindicating their own political theories, the Framers did what so many political figures in fledgling democracies have failed to do over the years, and pursued real world function over academic triumph. They treated running the government like the responsibility that it is, and compromised and worked together, rather than let the good of the country suffer for the vanity they had about their own political theories.

Posted by Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2011 11:27 AM
Comments
Comment #317996

Mr. Daugherty writes…”They (the founders) treated running the government like the responsibility that it is, and compromised and worked together, rather than let the good of the country suffer for the vanity they had about their own political theories.”

Hmmm…isn’t it their “political theories” that are found in the Constitution?

As for responsibility, does anyone actually believe we have a responsible government today? Is a $14 trillion debt responsible? Are continuing resolutions rather than an actual budget responsible? Is allowing (perhaps encouraging if we listen to Hilary) Egypt to fall to the Muslin brotherhood reasonable? Nearly every aspect of our lives, in which the federal government has become involved, we find not reasonableness, but rather, political motivation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2011 4:32 PM
Comment #317997

“Is allowing (perhaps encouraging if we listen to Hilary) Egypt to fall to the Muslin brotherhood reasonable?”

Allowing? Encouraging? What are you talking about? The people of Egypt are demanding change. This not some coup by a radical minority. It is a nationwide demand for change. The Egyptian army is attempting to remain neutral vowing not to use force against demonstrators.

What would you suggest? Sending US troops to assist Mubarik in suppressing the demonstrations?

Criticizing the position of the US is puzzling. From what I can gather, the US position is simply that Mubarek needs to accept the grievances and will of the Egyptian people by: 1) declining to run for election this year or resigning immediately and 2) to establishing a mechanism for true democratic elections this year and an orderly transition of government.

There is of course the possibility that the “Muslim Brotherhood” could exploit the turmoil and gain some political power. They are well organized and disciplined. But does that fear justify supporting a dictatorial regime that is clearly corrupt? Does that fear justify denying the people of Egypt an opportunity for a true democracy?

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2011 7:20 PM
Comment #317999

Royal Flush,

America has, in the past, supported quite a cast of rather unsavory characters. The Shah of Iran comes to mind.

We need to decide whether America truly stands for the will of the people, even in other countries, or we will appear only to support those leaders that walk in lockstep with us, and screw the people that live in those countries.

Look I realize that we have done a great good around the world, however, we need to walk our talk when it comes to Democracy, and if the people of a country elect a leader we disagree with so be it.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at January 31, 2011 7:39 PM
Comment #318001

I have listened to the comments coming out of the obama government and it is frightening indeed. Take out your old Carter/Iran playbook and follow the yellow brick road. It didn’t lead to OZ then, and surely won’t now.

The lefty loonies in DC have proven their mental disorder once again.

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2011 7:42 PM
Comment #318003

Stephen,
Having heard all my life about those who want America to go back to the Gold Standard I do believe they need to learn why America went off the Gold Standard years ago. For why some believe it would be better, the facts do not agree. Since even at today’s rate of $1,334.10 the price puts a spec of gold dust so high that it would make it impossible for the average citizen to pay their bills.

No, Senator Toomey and others might want to pay the debt interest payments first; however, any high school grad. will tell you if you don’t pay down the Principle the interest rates will not matter. And I have heard no word on how or should America do such a thing. For why $14 trillion sounds like a lot of money, compared to the amount of money owed the U.S. after WWII which Britan makes last payment in 2006 it is more or less about the World Leaders seating down and working out an agreement.

For why it would be great to see America and Humanity restart the financial clock to zero so every nation could begin the Race to the Top from the same point. I doubt it will happen. Nonetheless, spending a dollar on interest payments to other countries or investing in Americas’ ability to become energy independent shouldn’t be that far of a leap even for some Tea Party members.

Than again if your actual goal is to weaken the Federal Government to the point where it cannot do nothing than I suppose that we should halt all payments to include the Members of Congress until every dime of the $14 trillion is repayed. And I doubt if that kind of bill would even give a snow ball a chance.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 31, 2011 7:52 PM
Comment #318004

“I have listened to the comments coming out of the obama government and it is frightening indeed.”

So, what exactly is so frightening? What do you disagree with? You say nothing. You provide no real analysis. You provide no alternative. What do you think the administration should do?

I don’t really expect an answer. What could you offer as an alternative?

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2011 7:54 PM
Comment #318005

Royal Flush,
Unless you are talking about invading Egypt within the next few days what is going to happen will happen. And though I am sure it won’t be to the liking of the Conservatives and Republicans no matter what the outcome. This is one time President Obama and the Democrats are following Our Founding Fathers Advice about other nations.

No, supporting the existing government while telling their citizens they don’t need to have the same freedoms we enjoy is not smart, but can lead to worse conditions. So what advice would you give President Obama on how to deal with the unrest in Egypt?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 31, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #318006

For the United States, an Islamist Egypt would be a strategic catastrophe. Egypt is the center of gravity in the Arab world. This would not only change the dynamic of the Arab world, it would reverse U.S. strategy since the end of the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. Sadat’s decision to reverse his alliance with the Soviets and form an alliance with the United States undermined the Soviet position in the Mediterranean and in the Arab world and strengthened the United States immeasurably. The support of Egyptian intelligence after 9/11 was critical in blocking and undermining al Qaeda. Were Egypt to stop that cooperation or become hostile, the U.S. strategy would be severely undermined.

Read more: The Egypt Crisis in a Global Context: A Special Report | STRATFOR

Posted by: Royal Flush at January 31, 2011 8:17 PM
Comment #318007

Royal Flush,

I think we all know the problem about possibly losing an ally in the fight against radical Islam.

But, what exactly are you counseling? You have been highly critical of the current administration’s approach. What is your alternative?

Posted by: Rich at January 31, 2011 8:23 PM
Comment #318009

Come on Royal tell us you want to support a dictatorship over a democratically elected government. Tell us you want to quash the will of the people of Egypt because they may elect a leader you believe to be against your interests. It is a true conservative principle after all, because the ends justifies the means,right.
Carter was right, Reagan was wrong and yet here we are today still addicted to oil from the middle east and all the baggage that addiction carries with it. How pathetic is that?

Posted by: j2t2 at January 31, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #318010

Royal Flush,
With the Soviet Union gone and the Citizens of Egypt turning away from violence what is your next step?

For crying “Fire” is no answer. And to think America is going to attack the country when no harm has come to our citizens breaks on the edge of crazy. No, allowing Egypt to work out its own pronlems might not seem like a good idea especially from those who view Authority above all else; nevertheless, pick the wrong side at the wrong time and you will make matters worse. For as your son must learn to deal with his children in his own way so must America allow Egypt to deal with their citizens their own way.

For other than them yelling for different leadership, I don’t hear them calling for Americas’ Death which has to be a good sign.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at January 31, 2011 8:54 PM
Comment #318012

Royal Flush-
The framers weren’t one group of people with just one set of interests. They were from states with big territories, and states with big populations. The nature of Congress had to be worked out between them, and that’s why we got the Senate and the House, to balance those interests.

The three-fifths argument is somewhat misleading, and it represented a compromise between states that had many slaves and those who had few. The South wanted slaves counted completely, so as to inflate their voting totals. The North, mainly industrial, didn’t want to count citizens who would never vote as persons, and lose representation on that count. Slaves were not counted as full people not owing to rancor, but rather as a compromise between the South’s inflation of its numbers, and the North’s wish that only the free people be counted for purposes of representation.

The Bill of Rights was the price of the support of Jefferson and the other anti-federalists who preferred decentralized government.

If you go through the history of the constitution, you’ll see just this kind of hard bargaining and hard selling. The Federalist Papers themselves were a means to sell the Constitution to a public dubious about the states losing autonomy, but concerned about the nation’s best interests.

So, to answer your question, yes, they were found in the Constitution, but admixed, the theories of one group competing against another. They accepted this result, this compromise that no-one was entirely pleased with, and gave it their blessing.

As for the debt? about nine trillion of it was generated during your party’s repeated attempts to prove Arthur Laffer correct. Reagan contributed three trillion, Bush more than five. His policies reflect much of the continued debt build up, with his expensive wars, those tax cuts your party fought so hard to continue in full, and of course the increases in Medicare spending.

Your people failed miserably to rein in the debt. If it weren’t for Clinton’s tax increases, the deficts never would have ended.

So, talk to me about responsibility once we’re done with the consequences of your party’s irresponsibility.

As for Egypt?

Look, do you want Obama to repeat Bush’s mistake in backing those trying to seize or keep power by illegitimate means? The Egyptian people are going to have their way here, one way or another. We can either stand by them, or, out of paranoia, stick our foot in another hornet’s nest by backing Mubarak.

We should push for a fully Democratic government, even if it means risking the Muslim Brotherhood. If we don’t?

Well, here’s the thing about the Muslim Brotherhood. The reason why they’re such a pain in the ass is that leaders have been trying to surpress them for decades, and that has served to radicalize many of their members. Out of the torture chambers of the Egyptian government, we got Ayman Al’Zawahiri and a lot of those other nimrods.

What we need is for these people to bleed off their tensions or their popularity in a Democratically elected government. What we need to do is to stop playing the losing game of supporting unpopular right-wing strongmen who blacken our name among the citizens of the country, and who inspire revolutionary movements that attack us in return. Egyptian intelligence may have helped us after 9/11, but only after their crackdown on Muslim groups helped give us Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which in turn formed part of the core of al-Qaeda.

And really, if we intervene against the protestors or throw our support behind Mubarak, doesn’t that guarantee hostility, just like throwing our lot in with the Shah made us the Great Satan to a generation of Iranians?

We got to stop behaving like some sort of old-fashioned colonial power. It just doesn’t agree with us, or our image. We are loved when we bring freedom, loved when we guarantee liberty, and hated doubly when we bring corruption, misery and tyranny instead, because of what we say we believe in.

If you think we’re crazy, then tell me, what is sane about a nation that says it’s for freedom backing totalitarian rulers, a nation that says its for integrity and honesty backing corruption and exploitation, a nation that says its for human rights and civil liberties forsaking its own, and that of its enemies.

We should make what we do consistent with the image we want to project. Then people will jump to defend us, rather than leap at the chance to attack and destroy us. Let us co-opt the Muslim Brotherhood, not make our situation worse trying to destroy it, like so many have.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #318013

What we are seeing does not fit neatly into our view of the world. We are seeing the first of the Resource Revolutions.

These revolutions have little to do with the politics of the local ruling governments. They have everything to do with rising commodity prices, rising food prices, and unemployment. These are ultimately rooted in the problem of overpopulation, as well as an inability to compete and obtain resources. These Resource Revolutions are occuring in the most marginal countries, countries that have limited resources and large urban populations.

Forget the talk about dictatorship and democracy and security interests. These are being grafted onto the underlying issues as a way fitting events into our political narrative. The truth is too uncomfortable to face.

Posted by: phx8 at January 31, 2011 9:12 PM
Comment #318015

There is nothing we can do about Egypt. Egypt will fall into the hands of extremist, next will be Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. Then the extremist will go after the royal family in Saudi Arabia and when Israel is surrounded by Muslims, they will attack. I would think it will take place by the year 2012. For those of you interested in reading about this prediction, you might want to read Ezekiel chapters 38 and 39, found in the Old Testament.

“Eze 38:3 And say, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I am against thee, O Gog, the chief prince of Meshech and Tubal:
Eze 38:4 And I will turn thee back, and put hooks into thy jaws, and I will bring thee forth, and all thine army, horses and horsemen, all of them clothed with all sorts of armour, even a great company with bucklers and shields, all of them handling swords:
Eze 38:5 Persia, Ethiopia, and Libya with them; all of them with shield and helmet:
Eze 38:6 Gomer, and all his bands; the house of Togarmah of the north quarters, and all his bands: and many people with thee.
Eze 38:7 Be thou prepared, and prepare for thyself, thou, and all thy company that are assembled unto thee, and be thou a guard unto them.
Eze 38:8 After many days thou shalt be visited: in the latter years thou shalt come into the land that is brought back from the sword, and is gathered out of many people, against the mountains of Israel, which have been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations, and they shall dwell safely all of them.
Eze 38:9 Thou shalt ascend and come like a storm, thou shalt be like a cloud to cover the land, thou, and all thy bands, and many people with thee….

Eze 38:16 And thou shalt come up against my people of Israel, as a cloud to cover the land; it shall be in the latter days, and I will bring thee against my land, that the heathen may know me, when I shall be sanctified in thee, O Gog, before their eyes.
Eze 38:17 Thus saith the Lord GOD; Art thou he of whom I have spoken in old time by my servants the prophets of Israel, which prophesied in those days many years that I would bring thee against them?
Eze 38:18 And it shall come to pass at the same time when Gog shall come against the land of Israel, saith the Lord GOD, that my fury shall come up in my face.
Eze 38:19 For in my jealousy and in the fire of my wrath have I spoken, Surely in that day there shall be a great shaking in the land of Israel;
Eze 38:20 So that the fishes of the sea, and the fowls of the heaven, and the beasts of the field, and all creeping things that creep upon the earth, and all the men that are upon the face of the earth, shall shake at my presence, and the mountains shall be thrown down, and the steep places shall fall, and every wall shall fall to the ground.
Eze 38:21 And I will call for a sword against him throughout all my mountains, saith the Lord GOD: every man’s sword shall be against his brother.
Eze 38:22 And I will plead against him with pestilence and with blood; and I will rain upon him, and upon his bands, and upon the many people that are with him, an overflowing rain, and great hailstones, fire, and brimstone.
Eze 38:23 Thus will I magnify myself, and sanctify myself; and I will be known in the eyes of many nations, and they shall know that I am the LORD.”

The great thing is that no amount of denial will change anything.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at January 31, 2011 10:17 PM
Comment #318017

Before some lame brained idiot has an intelligent comment about “surrounded by Muslims”, let me futher add “extremist Muslims” who want to destroy Israel.

Posted by: CT at January 31, 2011 10:21 PM
Comment #318019

“We should make what we do consistent with the image we want to project. Then people will jump to defend us, rather than leap at the chance to attack and destroy us. Let us co-opt the Muslim Brotherhood, not make our situation worse trying to destroy it, like so many have.”

Spoken like a true progressive! Why don’t we just put them on welfare rolls and send them a check every month, maybe they will “LOVE” us then.

Posted by: Z at January 31, 2011 10:36 PM
Comment #318020

z-
I’m not expecting miracles. But you know what? So far, a policy of trying to destroy them has not worked wonders for the Egyptian government, or for us. The more we play the obvious hand of destroying them, or putting somebody in charge who sits on them, the more powerful we make them.

Instead, what we need to do is make the organization self-inhibiting. Give them some stake in keeping things nice and calm, or turn their radicalism and anger against themselves in the public eye. Work the outcome to where most people think that having a nice, calm, US-friendly government is their idea.

We don’t have enough armed forces or luck with totalitarian governments to make your vision of forcing them to do what we want viable. We don’t have Egypt to lose it, any more than we ever really had China or Vietnam in the palm of our hand to decide its fate. The people of these countries will determine their own fate. My suggestion is that we factor that into our calculations of how we influence them to help us.

Conservative Thinker-
They’ve been predicting the end for quite some time now. When God wants the end, he’ll bring it about. In the meantime, every person who’s presumed to predict what Jesus himself said he would not know the hour or the day of, has unsurprisingly gotten it wrong.

I will not have the arrogance to believe that mine is the generation that God has said will see this brought to pass. I will behave as if there is still a world that me and my Children will have to live with after the dust settles, and I will work to make sure that’s the best world we people can make it.

I remember a time when Gog and Magog were supposed to come from Russia. Next, people fingered the UN as the likely culprit. God knows what they’re pointing their fingers too now. Folks in Catholic Lands thought that the Anglicans and the Protestants were in league with Lucifer, and that Martin Luther was the anti-Christ. Those who followed Luther and the King of England bashed the Pope and his Catholic subjects the same way.

People are always taking the worldly and projecting their spiritual anxieties on top of them, conflating their loyalties to Earthly figures and rulers with their loyalty to God.

2012 will come and pass, and people will make the same alterations to their predictions as they have since the time of Jesus Christ.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 31, 2011 11:11 PM
Comment #318021

SD
Read the prophecy correctly. You will find that we are so close to the rapture of the church that it would be wise to have your soul prepared for it. CT was not predicting the time or date. He just said he felt it was so near that we are less than 700 days away from it. That is only an opinion which I also share. The main concern is whether it is 700 days or 2000 days or whatever, one should be prepared to meet the creator of all mankind. The developments in the middle east are coming around so fast. The nations there will be changing like dominoes in the days and weeks to come.

Maranatha

Luke 21:25-28

Posted by: tom humes at January 31, 2011 11:46 PM
Comment #318022

phx8 said: “They have everything to do with rising commodity prices, rising food prices, and unemployment.”

Your point is well taken. The deteriorating economic conditions combined with repressive governments seem to be fueling these “revolutions.” These are not “revolutions” fueled by Islamic fundamentalism. The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt was caught off guard, like everyone else, by the street demonstrations and initially declined to participate.

If the US wants to get ahead of the curve on these movements, it needs to begin working with responsible parties in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, etc. to not only establish political reform but more importantly to stimulate economic reforms that reduce the inequality within those countries.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 8:54 AM
Comment #318023

Stephen said,

“They’ve been predicting the end for quite some time now… 2012 will come and pass, and people will make the same alterations to their predictions as they have since the time of Jesus Christ.”

King Solomon said; there is nothing new under the sun. And Stephen, your statement is not an original thought; many have said the same thing. In fact God tells us this very thing in:

2Pe 3:4 “And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.”

In fact, we should look at the whole text:

“2Pe 3:1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance:
2Pe 3:2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:
2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.
2Pe 3:8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day.
2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.
2Pe 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.
2Pe 3:11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness,”

Stephen, from the statement you made; you could completely qualify as a fulfillment of these verses. Does that seem scary for you?

Tom Humes is correct that I did not give an hour or day, but Stephen, your lack of Biblical knowledge has caused you to misunderstand God’s Word. Does God allow us to have some knowledge of His soon return?

“Mat 24:32 Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:
Mat 24:33 So likewise ye, when ye shall see all these things, know that it is near, even at the doors.
Mat 24:34 Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled.
Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.
Mat 24:36 But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.
Mat 24:37 But as the days of Noe were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
Mat 24:38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,
Mat 24:39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.”

And again we read in:

“Mat 16:1 The Pharisees also with the Sadducees came, and tempting desired him that he would shew them a sign from heaven.
Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red.
Mat 16:3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?
Mat 16:4 A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.”

Although we do not have the ability to determine the day or hour of His return, God has given us the ability to determine the seasons and not to be ignorant of His coming. Stephen, you consider yourself to be intelligent and a discerner of even Scripture, but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 1, 2011 9:52 AM
Comment #318024

tom humes-
He said “I would think it would take place by 2012.”

That sounds like a prediction to me.

Being a Baylor Graduate, I was taught about the biblical basis for their beliefs. I was also taught it was pretty thin. The 2 Thessalonians verse about being caught up into the air to meet him is more properly interpreted in the light of the ancient custom of residents coming out of a town to meet a visiting king, and then bringing that King back into the town with them.

There was no doctrine anywhere of a rapture in which the faithful would be taken first before 1830. For most of Christian history, the notion of people being “Left Behind” to suffer the tribulations of the last days did not exist. John Nelson Darby was the author of that, and the father of dispensationalism, the idea that history is arranged into different dispensations, different ages.

The eschatology that you’re promoting is one based primarily on Cyrus Scofield’s extensive annotations of the bible, and it’s been repeatedly re-worked to square with the perceived threats of the time. That’s what prompts me to be skeptical about claims of literal interpretation, claims about the primacy of interpretation.

For my part, I believe that it may be tomorrow, or it may be a hundred thousand years from now. God keeps his own counsel on this matter. What I believe is that people should square themselves with God as if it could be tomorrow, but plan and attend to responsibilities as if he won’t. We are called upon to be responsible, and we should not presume that if we are prodigal with what he has given us, that it will reflect well on us in the judgment.

I also believe that the faithful will not be taken away, but will suffer whatever trials and tribulations that may occur, and that this will be a test of the extent to which we hold true to him.

Conservative Thinker-
I take God’s word seriously. I’m not a scoffer. But I take man’s ability to interpret God and his bible far less seriously, and believe that men are apt to pile on derivation upon derivation of meaning onto holy books, texts, and beliefs until the meaning is bent all out of proportion. I don’t buy any sensibility that says “If I interpret it this way, there is no way I can go wrong.”

Especially not given what I’ve seen of what erroneous conclusions people come to.

People once thought that the Crusades were the final battle. Others thought the Hundred Years war was that. In our time, WWI and WWII, the Cold War, and now the War on Terrorism have come to be associated with that. Many leaders have been called Anti-Christs, many have arisen as false saviors.

People are very good at reading the signs of the times in their times. Their track record in being right is not so good. So, I withhold judgment, but do not withhold my heart from God. I am ready for him when he decides to come.

But when HE is ready, not when I am.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2011 10:16 AM
Comment #318025

Royal Flush,

“Read more: The Egypt Crisis in a Global Context: A Special Report | STRATFOR”

I read and it makes me wonder what it might mean to you…


I find it rather curious that we have an interesting dichotomy here;
On one hand we have the folks on the right, who have always insisted that “the will of the people” is paramount, now screaming that the sky is falling, and the world is coming to an end, something, BTW, that has happened way too many times in the past to be taken seriously.
On the other hand we have folks on the left, saying that “the will of the people” is paramount…

All of this leads back to the idea that people should have a say in who their leaders are, regardless of what we here in America think.

Apparently, all this bulls**t and bluster from the right about “the will of the people” is just hot air, and when they don’t agree about exactly what “the will of the people” should be they seem all too willing to withhold their support.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 1, 2011 10:34 AM
Comment #318026

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Look, do you want Obama to repeat Bush’s mistake in backing those trying to seize or keep power by illegitimate means? The Egyptian people are going to have their way here, one way or another. We can either stand by them, or, out of paranoia, stick our foot in another hornet’s nest by backing Mubarak.

We should push for a fully Democratic government, even if it means risking the Muslim Brotherhood. If we don’t

How juvenile Mr. Daugherty. What we consider a democratic government has no similarity to what other nations consider it to mean. Dictators hold elections do they not? Are they democratic?

Just a few short years ago there was an uprising in Iran by the people that, if given some support by the US and other free countries, could have blossomed. Did you support the people in that case, did obama and hillary clinton? Where were the calls from our government to support the “people”, to publicly call for the downfall of a repressive regime?

I don’t begin to know how much meddling we have done in Egyptian affairs, nor do any of us? Now, after 30 years of Mubarak being considered an ally in that part of the world Mr. Daugherty calls for “pushing for a fully Democratic government”. How cute, how naive.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “We should make what we do consistent with the image we want to project. Then people will jump to defend us, rather than leap at the chance to attack and destroy us.”

Apparently Mr. Daugherty believes that our constitution was written to govern the entire world. That this document was designed to ignore reality in dealing with other nations. That the constitution is some kind of suicide pact that disallows dealing harshly with world conditions that are a direct threat to our existence.

Mr. Daugherty writes this about our $14 trillion in debt, “… talk to me about responsibility once we’re done with the consequences of your party’s irresponsibility.”

What an asinine comment. One could interpret this to mean that once Republicans have been thrashed and punished enough we, the Democrats and Liberals, will take a look at the debt problem. Until then, it’s all their fault and they must be made to pay.

Mr. Daugherty may prefer to wallow in pay-back and recrimination and that will certainly solve…NOTHING.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 11:09 AM
Comment #318027

SD
There are many references to the rapture of his church. The verses are very straight forward and easy to understand. I don’t know what you have read or studied, but if you are saying that the rapture is a modern day thought process, you need to go back to the Bible and re-study it. The college degreee does not cause me to think you more knowledgeable than others. It is a piece of sheepskin or if Baylor is chinzy, just plain paper. My mother is 92 and she will run circles around many people on understanding the Bible. That is because she studies it daily and has for all her adult life. She does not have a degree in “higher” education.

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2011 11:59 AM
Comment #318028

Royal Flush-
I would push for free and Democratic elections. I’m well aware of the faux variety that often occur in those places as a fig leaf for the dictatorships, and I think they’re not only a fraud, but they undermine the blessings that those elections provide when they’re truly free and fair: the outlets for concerns and needs that we see in society. A dictatorship can use its power to push its luck until people are at a fever pitch in outrage.

As far as Iran goes, I thought a hands off approach was the best, and the least naive approach, to boot. Let’s not pretend we’re well liked by those people. Let’s not pretend like there wouldn’t have been a backlash from our involvement. When the Iranian people finally overthrow the Mullahs, they should do that of their own initiative, or at least believe that it’s their idea. That way, we’re not creating an anti-friendly regime movement that’s got popular support.

Going back to Egypt, we have to defy the stereotypes, and confound expectations. The fingerprints on this mass movement should not be ours. That’s why it’s important that Obama supports the will of the Egyptian people. He can’t be seen to be interefering, because it will not be ignored, and the Muslim Brotherhood extremists will not overlook it. They’ll just use it as grist for their mill. If we guide the process, it must be subtle, or otherwise we may get a worse result as the price of our interference, as we got in Iran.

As for what I believe the constitution is written for? It was written for our country, but its principles are useful the world over. I’m not sure I understand the thrust of your attack. If I had to guess, you seem to believe that the way to deal with political groups you feel are dangerous is to create tyrannies that work to surpress them.

However, if you look at history, you will see that the heavy-handed governments we support often backfire on us, their authoritarian methods reflecting harshly on us, creating anti-American movements that inflict damage on our interests. The core of al-Qaeda comes from a group that developed under Mubarak’s rule.

So, really, your proposition is the one that’s naive. When you create governments that surpress dissent, that inflict human suffering at a mortal level on their opponents, they create movements that are willing to die to oppose them. Democracies, however, when they are free and legitimate, when they operate with a stable country as their foundation, allow the bleeding off of such stresses, and the domesticization of such movements. When you can dissent without getting yourself killed, you won’t feel that you have to go as far as killing or dying in order to express those beliefs.

If Egypt becomes a free and fair Democracy, so much the better for us. You fear that the Muslim Brotherhood will take over, and though that’s a possibility, I feel they’ll have to strong-arm a lot of people and piss them off to do that. That, or they’ll have to domesticate themselves in order to avoid doing that.

But if you get your way, what will we do? Attack to install Mubarak or somebody else in his place? Bring another dictator to power to brutalize people and radicalize opponents? It’s the approach of so many of the strong men and monarchs of the Middle East that has helped created our headaches with the Muslim world. Why you want to repeat that mistake is beyond me.

As far as the debt goes? Until your party quits engaging in the behaviors and policies that have so far landed us in greater and greater debt, you have no business lecturing us over what’s right, because you’re still wrong. just because somebody else is stuck continuing your policies doesn’t mean your policies aren’t still the problem. It’s not merely about punishment, it’s about repentance, leaving behind the practices that did not work. The Republicans are unwilling to do that.

Why should the Republicans be absolved for their policies when they won’t even stop doing things wrong? This isn’t about payback, this is about correction of mistakes, which the Republicans won’t do.

Tom Humes-
I did not mention my college degree, merely that I learned about the bible at that college.

You have your way of understanding the bible. You deny that a culture is at work as well, a sensibility that goes beyond what’s actually in the bible, but that doesn’t change the fact that your attitudes are not as purely biblical as you believe.

You insult me for thinking myself smarter than you. Me? I wouldn’t presume to guess at it. I simply aimed to bring my knowledge into the debate. I am not ignorant of the bible, as you suppose.

You want to suppose you know it better, that’s your call. But I will tell you what I understand, and what I believe reflects the grace of God, and I won’t try to justify it as anything else. The complexity of the bible and the religion it represents provides as many places to argue from as the head of a pin provides places for angels to dance upon, and people claiming their interpretations is literal hasn’t seemed to cut down on the multiplicity of different views.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2011 1:10 PM
Comment #318029

Stephen, you make the same statements every time the conversation goes in this direction. Let me say, you are in way over your head and you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You jump from one topic to another to try to show us your vast knowledge of religion, but you have no idea what the Bible says. You say you are not a scoffer of the Bible, but by your own words, in previous posts, you have said you do not believe the Bible is God’s Word. You believe it was written by men and not under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. You are guilty of being a “scoffer”, no matter how you try to justify your comments. Why should I get in a debate with you about the “Rapture”, the second coming, or any other subject? We would first have to establish guidelines (the Bible) and you don’t believe it. God may have told us, “no man knows the day or hour”, but he has certainly given those who belong to Him the ability to see the signs of the times. Even an infidel can, from a secular point of view, understand direction the world is going and what is happening in the Middle-East.

You have some amazing theories, but one day you will stand before a righteous Judge and he will say to you the words that will haunt you for an eternity, “Depart from me, ye that worketh iniquity, I never knew you”. In that day, you will try to blame Baylor, but God will not accept the excuse.

By the way Professor Daugherty, the Apostle Paul spoke of the rapture (harpazō: to seize (in various applications): - catch (away, up), pluck, pull, take (by force), long before Scofield.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 1, 2011 1:13 PM
Comment #318030

Stephen, I would like to add one last thought. You like to quote religionist about their interpretation of Scripture. There is as much difference between secular religion and Evangicals as there is between day and night. When you quote religionist, those of us who are evangelical Christians could care less what they have to say. In our opinion, they are unbelievers in Christ and have no idea what they are talking about.

Progressives have the same view of the Bible as they do he Constitution; in their opinion, these are evolving documents, with no absolutes. Conservatives on the other hand believe both are absolutes; the Bible being inspired by God, and the Constitution being inspired by Godly men. When one believes this, one has a solid foundation. Progressives have no solid foundation upon which they can build, i.e. obamacare a pipedream of the left and not able to stand the test of the Constitution.

Posted by: CT at February 1, 2011 1:28 PM
Comment #318031

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Why should the Republicans be absolved for their policies when they won’t even stop doing things wrong? This isn’t about payback, this is about correction of mistakes, which the Republicans won’t do.”

Republicans, with a push from conservatives, are attempting to address our national debt and deficit spending. obama suggested a mere $40 billion per year in cuts. As I have said previously in another thread, that is about as effective as a band aid on a sucking chest wound. The patient will surely die.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 1:51 PM
Comment #318032

Stephen,
Sorry to hear you’re not going to heaven. Don’t let these guys get you down. There’s ways around everything though. I plan on making everything right with god the last day or two of my life. CT doesn’t make all the rules.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 1, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #318033

Problem with your logic Schwamp is you don’t know when your last day is!!!!!!!!!!!! Your right CT dosen’t make the rules God does!

Posted by: KAP at February 1, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #318034

Royal Flush,

Do you have any constructive comments about Egypt? You vaguely criticize the approach taken by the Obama administration as naive, etc. Yet, you refuse to state what exactly is wrong with its approach. What are the alternatives? The Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate are on record as agreeing with the administration’s approach. So, where have they all gone wrong?

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #318035

Conservative Thinker-
I can believe in God’s perfection without believing in the Bible’s. I can believe in Jesus as a perfect savior, without believing that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John were following him around writing everything down.

I don’t predicate my faith in God on absolute trust in every jot and tittle of the bible. As a human being, I believe its not my privilege to see God perfectly, nor is it anybody else’s.

I believe God inspired the writting of the books of the bible, and their collection. But inspired by, and made perfect by, are two different things in my book. Language is imperfect. Translations are imperfect. Reading is imperfect. When I open the bible, God isn’t perfectly represented in there. But what hand of man, what printing press could perfectly represent the ineffable will and being of God?

I choose to believe in God, despite the fact I do not have perfect or present knowledge of him. I do not have to see Christ in person, or stick my hand in his wounds to believe in him, and the ressurrection.

I believe that God’s message, while not perfectly conveyed in the bible, is well conveyed, and that is good enough for the likes of me, a human being. God’s grace, his guidance in response to our prayers, is enough to make up for all that. I believe his grace, his spirit pervades the world. His word, his perfect word isn’t bound up in just a book. It resonates through all creation.

I will not presume to judge you or myself before he has the chance. I will not be so childish as to blame Baylor for the thoughts, the free and self-initiated thoughts of their student. I am responsible for what I say here, and always have been.

As far as the Rapture goes? Second Thessalonians does speak of people being caught up to meet the Lord in the sky. I am not disputing that. But caught up to what purpose? Thessalonians never explicitly says that they disappear from the planet, nor that others will be left behind to suffer in the apocalypse. That’s the result of a complex, multi-book, cross-referenced, annotated plan, that Scofeild and later Hal Lindsey made popular. But it’s one that’s already had to be change to account for the fall of the Soviets and the failure of God to show up for many of the dates appointed by man according to his thought up schedules.

Why not accept you’re not going to get it right, and prepare for the eventuality of Judgment, rather than some schedule interpreted out of non-obvious connections by men? If you’re right with God, and keep yourself so, it doesn’t matter whether it’s tomorrow, or a million years from now, long after you’ve been laid to rest in the bosom of the Earth.

As for the Middle East? I remember somebody imagining Saddam Hussein as the possible fulfillment of one of Nostradamus’ prophecies. Now Saddam is dead and the world is still yet to end. So many have predicted that one person or another would be the Anti-Christ, only to be disappointed. Even in the time of Jesus and his apostles, folks were looking for the end to come, and yet the temple in Jerusalem fell and was not rebuilt, and nothing happened.

Today, some Christians today try to fulfill the prophecy by seeing the temple rebuilt on the temple mount, presumably in the place of the Dome of the Rock. Me? I think they may be completely mistaken, that even if they succeed, that temple, too may pass away, be destroyed, before the end comes. So much is left unsaid in the prophecies, and so much is said in a way that doesn’t necessarily make it clear to us mortals what’s going on. I say, when God decides it is time, it will happen as he wills it, and in his way, not ours.

As for the interpretation of scripture? I take it from a writer’s perspective. Language may not have absolutes, but it does have purpose. I recently read the book of Job and marvelled at the structure of the debates between Job and his friends. The question is, what does that writer want me to think about the different people, what is the meaning of their actions and their words? These are not laid out in absolute terms, but in human terms. Relating to people in the bible in human terms, in terms of their times, is more important than trying to decode specific morals, because its in the complexity of the interchanges, the dialogues and monologues that we find many of the real points.

People are free to interpret as they please, but I interpret to find the message in depth, what’s behind the words. You may believe that I am an unbeliever, but then it’s not your approval that matters, in the end.

As for the constitution being inspired by Godly men? Good heavens. It was written by worldly men, who not only fail to mention God throughout the document, but deal with religion mainly to take Government’s hands off of it. They were not looking to push their faith on everybody.

I look at the Constitution, again, not in terms of absolutes, but in the context of the real world world meanings and intentions, in its proper place, and in terms of the modern world in which the laws and the constitution must be interpreted, and carried out.

The real world is not a place of absolutes, and laws are not made apart from worldly matters.

You claim that the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional- fine, you are free to make that claim. But from what I hear, all the precedents, including some by the Roberts court, figure against the conservative judges’ decisions. The irony is, in the Right’s effort to undo “Obamacare”, they are engaging in the same sophistry and judicial activism that they accuse the Democrats of engaging in.

When all you have is your own personal intuition about what things mean, and no checks and balances to act as breaks on your imagination, there’s no limit to how far you’ll try to stretch things.

Royal Flush-
They just pushed a tax cut for the rich that will add two hundred billion dollars a year to the deficit for the next two years. By a basic definition of responsbility, addressing the national debt, and addressing the deficit, they’ve failed badly before they’ve even started. They are more interested in cutting back on government and on the influence of liberals than actually taking care of the Deficit or the debt. It’s a red herring, and it’s effective politically because Republicans don’t question their leaders numbers enough.

I mean, given all the Republicans have put off limits, in terms of what can be cut, where do they think they’re going to get the money to resolve the deficit? And with a continued economic downturn, how are the cuts doing to do anything but harm?

You can complain about bandaids on sucking wounds when you’re not taking out the shotgun and blasting holes in the patient.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2011 5:11 PM
Comment #318036

“Mr. Mubarak’s announcement came after President Obama urged him not to run, effectively withdrawing American support for its closest Arab ally, according to American diplomats in Cairo and Washington.

The message was delivered by Frank G. Wisner, a seasoned envoy with deep ties to Egypt, the American diplomats said. Mr. Wisner’s message, they said, was not a blunt demand for Mr. Mubarak to step aside now, but rather firm counsel that he should make way for a reform process that would culminate in free and fair elections in September to elect a new Egyptian leader.

This back channel message, authorized directly by Mr. Obama, appeared to tip the administration beyond the delicate balancing act it has performed in the last week — resisting calls for Mr. Mubarak to step down, even as it has called for an “orderly transition” to a more politically open Egypt.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/world/middleeast/02transition.html?_r=1&nl=us&emc=politicsemailema1

Rich, it seems to me that Egypt is just one more ally we have abandoned when the going gets tough. Frankly, I believe it would have been appropriate for Hillary to visit Egypt rather than send Mr. Wisner for such an important mission.

The nations of the world that depend upon Egypt to keep some balance in the Middle East should have also sent high level folks to join Hillary in helping to defuse what could easily become a free-for-all of mob rule. The free world can not afford the chaos that may result from a continuation of this revolt.

Only one who is completely naive and uninformed could believe that the unrest in Egypt was spontaneous. It is and was orchestrated by some of the world’s worst tyrants. Don’t be fooled for even a second that the powers working against the interest of peace in the Middle East are not involved in this up to their necks.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 5:16 PM
Comment #318037

Royal Flush-
You don’t realize it, do you? Mubarak is not the ally we need to keep faith with. Mubarak is not Egypt. The people of Egypt are Egypt, and if it’s their desire to have another leader, then the smart play is to support that wish, not get in its way.

If we show forbearance and restraint, if we let them speak for themselves, elect their own government, then they will remember our support of them. If we interfere, they will remember how we did our best to get in their way. How the hell does convincing most people in Egypt that we’re against them getting their way as a people convince them that they should be our friend and ally?

And if Mubarak’s government falls despite our support, where does that leave us? Do we create another Hugo Chavez, as Bush’s idiocy with Venezuela did, another Iran, as decades of support for the Shah’s repressive government did?

The sooner we acknowledge their right to determine their own destiny, the sooner we’ll see less of those countries pitting that destiny against ours.

Quit getting your foreign policy advice from that moron Glenn Beck. Let the people of Egypt be free to determine their own fate. Let them make the choice to turn against us, rather than having us turn against them, and their wish to be free.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 1, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #318038

Daniel Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum, notes, “Islamists wish to repeat their success in Iran by exploiting popular unrest to take power.” That strategy worked in Russia a century ago when the communists exploited grievances against the czar to grab power. It worked in Germany when the Nazis used German humiliation following World War I to ride to power. Now it is Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Jordan and Lebanon with more to come.”

If Egypt falls — immediately, or ultimately — to the Muslim Brotherhood, it will embolden other fanatical revolutions throughout the region and world. Then they’ll come after the big prizes: Europe, which is almost gone, and America, which still has time to save itself, if it will climb out of denial and pollyannish thinking about those whose sole intent is upon our destruction and world domination.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #318039

Mr. Daugherty ignorantly writes; “Quit getting your foreign policy advice from that moron Glenn Beck. Let the people of Egypt be free to determine their own fate. Let them make the choice to turn against us, rather than having us turn against them, and their wish to be free.

Glenn who? Please, stop with the stupid mind-reading act you silly snit.

The latest report in the NY times estimates a crowd of demonstrators of about 200,000 out of a country of 80 million. Do you really believe this is representative? Some are so easily led around by the nose it is pathetic. If brains were gunpowder, many would not have enough to blow their nose.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 5:42 PM
Comment #318041
Outside the far Left, commentators from all major newspapers, radio and television stations have variously characterized the US response to events in Egypt as irrational, irresponsible, catastrophic, stupid, blind, treacherous, and terrifying.

http://townhall.com/columnists/CarolineGlick/2011/02/01/clueless_in_washington/page/2

Editor- This quote represents about two thirds of the full article. Fair use provisions in Copyright law allow for some quotation, but such reproduction in such proportion requires permission from the authors themselves. If you want a better quote, be more selective in the future. Enthusiasm for the source does not create a license for ignoring Intellectual Property laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 6:16 PM
Comment #318042

Royal Flush,

Overt US support of Mubarek at this point would be a slap in the face to the Egyptian people and damage any future US interests in Egypt.

The truth of the matter is very simple. Mubarek lost control of the country. When the army decided to stand neutral, the game was over. No amount of US support for Mubarek would have changed that reality. No wishing for a different outcome will change that reality.

What the US needs to do now is to use whatever influence it has to broker a moderate transition government pending elections in the fall. Continued chaos will play into the hands of radical elements. Mubarek is lost. We need to concentrate on shaping the new power structure not lamenting the inevitable.


Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #318043

Rich wrote; “Mubarek is lost. We need to concentrate on shaping the new power structure not lamenting the inevitable.”

I agree. And, I know that our state department and intelligence (laugh) agencies and president don’t have a clue how to influence anything to our nations advantage. Some of these dupes have even expressed surprise that this is happening. I have absolutely no faith or confidence in this government to do what is needed…much less to even know what is needed right now. Rich…do you?

For every rosy scenario you may wish to present Rich, I will provide five disastrous possibilities.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 7:09 PM
Comment #318044

I noticed something quite odd in watching CNN coverage of the unrest in Egypt. I wonder how these ordinary folks know English well enough to print their slogans in English? And, why is that important? Does anyone, besides me, believe that this crowd is being directed and orchestrated by powerful forces with no connection or solidarity with the protesters? If this is an internal struggle, why is what is seen by the outside so critical. If this is a done deal, why do they feel the need to influence Western nations?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #318045

Royal Flush,

The Townhall article you posted is one more reminder of the duplicity and inconsistency of conservative thinking. Self determination and democracy is a wonderful value but not for everyone. It turns out that it is not a universal value at all. It is a uniquely western value. All the talk about the benefits of democratic institutions in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East by the Bush administration was just a big mistake.

Anti-colonialism, according to the author, is another naive concept. So much for the Founding Fathers disdain for the European colonial powers and foreign entanglements. Forget about the long history of US reluctance to engage in colonial exploitation. When Eisenhower rebuked the French and English during the Suez Canal crisis, I guess he was just exhibiting his naivete. Despite the long history of anti-colonialism in the US, when a President (Obama) mentions the negative consequences of colonialism, he is chastised. But, why? Was there not a reason why historically US policy has been anti-colonial?

So what do conservatives believe? It doesn’t seem that they are anchored in any concepts of universal values.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 7:42 PM
Comment #318046

Rich…read the post again…you didn’t get it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 1, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #318047

Royal Flush,

“For every rosy scenario you may wish to present Rich, I will provide five disastrous possibilities.”

I don’t doubt it. That’s the reality of this situation. But, to sit around criticizing Obama for not supporting Mubarek is counterproductive. Worrying about the Muslim Brotherhood won’t help the situation. Expressing no confidence in the President won’t help the situation.

If you have some good ideas, why not publish them? If you don’t like what Obama is doing, it seems reasonable that you state an alternative. But, I am not holding my breathe. Just like the health care debate, the only thing I expect is just a resounding no to whatever Obama proposes or implements.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 7:53 PM
Comment #318048

“Rich…read the post again…you didn’t get it.”

No, I got it. I wonder if you understood the author’s rejection of traditional American values as universal and the rejection of historical international practice.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 8:00 PM
Comment #318049

Democracy is one of the worst forms of government.

Those that have power in the middle east don’t want any form of government that benefits the people. The powers that are leading the unrest are the same powers that have been doing the same thing for decades. The people of normal status in the middle east never have and never will have a say so in what government is formed. That is the way they live. Understanding their way of life helps to know how things work over there. I have a number of friends in the middle east. They live a very edgy life. They cannot talk to people the way we talk to people. They have to choose their topics and words with extreme caution. We do not have to do things that way. That makes it hard to understand how thing work in that part of the world. The new government of Egypt will be a much more difficult government to deal with. And when the other half dozen countries that have present unrest occuring in their lands fall, those nations too, will be harder to deal with. They will not be friendly to the US. One of the last dominoes to fall will be Saudia Arabia. When that happens then the whole region will be at Israel’s throat. Then you all better look up for your redemption draws much closer.

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2011 8:10 PM
Comment #318050

As per Mr. Daugherty’s rants on religion; it is obvious that he does not believe anything. Case closed…

Royal Flush is correct, remember, “never waste a crisis”, the radicals are using the unrest for the purpose of overthrowing the government. I heard a missionary speak just 2 days ago. He has taught in Egypt and has many connections in the country. He said as much and he also said the information we get in the MSM is not entirely true.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 1, 2011 8:19 PM
Comment #318051

“The powers that are leading the unrest are the same powers that have been doing the same thing for decades.”

Please enlighten us. Who were the powers in Tunisia? Who are the powers in Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood was as much caught off guard as everyone else and belatedly joined the demonstrations.

“The people of normal status in the middle east never have and never will have a say so in what government is formed. That is the way they live.”

Did it ever strike you that that is why they are so fervently demonstrating? It is incredible to me that conservatives so found of the American revolution are so disdainful of efforts by people in the Middle East for self determination.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 8:27 PM
Comment #318052

Rich, why is it so amazing for us to continuously just shake our heads at the mentality and the attitude displayed on here by those from the other side of the aisle????
They don’t like to be called dumb…or stupid…or ignorant, but WTF else do they project? It is just one constant onslaught after the other of negativity and doomsday scenarios. There has been not one miniscule attempt to offer a positive thought. It must be miserable to wake up each and every morning with the same drab, dark world they face.
RF, z, CT….you’re far more the naysayer than anyone else on here.
If you’re not going to be a part of the fix, then get out of the way!!

Posted by: jane doe at February 1, 2011 8:47 PM
Comment #318053

jane doe

What have you done to be “part of the fix”?

That’s what I thought.

Then get outta the way

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2011 9:09 PM
Comment #318054

Jane Doe,

They don’t want to be part of the fix simply because they don’t want to contribute in any way to a successful presidency of Obama. It is as simple as that.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #318055

Rich

Demonstrators in those countries are just cannon fodder. They are stirred up by the powers who have a variety of names, but are all the same group of people.

The Muslim Brotherhood was not caught off guard. They intentionally waited for people to go to the streets as the cannon fodder they needed. They then stepped into the action. That was their plan all along.

When those radical voices control those governments, they will feel their oats and think they can destroy Israel. They will be making the worst decision of their lives.

I don’t make those decisions. I just try to understand what is going on. If it is doom and gloom, it is not I who causes that doom and gloom. It is the people who continually do the un-human things that cause the hate and bitterness against the Israel nation. They live to kill Jews.

Posted by: tom humes at February 1, 2011 9:23 PM
Comment #318056

No whose hair is on fire.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at February 1, 2011 9:44 PM
Comment #318057

With all due respect, WatchBlog has become the Hosni Murbarak of Web sites. How can a site only have one writer? There is now one point of view, where, because of the lack of ‘other’ writers, commenters have to resort to 400-plus comments on a single post before another article is written, pressumably by a left-wing idealogue.

No wonder why David R., C&J and Paul S. left. I mean, C’mon! It’s bad enough a certain writer thinks he’s always right on all issues; now, he has a captive audience, much like Mr. Mubarak had for 30-odd years.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at February 2, 2011 2:30 AM
Comment #318058

Tom,

The protests in Tunisia and now in Egypt aren’t about Israel, yet. They are about the internal political and living conditions within those countries. Radical fundamentalist elements could indeed use the political instability to gain power. That is why it is so important to focus on supporting an orderly and moderate transition in those countries. Framing the issue solely in terms of radical Islam and Israel ignores the fundamental problems that led to these protests and will result in a self fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2011 7:07 AM
Comment #318059

Rich’s comments:

“The powers that are leading the unrest are the same powers that have been doing the same thing for decades.”

Please enlighten us. Who were the powers in Tunisia? Who are the powers in Egypt? The Muslim Brotherhood was as much caught off guard as everyone else and belatedly joined the demonstrations.

“The people of normal status in the middle east never have and never will have a say so in what government is formed. That is the way they live.”

Did it ever strike you that that is why they are so fervently demonstrating? It is incredible to me that conservatives so found of the American revolution are so disdainful of efforts by people in the Middle East for self determination.

Posted by: Rich at February 1, 2011 08:27 PM”

Rich, might I suggest you read this article; it may answer your questions about the involvement of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Tunisia:

Where does Muslim Brotherhood fit in Egypt’s moment?By Carrie Rosefsky Wickham, Special to CNNFebruary 1, 2011 — Updated 2026 GMT (0426 HKT)

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/02/01/wickham.muslim.brotherhood/index.html?section=cnn_latest

Posted by: Z at February 2, 2011 8:44 AM
Comment #318060

Tom Humes is correct; it is always about Israel. It is not possible for westerners to understand the hatred that Islam has for the Jews.

Posted by: Z at February 2, 2011 8:52 AM
Comment #318061
It’s bad enough a certain writer thinks he’s always right on all issues; now, he has a captive audience, much like Mr. Mubarak had for 30-odd years.

Stephen has a captive audience? He is consistently dismissed and belittled - and it’s because his independent analysis and insight on many topics are a threat to the spread of conservatism. By all rights he should have quit in frustration by now but he perseveres. And when he claims a relationship with god all kinds of circuits on the right overload.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 2, 2011 9:02 AM
Comment #318062

Z,

I read the article that you linked. Thank you. At least from the perspective of the author, the Muslim Brotherhood didn’t seem to have much to do with the “revolution” in the streets of Tunisia and Egypt. It certainly didn’t organize or direct it. The author goes on to say that the Brotherhood has earned a place at the table after “30 years of responsible behavior.” If anything, the author downplays any threat from the Brotherhood,, although cautioning that the Brotherhood is sort of wild card in the mix.

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2011 9:09 AM
Comment #318063

Jane Doe wrote; “There has been not one miniscule attempt to offer a positive thought.”

False. I suggested a high level summit consisting of our SecState and equivalent folks from other democratic countries in Cairo. Not to lend support to Mubarak, but to express their concern for the people and the country and suggest ideas and ways to defuse what could become total chaos.

The US and other countries should also position resources near the Suez Canal to ensure uninterrupted oil shipping. If both Egypt and Yemen fall into Islamic fascist hands it would be catastrophic.

It is simple to understand how the domino effect could work in this volital part of the world, and like it or not, it is of strategic interest to much of the world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2011 11:06 AM
Comment #318064

My liberal friends never cease in expressing their concern about MMGW. It would be refreshing to read of their concern about nuclear bomb exchanges, that in a worst case scenario, could be the result of the unrest getting totally out of control in the Middle East.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2011 11:13 AM
Comment #318065

I only know one thing about the Obama response and actions: That is, whatever the response across the spectrum of possible positions and support, it will have been determined to be absolutely wrong and dangerous according to the conservative media and whatever think tank their positions originate from. As always, one party is trying to address issues; one party is trying to turn the public against the other.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 2, 2011 1:02 PM
Comment #318066

Why America Always Gets Revolutions Wrong

This is one of the best articles I have read that outlines just how stupidly we have reacted to past revolutions around the world and what the outcome has been. Looks to me like we’re doing the same thing again with Egypt and other middle Eastern countries. Don’t liberals ever learn anything, even after seeing the same miserable results time after time.

Mr. Daugherty prides himself on being a realist and fact-finder. I wonder how he will spin this.


http://townhall.com/columnists/BenShapiro/2011/02/02/why_america_always_gets_revolutions_wrong/page/full/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2011 2:14 PM
Comment #318067

In 2006, a freshman senator said, “The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the U.S. government can’t pay its own bills.”

Question, who uttered these wise words…

Answer:

A) Fred Flintstone
B) Donald Duck
C) Cinderella
D) Barack Obama

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2011 2:41 PM
Comment #318068

Kevin L. Lagola-
If I were you, I would apply to Cameron to be a writer again, as you once were. Unlike Hosni Mubarak, I won’t put up a fight, prevent any rivals from arising. I won’t be shy about disagreeing with people, but I’d welcome the competition.

I’m a stubborn believer in debate and dialgoue in politics. That’s why I stay. I have my own politics blog now, and I write at Daily Kos. But what I have here is the chance to debate, confront, and share thoughts with those who are not just like me, and I value that.

It’s very ironic you make comparisons to Hosni Mubarak. That man brutally repressed his competition. I’ve just thrown a lot of words you don’t like at you. I don’t think there’s a valid comparison.

Rejoin the blog and make your mark. Don’t curse me for sticking with my seven year commitment to this site. If you want me not to monopolize the marketplace of ideas here, you have only to speak up yourself.

Royal Flush-
I think it’s a deferment of a problem, not a solution, to insist on imposing dictatorships on people. It’s cowardly and despicable to make our interests and our freedom dependent on the oppression of others. America should have a vanguard of free allies, not a shield of dictatorships to protect its interests.

It’s not pollyannaish thinking. It’s the hard-won experience built on the fact that the worst anti-American zealots, especially the Muslim radicals like al-Qaeda or the Mullahs who took over Iran are product of either friendly nations where we’ve backed and financed dictators, or hostile nations that underwent revolutions against the same.

The Naivete is thinking we can encourage people to value our freedom and prosperity by taking it from them.

It’s not just Mubarak that needs to go. It’s a system that perpetuates radicalism by causing such pain, suffering, and humiliation that people think they have to cross the lines to survive and preserve their way of life. And once they’ve decided that, simple adversarial thinking will grow and amplify that hostility, creating the enemies we now fear the worst.

Peace isn’t the absence of war, it’s the absence of the tensions that lead to war.

I really find it offensive to refer to other people as cannon-fodder and dupes, just because they rock the boats we don’t want rocked. It’s just that kind of patronizing attitude towards the former colonies of the great powers that we don’t need. These are people who have had their fill of humiliation and tyranny over the last few centuries. They used to like us a lot when we weren’t acting like their (and in the case of Great Britain, our) former masters.

I do not advocate being blind to the problems of what governments those people create, or unwilling to respond to them in our interests. What I advocate is that we get realistic about the fact that people will want what we have here: the ability to hold their government accountable, to speak their minds, to work, without discrimination against them, towards their own prosperity.

When you define an enemy out there, out in the world, who would you define as an enemy? Somebody who takes your freedom? Somebody who impoverishes you? Somebody who enables or advocates your subjugation? Somebody who speaks of you as a mortal enemy, or as a moral degenerate?

If you define those people as your enemies, why are you surprised when people define you as their enemy by the same criteria?

The Golden Rule is that you do unto others as you would have done unto you. An extension of that would be to say that if you want friends, you do for your friends what you would have your friends do for you.

Conservative thinker-
I believe in something. I wouldn’t waste time writing about things I do not believe in, just to impress people. I want people to know the joy of a communion with God. I’m not the world’s best example of such a communion, not the most pious, nor the most observant. But nonetheless, there’s something that speaking about God and his wonders that awakens peace in me I don’t know otherwise. So I testify to his wonders, even if I don’t meet your standards for what a believer is supposed to be.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #318069

Jews only live to kill Muslims. Is that true?

Christians only live to kill Muslims. Is that true?

Conservative Muslims think both statements are true.


Posted by: jlw at February 2, 2011 3:35 PM
Comment #318070

Mr. Daugherty writes; “The Golden Rule is that you do unto others as you would have done unto you. An extension of that would be to say that if you want friends, you do for your friends what you would have your friends do for you.”

Isn’t that just wonderful. Let’s just have a kumbaya moment shall we. Does the Golden Rule really address how nation’s should act, or does it define an expression of individual love and respect towards one another?

You can’t possibly be suggesting that we should have, or have, applied this rule regarding communist Russia, Nazi Germany, North Korea, Iran and a myriad of other monster nations of the world.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #318071

Stephen, I was just being facetious. I’m sure you will agree with me that WB is in trouble. I would re-register with Cameron, but I have been asked to write for a local conservative blog. I need to see if I can handle that first.

I went to post an article last week only to find I’ve been removed from my writing privileges because of my inactivity - that’s my fault.

I had a vicious malware virus on my computer for many months and kept losing all of my content that I wrote (freeze-ups, mystery re-boots, etc). I finally got it fixed last month.

My point is obvious. One writer, lack of fresh content. Unfortunately, it’s not self-sustainable. Content is king. Without new and varied content, a blog dies off rather quickly.

Posted by: Kevin L. Lagola at February 2, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment #318072

Royal Flush-
It ain’t Kumbaya, it’s simple truth. Friendship takes effort, takes restraint as well as initiative. You can’t pick fights with people, and then get offended when they say they don’t like you.

We’ve got our share of people who are committed to being our enemies. We got to deal with those, obviously. What I would say, though, is that if you move to vilify those who oppose your preferred government, and you’re not lucky enough to keep that preferred government, then you’ve screwed yourself.

Obama’s taking the simple, common sense approach of not having America be on the wrong side of another revolution. We’re not going to back Mubarak against his own people. We’re not going to give his opposition the excuse of saying that we kept them from being free.

I don’t think it’s smart for a nation like ours to keep freedom as a privilege for ourselves, while pushing dictators on the rest of the world. We have to have a certain integrity between our foreign policy and our own form of government. We have to act like we really like Democracy, even when the results don’t favor us. Otherwise, we are hypocrites, and the rest of the world sees proof of it, and scoffs at our principles.

Kevin L. Lagola-
Well, I’ve said as much to Cameron, that this blog needs more people in it. Being the only blogger is like being the only person in a jazz band- there’s nobody to play off of.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2011 5:47 PM
Comment #318073

Royal Flush,
Why you make fun of the Golden Rule, what would you have done 40 years ago if Egypt, Russia, China, or any other nation would have told America what to do?

No, our desires for Peace can only be matched by our desire for Freedom. And though that may not always work in our favor as other Nations and Citizens grow. Unless, you are willing to concede that other nations can interfere with who we elect as our leader than all we can do is be diplomatic. For the next Leader of Egypt or any other Nation is not our call.

Yes, the Golden Rule does have a strange effect on people; however, if you follow its words of do unto people as you would have them do unto you than doesn’t that also mean that if you want to be rude to me that I have every right to be rude unto you?

Something for the Pot to think about when calling the Kettle Black, don’t you think?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 2, 2011 5:56 PM
Comment #318074

Royal Flush,

I still don’t understand what you and other conservatives are advocating as US policy regarding the popular uprisings in Egypt and Tunisia. On the one hand, you seem to support a hard line US policy against any regime change in Egypt. Support our friends. Don’t allow a revolution. On the other hand, you seem willing to drop Mubarek in favor of some alternative government initiated by a group of western foreign ministers led by Hillary meeting in Cairo. Good luck on that proposal.

What is striking about conservative comment is the lack of any support for the requests of the demonstrators: democratic government, freedom of expression and economic reform. It is striking since those requests were the hallmark of the Bush doctrine. Democratic regimes in the Middle East were thought to be the best guarantors of US interests in the long run and they should be encouraged and supported.

So, are conservatives now refuting their doctrine of only a few years ago of aggressively supporting democratic movements in the Middle East?

Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2011 6:09 PM
Comment #318076

Rich
Who is calling the Egyptian affair a democratic movement? I’m not.
Likewise with Tunisia, Yemen, etc.
So get rid of a dictator and replace him with a dictator. What is the gain. Nothing but bloodshed and more hatered. All the while the cannon fodder of people die so that some dictator can go to the mountain top. This is nothing new. It has been going on for all of our lifetimes and more. Our so-called leaders have installed more dictators around the world, than have assumed the head of state on there own. We helped in the USSR. We helped in China. We helped in North Korea. We helped in Iran. We helped in a number of countries in Africa. We helped in Argentinia. We helped in Nicaragua. We helped in Panama. We helped in Viet Nam. And on and on and on. In all those cases it was not the people of those countries that got what they wanted. It was the cartel of criminal enterprises that gained power in each and every one of those cases and we helped them do it. They could not have done it on their own. It was the US that put those criminals into power. Both republicans and democrats alike in this country.

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #318077

Rich writes; “On the one hand, you seem to support a hard line US policy against any regime change in Egypt. Support our friends. Don’t allow a revolution. On the other hand, you seem willing to drop Mubarak in favor of some alternative government initiated by a group of western foreign ministers led by Hillary meeting in Cairo. Good luck on that proposal.”

It is striking since those requests were the hallmark of the Bush doctrine. Democratic regimes in the Middle East were thought to be the best guarantors of US interests in the long run and they should be encouraged and supported.”

Bush realized that doctrine was flawed and abandoned it.

You write that I support the items you listed and I don’t. As for Hillary and other Western diplomats meeting in Cairo, nowhere did I write that they should be involved in setting up anyone, or group, to lead the country.

Their presence in Egypt would most certainly get the attention of every Egyptian unlike a short speech on American soil by Obama. Obama dispatched an American diplomat, one which few Egyptians recognized, to jawbone Mubarak. It was out of sight of, and meant little or nothing to, the average Egyptian. Did it defuse the situation…hardly, the mob is becoming ever more violent.

With the presence of high-level Western diplomats the populace would know that the world was paying attention and that their grievances were being addressed by the Western world community which provides much of their foreign aid and exerts a great deal of influence in their lives.

Such a group of Western democracies calling for calm with one voice could relieve some of the pressure that continues to grow and which is becoming quite violent.

Efforts by the international community to defuse this situation is glaring in its absence. Unrest and peaceful demonstrations can quickly degenerate into a violent upheaval that could cost tens of thousands of lives and a disruption of the entire Middle East.

The time is long past when we, and other Western democracies, can ignore our vital interests in the world and just hope things work out well. We, and other Western nations, exert our influence in every part of the world to work for peace and the benefit of other people. And, we don’t abandon allies without regard for our own security and that of our friends.

Too many on this post seem to think that all calls for democracy, whatever form it may take, must be supported. Even Bush came to understand how flawed that strategy was. That is naive and simplistic. Many of the world’s most feared and hated dictators hold elections. Is that a democracy or is there more to it than a simple election?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 2, 2011 7:47 PM
Comment #318078

Tom Humes,

You have a distorted view of history. How exactly did we help the revolution in Russia? By sending over 12,000 troops to fight with the White Russian Czarist army against the Red army in 1918? How exactly did we help the communists in China? By supporting the Nationalist Chinese with enormous military and economic aid? The Nationalist Chinese controlled virtually the entire country after WWII. They lost it, we didn’t. We gave them every opportunity to prevail. We helped in Vietnam? Please! We prevented national elections in 1954 to avoid a communist takeover. We sent over 500,000 troops and untold economic aid to the temporarily divided South and lost over 50,000 lives to give the South an opportunity. They lost it, we did not. We helped in Iran? How? By overturning a democratic government in Iran in the 1950s? By reinstalling a despotic Shah in in return for oil? By supporting the Shah and his son with economic and military support despite his totalitarian rule? The Shah lost it, we did not.

Support of despotic dictatorships or otherwise unpopular western leaning governments may have some real politic reality to recommend it. However, we should always remember that it is frequently at the expense of the will and interests of the people. We should not be surprised then that occasionally the will of the people of prevails in those countries. There is an obvious risk in supporting dictators.


Posted by: Rich at February 2, 2011 7:53 PM
Comment #318079

Kevin, you were not that frequent a contributor.
Stephen has been a committed contributor here for a long time. He has been every bit as patient as he has been loyal, and has withstood constant and steady onslaught by those just passing through as well as those who continue with their venomous attacks.
David was the one who monitored this site for inappropriate language and the hate spewing from the trolls that tried to make permanent homes here. Even he found the end of his patience and chose to let go. Unfortunately, those who brought about the demise of many posters on here still are throwing rocks and poking with sharp sticks. Guess that becoming king of all “schoolyard bullies” is their greatest achievement…

Posted by: jane doe at February 2, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #318080

tom humes-
Rich makes a good point. It’s not like we’ve tended to do the opposite of what you suggest. In fact, we’ve taken the other course, more often than not.

We’ve tried to be a greater power along the lines of the old colonial powers. It seems, to my mind, that we’ve gotten little of the benefit of that approach, and a lot of the costs.

American needs to realize that it will never be comfortable, as a country that fought its way up from being a colony, with being a colonial power. It will always lack the will to be that brutal.

So, rather than force ourselves again and again to try and be that brutal, and maybe one day succeed, we ought to recognize that the reason most of the old colonial powers stopped that crap was that it was too expensive, and too bloody hazardous to keep it up. It’s easier to be a first among equals than to have to force your will on everybody.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 2, 2011 8:39 PM
Comment #318081

Royal Flush,
You speak that those assembled for days peacefully proyesting are some how wrong; nevertheless, violence did not break out until those supporting the current establishment rode in beating people. So which side do you defend?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 2, 2011 9:48 PM
Comment #318082

Henry, Neither side is without blame. Do you call looting and destroying ancient artifacts within the Cairo museum peacefull, throwing molitoff cocktails peacefully demonstrating. Which side will be the lesser of two evils?

Posted by: KAP at February 2, 2011 10:20 PM
Comment #318083

Rich and SD

USSR-foreign aid, treasury plates to print money, factory assistance to build military vehicles, recognized a criminal enterprise as a government, and more.

China-John Carter Vincent was the head of the program to disarm Chaing. Vincent was a Soviet agent working in our government. George C. Marshall had 98% of the military aid that was to go to Chaing dumped in the ocean. We constantly took away any possible means of Chaing staying in power and instead put the most murderous head of state in history, Chairman Mao, into power.

We continually did not allow our troops to do their job in Viet Nam. That old sick joke of don’t fire unless fired upon, was a traitorous piece of “judgement”. As a result we lost 50 thousand plus and allowed North Viet Nam to rule.

This type of bad decision making was intentional. Our state department and administrations for a hundred years have installed heads of state that used the power for the wrong reasons. And we knew it would go the way it did. If you want to call those decisions mistakes, then why didn’t we make a mistake in favor of the people of any of those countries. We didn’t make a single “good mistake”.

Posted by: tom humes at February 2, 2011 11:05 PM
Comment #318084

KAP,
This is why America needs to be careful. For why most demonstrators have been peaceful; however, the looting was stopped by the people and not the police. Yet, we saw today that the so called supports of Mubarak openly attacked their fellow citizens. So do you support people who understand they should have peaceful proyesys to change things or those who ride in on horses whipping their opponents?

No, having lived through the 60’s and 70’s I do believe the Want-to-Be Authority has shown they do not deserve our support. For what is the difference between the Mubarak supporters and the extremists that use the same violence we say we are against?

IMHO, America needs to help the opposition to Mubarak find their Leaders and speak out against any party who believes they have the right to treat another Human that why. For yesterday should have been a day of Peace in Egypt.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2011 12:59 AM
Comment #318085

Tom Humes,
Just because our parents have made the mistake should we follow them considering we were told to go teach our parents the difference between Right and Wrong? Is this really what you want to teach your children?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2011 1:03 AM
Comment #318086

Henry

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: tom humes at February 3, 2011 10:10 AM
Comment #318087

“Does the Golden Rule really address how nation’s should act, or does it define an expression of individual love and respect towards one another?

Good question Royal. Should nations act different than individuals? I have noticed than conservatives often use this same rule when discussing the national debt and deficit. They seem to like to refer to one’s personal finances as the example for the nations finances, go figure.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 3, 2011 10:44 AM
Comment #318088

Thought for the day…

Fathom the odd hypocrisy that the government wants every citizen to prove that they are insured, but people don’t have to prove they are citizens.

Author, Ben Stein

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 11:30 AM
Comment #318089

KAP-
I tend to assess responsibility for things going out of control in terms of what elements have to be added in order to make things go to hell.

The protestors were doing just fine at being peaceful before those counter-protesters with weapons, horses, and camels came in. Then the whole character of things changed.

You assess equal responsiblity, so as not to acknowledge that provocative behavior of one group had more to do with the escalation of hostilities than the other.

tom humes-
1) Russia wasn’t going away if we ignored it, and what would history have been like if we had not allied with Russia during WWII? What would history have been like if we took confrontational, rather than a peacemaking approach?

The USSR was the kind of radical government that built it’s power on an adversarial mindset, and those work beautifully against militaristic approaches. But adulterate that mindset with a more compromising, more peaceful more accomodating approach, and it eventually dies, as people take the conflict that powers the movement less and less seriously.

It worked. Eventually, Russia fell to the Capitalists. People were tired of all the BS they had to endure to keep communism alive, and they were no longer seeing us purely through the lens of being the enemy.

Capitalism can survive without having to pit itself against communism or socialism. Only it’s extreme version, the kind that’s based on a complete rejection of welfare state programs, requires that kind of adversarial approach. The reality is, social welfare programs have other precedents and other justifications in our system, beyond the de novo philosophy of Marxism.

Those who rely on adversarial politics rely on a strained kind of ideological approach to things, one that eventually leads to self-contradiction and the denial of anything, good or bad, that seems to be connected to the enemy.

2) I tried my best to look for the evidence that damns that old China Hand, but I couldn’t find it. But aside from that, let me make this point: ignoring corruption from the right-wing clients who screwed things up is no solution to the problem of preventing such “losses”.

Your adversarial style of politics demands that you must see any accusation of corruption or incompetence on the part of the China hands towards the Nationalist government as an implicit endorsement of the Maoist guerillas.

That’s not so. Chang Kai-Sek and Mao Tse-Tung can both be scumbags and tyrants. Mao might just be the more seductive, more charismatic of the two, better able to convince the average Chinese person to take his side. But your side took such frank assessments to be evidence of communist sympathies, and helped set in stone a bad habit that would haunt us for the rest of that century, which would be placing our bets on idiots doing their best to alienate their citizens.

It’s not very good statecraft, in my opinion, to simply put leaders in place who put a lid on popular movements we don’t like. Those movements only seem to get stronger, especially when they’re built on adversarial principles which feed off of being martyrs and rebels.

Even if such movements do lose, they often boil down to essentialized radical groups like al-Qaeda. And when they win? They become the sort of governments that suppress their rivals in the name of defeating the counter-revolutionaries. The biggest headaches we have come from supporting those who create these kinds of vicious cycles of positive feedback (which is to say, building on itself to get worse).

3) The Problem with Vietnam was not that we could not win, due to being held back. The problem was, we were in a position where neither position was to our advantage. If we held back, we got hit. If we got harsh, we’d often be smacking around civilians and “saving” their villages by destroying them, which didn’t make us popular. South Korea saw their North Korean counterparts as invaders, so we were able to fight back, with the support of the people.

The people of Vietnam, though, never solidly got behind the idea of South Vietnam as a nation to itself. They always thought in terms of a united Vietnam. We were trying to win by extending the losing side of a long-term civil war, which was itself unpopular. We supported, essentially, the cronies of the hated french colonial government.

If you don’t want to play the bad guy, don’t show up to audition for the role. We may see ourselves as having an unlimited right to rearrange everybody else’s affairs, but realistically speaking, a lot of people in other countries think otherwise, for some odd reason.

And really, I’m sick and tired of the right posing the failure of these policies as some sort of backstab from the left. Sorry, folks, backing unpopular, exploitative leaders in the hopes that their brutality can keep people from taking positions opposed to ours has turned out to be a pipe dream. Pretending like we can order around the rest of the planet’s turned out to be a big mistake.

The reality is, it’s a game of which we are only one player, and so far we’ve been repeating the mistakes of others who lost the game, rather than winning the game ourselves. Time to take responsibility for your mistakes. You the best of intentions, but good intentions can pave the road to hell.

My original entry, as it was, was about our government being tuned to look out for our interests. The unfortunate thing, though, is that some have taken the fallacious position that if we only just forward the interests of the powerful few, or of a certain political party, that this will spell success for us all.

But that’s not the way things work, and that’s why the Framers created a government that, unlike Egypt’s for so long, actually tends to pay attention to the needs of the people, over the long term. There they protest, and end up having to face folks with razors and clubs, attacking from camels and horse.

Here, we don’t have to get our military’s approval to change who’s in power. We only need our own. If we’re displeased with our leaders, for whatever reason, good or bad, we hold the authority as Americans to change them out. We don’t have to face violence to get satisfaction, and that is what is beautiful, and in my opinion, most efficient about our government.

Royal Flush-
Ho-hum. If it’s Thursday, Republicans must be accusing somebody of hypocrisy. Easier to allege somebody else is false to their principles, than to make your own rather callous policies popular.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 3, 2011 1:01 PM
Comment #318090

Mr. Daugherty writes; “Sorry, folks, backing unpopular, exploitative leaders in the hopes that their brutality can keep people from taking positions opposed to ours has turned out to be a pipe dream.”

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could tell us exactly when The US should have stopped backing Sadat and Mubarak.

Mr. Daugherty’s “ho-hum” response is quite revealing. When you can’t logically disagree with what was written, attack the writer.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 1:32 PM
Comment #318091

Stephen, How do you know who did the provoking? Museum pieces were trashed before the horse back and camel riders caused more trouble, molitoff cocktails were thrown before the riders went through the crowds. I agree there were peacefull demonstrators in the crowds but IMO there were also provokers from both sides in those crowds. You weren’t there and neither was I so all we get is info from whatever media outlet we read or watch and I don’t trust anyone of them for accurate info. You have your opinion I have mine, and I think both sides are guilty of provoking the other.

Posted by: KAP at February 3, 2011 1:46 PM
Comment #318092

SD

Your analysis looks like something I would read in New Republic.

Replacing a head of state with another person who turns out to be the most murderous of all despots casts a huge shame on this country for allowing John Carter Vincent and his cronies to force the entry of Mao into a head of state position and then support his criminal empire.

The USSR became a power because we helped it to. That also is a shame on this country and people in the government making decisions to help the Soviet Union to grow as it did. What would have happened if we did not ally with the Soviet Union in WWII? Germany would have been defeated quicker and the Soviet Union would not have the toehold it had in Eastern Europe. We helped the Soviet Union all the way to help them gain control over Eastern Europe.

Let me repeat. Nearly all the dictators that have taken over countries in the last 100 years have done so with this governments blessing. History should not have been that way. There were good leaders in those countries that we could have helped, but our globalist, totalitarian, one worlders here in America would not allow that to happen.

The wobblies are still here.

Posted by: tom humes at February 3, 2011 1:51 PM
Comment #318093

General Patton had the solution for the Soviets; the government should have let him go. The problems in Vietnam were the result of politicians armchair quarterbacking the war from DC.

Tom Humes, the Soviet Union did more than get a toehold in Eastern Europe; they also managed to get their hands on German scientists who were working on nukes, jet engines, and rockets. How does a nation who could only arm 1 out of 10 soldiers to fight on the Eastern front, used horses to pull artillery pieces, and sent people into battle with pitchforks; manage to become a nuclear power in just a few years? Even at this time in history, there were progressives who wanted to have a balance of power in the world. Why should America be the only superpower? Wait a minute, wasn’t it Madeleine Albright who said it wasn’t fair that America be the world’s only superpower?

Posted by: Z at February 3, 2011 2:59 PM
Comment #318094

Royal Flush-
Hmm. Interesting way to defend a quotation that essentially alleges a character flaw on the opponent’s part as a means to critique two policies at once.

As for backing Sadat and Mubarak? Off the cuff, try the beginning. Or, start out with conditions for support, if they want us to keep them going, which make things more conducive for the development of democracy. There are those out there who argue that Mubarak’s repressions helped set the stage for not only his eventual downfall, but for the rise of al-Qaeda. It’s not an accident that a number of the hijackers were Egyptian.

My point is not to ignore the unpleasant realities of different political situations. My point is that we have to acknowledge that frustration of movements through support of tyranny is a short-term solution with long-term liabilities.

KAP-
The reports of damage are exaggerated.

As for who provoked what? Look, I don’t get this tendency to blame both sides at once. The world is never that symmetrical. You may get certain feedback effects once things are in motion, but we did not see violence before Mubarak’s supporters showed up in force.

They, to all appearances, escalated the conflict, and in my mind, to the escalator goes first responsbility. However, I would then say that both sides are responsible for de-escalating the situation. The thing is, though, if one side showed up more belligerent than the other, that one side has to realize the error of its ways before progress can be made. Simple logic: if they maintain their willingness to use violence, even as the other side withdraws from it, at best you will get a reintroduction of violence, and at worst you will get a massacre of the unresisting. Self-preservation is a powerful motivation, and if one side is intent on winning through violence and intimidation and is not put in check somehow, they will simply re-ignite the problem.

Tom Humes-
The “wobblies” are still here? What do you think this is, the roaring twenties?

The USSR became a power because Russia was a power, a nation that controlled territory from Eastern Europe all the way to the Bering Sea.

As for defeating Germany quicker? One of the main reasons why Germany fell as quickly as it did was that it was being squeezed from both sides. If Russia had been weaker, Hitler could have poured resources into a defense of Germany from the other side. That wouldn’t have helped us.

The paranoid style of American politics is alive and well in your analysis, with American decision-making constantly subverted by your rivals in your estimation. Like many paranoid visions, it ascribes to foresight what mainly hindsight reveals, to deliberate malice aforethought what incompetence, regular misfortune, and plain misunderstandings can explain.

There are quite a few inconvenient headaches that came from the way WWII became the Cold War. It’s been a constant thorn in the foot of liberals, and the GOP has never stopped using the shadow of the backstab as means to generate popular support for their agenda and their rebound from their Depression-Era lows.

If the conspirators you described really wanted to subvert things properly, why show their hand? Why not subtly take over, rather than overthrow in such showy, scary revolutions?

Or, if we want to really go out into the realm of scary subversion, why stop with simple contrariness on the square of oppositions?

We could envision a cabal of secret communist among the Republicans, who over the course of the twentieth century seek to undermine capitalism from within, undoing the legal framework that keeps the capitalists honest, prevent them from causing the collapse of their system through unhindered foolishness. We could allege that they almost succeeded in 2008, only failing in their efforts to create communism by the emergency salvation of the captialist system by the government.

They create such irrational, overwhelming fear that people react against it, going leftward in disgust with the right’s witch hunts. They then supported one unaffordable war based on paranoia after another, both bankrupting the country, and undermining its superpower status.

I could go on. The idea has a certain compelling, counterintuitive charm. There are certainly a bunch of messy questions, if you delve deeply enough, and in enough detail, but then that’s not the point.

The point to such paranoia is to stop people from thinking, to get them caught up in an emotional vision of the world that has them running over the nuances and not looking back.

But, of course, for practical purposes, such conspiracy theory trash is all too distracting, masking real threats, threats that are more than just theory.

Threats like the instability of a market that is largely based on derivatives, and the derivatives of derivatives. Threats like a job market which is the real reason we have such large deficits into the future. Threats like the continued underprovision of revenues caused by a schizophrenic tax policy that doesn’t see taxes as revenue decreasing.

You want to look and see wobblies. The tiresome reality for the rest of us is, your side’s determination to relive the political conflicts and controversies of the past are keeping the rest of us from dealing with the policy problems of the present and future.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 3, 2011 3:06 PM
Comment #318095

Why would conservatives not trust Obama? Why would they accuse liberals of hypocrisy and corruption?

“Obama issues global warming rules in January, gives GE an exemption in February

By: Timothy P. Carney 02/02/11 4:50 PM
Senior Political Columnist
Last month, the Obama EPA began enforcing new rules regulating the greenhouse gas emissions from any new or expanded power plants.
This week, the EPA issued its first exemption, Environment & Energy News reports:
The Obama administration will spare a stalled power plant project in California from the newest federal limits on greenhouse gases and conventional air pollution, U.S. EPA says in a new court filing that marks a policy shift in the face of industry groups and Republicans accusing the agency of holding up construction of large industrial facilities.
According to a declaration by air chief Gina McCarthy, officials reviewed EPA policies and decided it was appropriate to “grandfather” projects such as the Avenal Power Center, a proposed 600-megawatt power plant in the San Joaquin Valley, so they are exempted from rules such as new air quality standards for smog-forming nitrogen dioxide (NO2).
There’s something interesting about the Avenal Power Center:
The proposed Avenal Energy project will be a combined-cycle generating plant consisting of two natural gas-fired General Electric 7FA Gas Turbines with Heat Recovery Steam Generators (HRSG) and one General Electric Steam Turbine.
Maybe GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s closeness to President Obama, and his broad support for Obama’s agenda, had nothing to do with this exemption. But we have no way of knowing that, and given the administration’s record of regularly misleading Americans regarding lobbyists, frankly, I wouldn’t trust the White House if they told me there was no connection.”


http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/obama-issues-global-warming-rules-january-gives-ge-exemption-febr#ixzz1CvcL8V9e

Posted by: Z at February 3, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #318096

Stephen, Like I said you have your opinion I have mine. Who is going to be in charge now after Mubarak, another Dictator. So it’s back to square one. The same crap in Iraq, and Afganistan.

Posted by: KAP at February 3, 2011 3:16 PM
Comment #318097

Sorry, Mr. Daugherty, it was not the Russians who beat Germany on the Eastern front; it was the weather and the terrain. The Russian peasants were truely cannon fodder. Hitler defeated himself by spreading his troops to cover two fronts. Russia did nothing to end the war.

Everything written after “The paranoid style of American politics…”, is evidence of your lack of intelligence. In other words “stupid talk”.

Posted by: Z at February 3, 2011 3:21 PM
Comment #318098

Democracy fails to make headway in the Middle East not because it appears “imposed” but because it is mercilessly persecuted. Islamism is making headway because it is carefully nourished.

I wonder, if American presidents such as Carter had 30 years in office; what kind of country we would have today. If one reads headlines of the first half of Mubarak’s presidency, one finds much praise from citizens of Egypt as well as from much of the free world.

Most of us know that power corrupts. And fortunately here in the US, we have term limits on our presidents. Why are we surprised that this happened in Egypt, it was expected and known.

Unfortunately, we and other nations must face reality in the world and must publicly embrace those whom privately we may despise. Mubarak suited our purposes and goals in that part of the world for 30 years. At what point did we ever hear an American president, including Obama, until just this week, call for Mubarak to step down? We didn’t and we all know why. Some of the silly snits writing here don’t appear to have a clue about diplomacy or about necessary strategy in dealing with the nations of the world.

Liberals can rub the halos they believe ring their heads and call for democracy in Egypt but what if that is not what Egyptians want? Perhaps want they do want won’t be palatable to us, or in direct opposition to our attempts at peace in the Middle East…then what?

We have fools sitting in our state department and elsewhere in DC who just bend with every popular wind. Most of them can’t think beyond their next pay raise or fancy dinner party. They have a herd mentality and are about worthless in formulating workable, advantageous policy for the US.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #318099

“What would have happened if we did not ally with the Soviet Union in WWII? Germany would have been defeated quicker and the Soviet Union would not have the toehold it had in Eastern Europe.”

Really? That presumes that the Soviets would have been able to defeat Germany in the east without massive lend-lease assistance and without the coordination of a two front war against Germany. Highly speculative in 1941 after the spectacular early victories of Germany in Russia, the loss of the European mainland and Rommel’s victories in the Middle East. The allies fully recognized that a two front war was essential and they chose an alliance with Russia to assure that end. It was a prudent decision.

“There were good leaders in those countries that we could have helped, but our globalist, totalitarian, one worlders here in America would not allow that to happen.”

OK, who were they? What leader(s) in China should the US have supported in 40s to prevent the takeover by Mao’s forces? What leader(s) in Indo-China should we have supported after or before the defeat of the French? Who should we have supported in Russia in 1918? Who should we have supported in Iran prior to the fall of the Shah?

Lets bring this up to date. Who should we now be supporting in Egypt? Who is the good leader(s) that we should be supporting? How should we be supporting him/her? Should we care if that person has the support of the people of Egypt?


Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #318100

“Stephen, Like I said you have your opinion I have mine. Who is going to be in charge now after Mubarak, another Dictator. So it’s back to square one. The same crap in Iraq, and Afganistan.

Posted by: KAP at February 3, 2011 03:16 PM”

I have stated on WB many times; it is impossible to create a democracy in this part of the world. A democracy, as we would define it, has to be based upon certain rights. Freedom of speech and religion are the 1st and foundation of our Bill of Rights. These are two things that will never, ever become part of any Muslim controlled nation. The people in these nations are ignorant; sorry but that is the truth. If they didn’t have oil revenue, they would still be herding goats and camels, and I am talking about the ruling class. The common people are still herding goats. The oil is the only thing that separates Muslim nations from 3rd world African nations. For the sake of a stabilized region, America (as well as the English and French) have imposed their influence on these nations for the past 100 years. What America has done is no different than what the French and English have done. Does it make it right, certainly not, but what is the alternative? The left has a problem with the American government imposing itself upon other countries, but they have no problem with the government making a race of people (Negroes) dependent upon government housing, food stamps, and welfare checks. All it cost the Blacks was their dignity and a democratic vote.

Posted by: Beretta9 at February 3, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #318101

“How does a nation who could only arm 1 out of 10 soldiers to fight on the Eastern front, used horses to pull artillery pieces, and sent people into battle with pitchforks; manage to become a nuclear power in just a few years?”

Better question, how in the world did they defeat the modern armies of Germany? The answer is simple. They actually did arm their soldiers. They actually produced more and better tanks and airplanes than Germany could bring to the front in the east. They used the terrain effectively. Hitler badly misjudged the ability of the Russians to field armies, the quality of its general staff and the ability of the Russians to produce arms.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 3:45 PM
Comment #318102

“The people in these nations are ignorant; sorry but that is the truth. If they didn’t have oil revenue, they would still be herding goats and camels, and I am talking about the ruling class.”

KAP, you must be kidding. First of all, Egypt, the focus of this thread, isn’t even a major producer of oil. It has a relatively diverse economy compared to other Middle Eastern countries and has shown steady economic growth of over 4-5% during the last 25 years. It is a trade surplus country. The problem of the Egyptian economy is a large wealth inequality gap within Egypt.

I don’t know what to say about your claim that the people of Egypt are so ignorant that they cannot participate in a democracy. Just a few years ago, conservatives were declaring that promotion of democracy in the Middle East was the best assurance of long term US interests in the region. It was called the Bush doctrine.

As for US colonialism in the region, it should be remembered that the US long took an anti-colonial stance in the Middle East. It was a Republican president, Ike, who refused to support the French and British during the Suez Canal crisis and demanded that they return the Canal to Egyptian control. It was that anti-colonial policy that earned the US a reputation as an honest broker in the region.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #318103

America is, and has been, the leader of the world for many decades. We are called upon to make the tough decisions concerning peace and security in the world and to counter that which we perceive as threats. It would be impossible to always make the correct decision, but we must make them nevertheless. That’s what leaders do.

Some argue that we must support the “people’s revolution” in Egypt regardless of how it may affect us and the world. Why is that? It doesn’t take a leader to merely bend to what is perceived as the current popular position, does it?

Are the words and actions of Obama and the state department perceived as leadership? What tough decisions, based upon what may be best for peace and security in the world, have they made? Can anyone point to what these folks have done so far as being in any way effective? Can anyone explain the strategy of the United States with regard to Egypt and the Middle East? What critical interests do we have there? How will they be protected? Would a leader allow a demonstration in Egypt to determine its foreign policy? What is our foreign policy in this regard?


Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 4:13 PM
Comment #318104

KAP,

My apologies. My comments in the above post were directed at Barretta9.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 4:15 PM
Comment #318105

z-
Ah, but the real question is special treatment. Before you can allege a quid pro quo, you first have to establish that GE got special treatment, and that plants of that kind, in those stages of development aren’t otherwise being grandfathered in.

I will wait, serenaded by the beautiful songs of the crickets, while you provide me with that evidence.

As for Russia? Well, Russia was caught off guard by the Germans, which is never good for getting your supply situation in order. Rich is right, though, that they got better as the war progressed.

It always seems that, in the name of telling us how magnificent America would be if it weren’t for us liberals, that you always have to reduce the enemies to “cannon fodder”, to morons who couldn’t present a challenge to us if we didn’t help them by subverting ourselves.

Sorry, they’re just as smart, as clever, as capable of engineering and manufacturing as we are. Maybe their system introduces certain handicaps, but where it doesn’t, they can present a challenge to us, and they did.

Until we admit that fact, we’ll always be blundering into situations, not working at the top of our game. Sputnik moment is damn right. There’s nothing out there inherent in the Chinese people, or anybody else to keep them from cleaning our clock on green energy or any other pursuit if we decide to rest on our laurels, or worse, accept our nation’s decline.

We need to bring our full effort and our governments full support to the game, not let the free market decide if we’re going to come out on top. I got more national pride than that.

Royal Flush-
The reason we don’t have Carter or Reagan, or anybody else in charge for more than eight years is that we constitutionally limited that ability to to continue in office.

Democracy fails because the cultures there have not yet realized the virtue of a self-limiting government. But, that can be taught. However, it’s best taught if the folks agitating for Democracy are open to listening to us. Would they be so open, if we’re pitting ourselves against them?

Obama waited until the people themselves spoke. He didn’t continue support for a dictator that the Egyptian people had already thrown under the bus. He didn’t take Bush’s route with Venezuela.

KAP-
First, you never know what might happen, and rigging your policy agaisnt that possibility isn’t wise. Second, it doesn’t seem like you have an alternative, only a criticism, which is to say you don’t like the situation, are ready to blame Obama, but are unwilling to illuminate what the better way to work policy would be.

Beretta9-
It is perfectly possible, it’s just difficult.

Your attitudes seem very patronizing. Many folks of the Middle East are perfectly able to work modern jobs, in modern industries. As for Blacks? They’re doing considerably better than they were back in the sixties, and as a race they are not dependent. Poverty is more endemic, but give it a few generations, and I bet you the numbers will change.

It’s much easier to deny a person’s abilities and capacities, than it is to engage in the complex problems of changing the conditions that create poverty and political underrepresentation. However, if we had taken your attitude about Blacks in the Sixties and run with it, we would have seen more of them in poverty, fewer of them in leadership, and not enough of them able to taste the sweet fruits of political representation. The blacks of today have more of their dignity than those of yesteryear.

But hey, we can’t let the facts get in the way of a good piece of propaganda, now can we?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 3, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #318106

“Some argue that we must support the “people’s revolution” in Egypt regardless of how it may affect us and the world. Why is that?”

Because, it is a fait accompli. A better term would be to accept rather than support the “peoples revolution.” We don’t live in a fantasy world. When the military decided that it would not suppress the demonstrations, it was clearly signaling the end of Mubarek. Now, you can go on and on about how terrible this is. But, it won’t change the reality.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 4:30 PM
Comment #318107

Stephen, Your right we don’t know what is going to happen over there. But to think that replacing Mubarak is going to bring hearts and flowers over there is plain stupidity. The better way to work policy is to stay the F—- out of their politics and leave them to work out their own agenda. We’ve been butting our noses in their business for a long time now and all it’s done is blow up in our faces. We have enough problems here in this country, and if you think someone else is going to take our politicians advice on how to fix their country when we can’t even fix our own is Stupid.

Posted by: KAP at February 3, 2011 4:47 PM
Comment #318108

“But to think that replacing Mubarak is going to bring hearts and flowers over there is plain stupidity.”

I don’t think anyone believes that. It is clearly a volatile situation.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 5:01 PM
Comment #318109

Tom Humes,
In your comment #318083 you claimed that America installed leaders even when we knew it was a mistake; however, that was your parents’ and grandparents’ world. Today, we should know better especially since we were told to teach our parents Right from Wrong. Thus, why we have a right to have an opinion on who we would like to see takeover Egypt. It is just that! Or do you believe we should teach our children that if they don’t like the Freedom others choose we should use our military to install the leaders we want?

KAP,
Stating what we would like to see happen is different than picking sides. The fact we have an invested interest in Egypt though does carry weight. For what would happen if America withdrew its support from Egypts’ Military? The problem that I see is that to many in the Media are applying 20th Century Political Thinking to the 21st Century Reality we are living in.

As far as Russia and Germany goes, Mature Nature had more to do with winning that battle than either side. In fact, Germany was winning until cold weather made it impossible for their troops to even get supplies or fire their weapons.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2011 5:20 PM
Comment #318110

Rich

You said we don’t live in a fantasy world. Why do you and SD write with you fantasy pens? SD write fair fiction and could sell a few books. As a historian he would only sell
enough to supply the left wing establishment, which should also provide a decent stipend for his retirement fund.

Rich can keep the questions coming for SD and his fiction writing career.

Now how many names do you need to convice you that there were people available. I don’t think you would believe the names if they were given.

Posted by: tom humes at February 3, 2011 5:26 PM
Comment #318111

Henry
If you are speaking of freedom as we know freedom, it has never existed in the middle east and never will. Therefore they cannot have a free government as we enjoy and never will. The people in the streets of Egypt are cannon fodder for one side or the other and will not see freedom or any form of a decent govenment. That is the reality of the pix. The next head of state of Egypt will be worse than Mubarak. Go to the bank with that.

Posted by: tom humes at February 3, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #318112

Rich writes in response to my question; ““Some argue that we must support the “people’s revolution” in Egypt regardless of how it may affect us and the world. Why is that?”

Because, it is a fait accompli

OH, really, please direct me to the source for that judgement. Or perhaps, this is just more liberal crystal ball gazing.

KAP writes; “We’ve been butting our noses in their business for a long time now and all it’s done is blow up in our faces.”

Good Grief…read a history of the last 30 years in the Middle East and you will see many benefits to us, Egypt and the world for our “butting” in as you call it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 5:32 PM
Comment #318113

Tom Humes,
The problem with that kind of thinking is America wouldn’t be the Nation we are today if we would have listened to you. In fact, history is full of examples where those who wanted to keep power has told others things could not change.

Now, I don’t expect Egypt to follow our lead nor so I pretend that others will want what Mubarak has enjoyed for the last 30 years; however, I’m not going to tell the people of Egypt they cannot have Freedom “Just Because.” Instead, I believe America should support the idea of the People in Egypt wanting Freedom and decide on how we support the next leadership depending on how they will rule. But to say the People will never know Freedom, is sort of like telling your children they can’t build a Better World. And I can prove that to be wrong all day long.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #318114

Z said: “Sorry, Mr. Daugherty, it was not the Russians who beat Germany on the Eastern front; it was the weather and the terrain.”

Nonsense. There seems to be an opinion that Russia at the beginning of WWII was some backward communist peasant society incapable of modern warfare. In reality, it was second only to the US in industrial production and equal to Germany. It had superiority in both quality and quantity of heavy armaments, particularly tanks. However, it was unprepared for war and initially took heavy loses. But it effectively re-grouped. There is no doubt that it trapped and defeated the elite of the German Army (6th Army) at Stalingrad and defeated the best of the German armored corps at Kursk. It drove back the Germans by force of arms. It was not simply the weather and terrain.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 6:14 PM
Comment #318115

Rich,

“Better question, how in the world did they defeat the modern armies of Germany? The answer is simple. They actually did arm their soldiers. They actually produced more and better tanks and airplanes than Germany could bring to the front in the east. They used the terrain effectively. Hitler badly misjudged the ability of the Russians to field armies, the quality of its general staff and the ability of the Russians to produce arms.”

I will answer your questions by recommending this link:

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_major_mistake_made_on_the_Eastern_Front

There are many answers: It is true that the Russians built the T-34 tank which worked successfully. The Russian planes were only successful because the allies had wiped out the Luftwaffe, the Russian winter was early and demoralizing, and Stalin had plenty of cannon fodder to throw at the Germans. And last of all, Germany resulted in sending old men and boys into the battle.

Russia was only able to enter Berlin because the American leadership backed off and allowed them. Which created problems for people until the Reagan was successful in tearing down the wall.

Posted by: Z at February 3, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #318116

“Because, it is a fait accompli. OH, really, please direct me to the source for that judgement.”

Royal Flush,

When the military openly states that it won’t suppress the anti-Mubarek demonstrations, that is sort of clue that Mubarek is gone. But, if you don’t accept that evidence, then how about Mubarek himself. He has agreed to step down in the fall. In an interview with Cristiane Amanpour, he said that he would step down now but fears that the country would descend into chaos.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 6:26 PM
Comment #318117

No doubt it pissed the Ruskies off when Hitler broke their treaty to divide up Eastern Europe. Stalin was desperate for supplies and arms and we and Britain gave them all we could spare. Thank God we did.

I have read the entire 4 book autobiographic account by Churchill of WWII including all the pertinent correspondence with the Allies. Churchill knew he was dancing with the devil in Stalin, but there was no other choice. Roosevelt…not so much. He was rather fond of Uncle Joe.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 6:28 PM
Comment #318118

Obviously Rich doesn’t understand his own words…”fait accompli”. How sad it must be to believe all the bull crap being written with no ability to read between the lines with an historical lens and understand nuance and political subterfuge.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 6:36 PM
Comment #318119

Rich,
With Germany only miles from Moscow, Winter stopped the Army which gave Russia the time to build up their military.

And though a Storm could stop what is going on in Egypt today I’m not sure America alone could pull off that hat trick. Nevertheless, many times in history the weather more than anything else has provided the winning edge to one side or the other.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #318120

Royal Flush, Granted we have benefitted, but do the benefits outweigh the problems we continually face over in the Middle East. I was there some 40 yrs. ago went through the Suez Canal on the way to the Red Sea while serving in the Navy, there was trouble in the region then as it is now. Yes there needs to be stability in the region but this country cannot be the only stabalizer, the rest of the world that benefits from the resources in that area need to kick in. All the world benefits from the Suez Canal not just us.

Posted by: KAP at February 3, 2011 6:49 PM
Comment #318121

KAP, you are absolutely correct, the entire free world has a stake in a peaceful and pro-Western Egypt. There are powerful folks in the world who are now, as we write, licking their chops at the windfall profits they will grab with this sad episode. We talk about affects upon nations and people, they only think of money to be made.

The Sheeple on WB, and many in Washington, don’t have a clue as to what is going on here and wouldn’t believe the truth if it reared up and kicked them in the head.

Political unrest anywhere in the world represents financial gain for these folks and they don’t give a damn about anything else.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 7:03 PM
Comment #318123

“The Sheeple on WB, and many in Washington, don’t have a clue as to what is going on here and wouldn’t believe the truth if it reared up and kicked them in the head.”

Royal Flush,

Please enlighten us as to the truth.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 7:18 PM
Comment #318124

Sorry Rich, I consider you a Sheeple so why bother? If you want details to fill in my overview you will need to do the research yourself. You won’t believe me but you may believe others.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 7:24 PM
Comment #318125

“Sorry Rich, I consider you a Sheeple so why bother?”

Royal Flush,

OK, lets be insulting. That will provide you cover from even making a rudimentary attempt at explaining what you know to be the truth about the “revolution” in Egypt.

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 7:35 PM
Comment #318126

OK Rich…for you Sheeple is an insult. I have been called much worse without whining about it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 3, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #318127

Royal Flush,

If you don’t want to illuminate the “sheeple” on this blog, why not the rest?

Posted by: Rich at February 3, 2011 8:25 PM
Comment #318128

Mr. Daugherty said:

“Beretta9-
It is perfectly possible, it’s just difficult.
Your attitudes seem very patronizing. Many folks of the Middle East are perfectly able to work modern jobs, in modern industries. As for Blacks? They’re doing considerably better than they were back in the sixties, and as a race they are not dependent. Poverty is more endemic, but give it a few generations, and I bet you the numbers will change.
It’s much easier to deny a person’s abilities and capacities, than it is to engage in the complex problems of changing the conditions that create poverty and political underrepresentation. However, if we had taken your attitude about Blacks in the Sixties and run with it, we would have seen more of them in poverty, fewer of them in leadership, and not enough of them able to taste the sweet fruits of political representation. The blacks of today have more of their dignity than those of yesteryear.
But hey, we can’t let the facts get in the way of a good piece of propaganda, now can we?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 3, 2011 04:25 PM”

And Mr. Daugherty, you’re comments seem very condescending.

1.Concerning Muslims, I said; “I have stated on WB many times; it is impossible to create a democracy in this part of the world. A democracy, as we would define it, has to be based upon certain rights. Freedom of speech and religion are the 1st and foundation of our Bill of Rights. These are two things that will never, ever become part of any Muslim controlled nation. The people in these nations are ignorant; sorry but that is the truth. If they didn’t have oil revenue, they would still be herding goats and camels, and I am talking about the ruling class. The common people are still herding goats. The oil is the only thing that separates Muslim nations from 3rd world African nations. For the sake of a stabilized region, America (as well as the English and French) have imposed their influence on these nations for the past 100 years. What America has done is no different than what the French and English have done. Does it make it right, certainly not, but what is the alternative?”

Any people who allow religious leaders to control their every thought or action are ignorant. Could you stick with the subject and explain to me where the Muslim nations would be without the flow of oil? They are 3rd world nations, poverty stricken, and led about by the ruling class, which includes the religious leaders. I said, if it weren’t for the oil, they would still be herding sheep and goats. Education only profits them if it is used to build another weapon. They are full of hatred and have only two desires: to convert the world to Islam and to destroy Israel. Would you care to tell me of other goals?

2.Concerning blacks, I said: “The left has a problem with the American government imposing itself upon other countries, but they have no problem with the government making a race of people (Negroes) dependent upon government housing, food stamps, and welfare checks. All it cost the Blacks was their dignity and a democratic vote.”

Want to answer my question as to why the left has a problem with the American government imposing itself upon other countries and no problem with the government imposing itself on a race of America people? You go into a rant how much the progressives care and have done for blacks in America; when in reality they have done nothing and do not care.

1.70+% of black children are born out of wedlock.

2.“The structure of the black family has undergone significant change over the past 30 year. [1,3] One dramatic aspect has been a loosening of the marital bonds. The proportion of black couples who have divorced has increased, and the proportion of black couples who have married has declined. [1] Two thirds of all black marriages end in divorce, and 2 of 3 black children will experience the dissolution of their parents’ marriage by the time they reach age 16. [4]
The increased divorce rate among blacks has contributed to a decrease in the number of black 2-parent families. In 1970, 68% of black families had both the husband and wife present. This number dropped to just 50% in 1990, a decrease of 18 percentage points over 20 years, compared with a 6-percentage-point decrease over the same time period for white families.”

3.“Only 30 to 40 percent of black males graduate from high school. Many of those who do graduate emerge with reading and math skills of a white seventh- or eighth-grader. This is true in cities where a black is mayor, a black is superintendent of schools and the majority of principals and teachers are black. It’s also true in cities where the per pupil education expenditures are among the highest in the nation.

Across the U.S., black males represent up to 70 percent of prison populations. Are they in prison for crimes against whites? To the contrary, their victims are primarily other blacks. Department of Justice statistics for 2001 show that in nearly 80 percent of violent crimes against blacks, both the victim and the perpetrator were the same race. In other words, it’s not Reaganites, Bush supporters, right-wing ideologues or the Klan causing blacks to live in fear of their lives and property and making their neighborhoods economic wastelands.

What about the decline of the black family? In 1960, only 28 percent of black females between the ages of 15 and 44 were never married. Today, it’s 56 percent. In 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks was 19 percent, in 1960, 22 percent, and today, it’s 70 percent. Some argue that the state of the black family is the result of the legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty. That has to be nonsense. A study of 1880 family structure in Philadelphia shows that three-quarters of black families were nuclear families, comprised of two parents and children. In New York City in 1925, 85 percent of kin-related black households had two parents. In fact, according to Herbert Gutman in “The Black Family in Slavery and Freedom: 1750-1925,” “Five in six children under the age of 6 lived with both parents.” Therefore, if one argues that what we see today is a result of a legacy of slavery, discrimination and poverty, what’s the explanation for stronger black families at a time much closer to slavery — a time of much greater discrimination and of much greater poverty? I think that a good part of the answer is there were no welfare and Great Society programs.”

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams060805.asp

Stephen, these last 3 points are the facts and we all know how you love the facts. So tell us again what the Democratic Party has done for the black man? To quote your own words; “But hey, we can’t let the facts get in the way of a good piece of propaganda, now can we?”

Posted by: Beretta9 at February 3, 2011 10:12 PM
Comment #318129

Beretta9,
You stated “it is impossible to create a democracy in this part of the world. A democracy, as we would define it, has to be based upon certain rights. Freedom of speech and religion are the 1st and foundation of our Bill of Rights. These are two things that will never, ever become part of any Muslim controlled nation.” Yet, part of America (i.e. Capitalism) is derived from that part of the world. And why Americans have grown up free of religion basis, Egypt and other Middle East Nations are not Muslim controled. So to say these people couldn’t understand our Bill of Rights is simply not true.

Granted you can’t talk bad about the Establishment, but in America just 40 years ago the same could be said. And for the 2nd Amendment, they have more guns than America. In facy, when President Bush was confronted with disarming Iraq he found out how serious the people in that paer of the world are about their weapons.

Now, as far as “70+% of black children are born out of wedlock.” You need only look back in the 60’s and 70’s to see who opposed Welfare for married black couples. In fact, even to date any Lady wanting Welfare for her children must prove they do not live with the father of the children.

And for education, seperate the Rich White Folks from the Poor White Folks than compare the numbers. For why America does suffer from the lack of Book Learning, the problem of opportunity is even bigger. In fact, all one has to do is look at what was done in the Early 70’s to see why we have the problem in education today. Because what use to be taught in High School is now reserved for College by guess who?

Yes, America, Egypt, and all of Humanity needs to wake up and realize that “Their Better World” is not making the grade. And why the reasons for the problems rest in the pages of History. To date I still haven’t found anyone from any Political or Religious Stance willing to address the Shortcomings of Man. For I guess it is just to easy for some to sau that Man is Always Wrong than to stand up against the Status Quo and prove their Establishment Wrong.

All,
Can one access a real time picture of Egypt from Space to see what is going on? Sure would be nice from a News Prospective.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 3, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #318130

Turkey is a secular democracy in the Middle East. Most of the population practices Islam. The country is free, economically prosperous, and politically stable, despite bordering such unstable neighbors as Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Iraq, and despite an ongoing civil conflict with the Kurdish minority in the south. The population is well educated, with national health care and a high literacy rate, and as ethnically diverse as any country in the world.

Posted by: phx8 at February 4, 2011 12:55 AM
Comment #318131

Royal Flush-
Usually, I’m tolerant, but the next time you call anybody names on this blog, posts will start disappearing. If it keeps up, I’ll talk with Cameron Barrett. I enjoy debating with you, but there’s only so much toxicity in a debate that I’m willing to tolerate. Understand?

Good, now we can be civil.

Keeping Mubarak in power has been a mixed blessing at best, because his methods helped radicalized the Muslim Brotherhood further. A decent portion of al-Qaeda was born in Egyptian prisons, with Bin Laden’s second in command one of those whose radicalism grew greater in prison.

Look, I’m realistic about our options there in both directions. I don’t think we’ll be getting a Jeffersonian Democracy there anytime soon. However, if Egypt does take a more Democratic direction, it’s a good idea to be in good with the new power players, if only in sheer machiavellian terms. If we want to maintain Egypt as an ally it’s not a good bet to alienate those who might determine the next successor.

Too much of foreign policy on the right these days works from kneejerk fear, and too much of the politics is based on the fear of apocalyptic scenarios that are in reality fairly unlikely. Egypt’s army has more political pull than the Muslim Brotherhood, and even the Muslim Brotherhood is more sedate now than it once was, for fear of bringing back the stinging rebukes that came in the wake of the attack on those tourists.

But tell that to Glenn Beck, and the Islamophobe GOP elected officials who treat even the slightest chance of such a revolution as an absolute certain which requires heavy-handed intervention.

You say we need a peaceful and pro-western Egypt. I agree. The disagreement we have is how to get it. My belief is, getting the support of the average Egyptian is critical to maintaining that advantage. To write them off as “sheeple” (No, calling a person a sheep, a term implying mindless conformity, couldn’t possibly be insulting) or as “cannon fodder” or as dupes will not help us get that support. Neither will the kind of heavy-handed intervention to save a non-democratic system. We need to support the kind of institutions and the kind of integrity that makes us look good to these people to the extent that’s possible. We’re marketing ourselves, look at it that way.

KAP-
I don’t think Mubarak’s replacement is necessarily going to be all hearts and flowers, even if he shows up on St. Valentines Day. No, what I think is that we have a chance to get somebody better than Mubarak, and a better system than a thirty year dicatorship. Reform is a relative matter, and any improvement, in my view, is welcome.

As for butting our heads in? For me, the defining attitude is one of recognizing that we can’t withdraw from the world. We will have to do business and protect ourselves and our interests. Our problems at home are not mostly about the inability to run our own affairs, as the unwillingness. I think all the nihilism and despair about politics is next to useless. You live in a civilized country, you’re going to have them. You need to make the effort to make sure they’re better ones. You don’t really have a choice, if you want a society that works.

tom humes-
It really would do you some good if you kept you arguments squared on what’s actually being debated. Yes, I am a fantasy writer. But I’m actually one who likes political realism in his work. Why is it assumed that because a story features magic or supernatural elements, that the writer is a clueless or feckless about real world matters?

And really, should we look at the foreign policy of the right, and think it any less magical? Democracy spreading throughout the world because God wills it? Vast swaths of the American population under mind control?

And really, if we want to talk about people with questionable mental faculties pulling down large incomes for making up fantasies, one only has to look to the millions of dollars that FoxNews pays Glenn Beck to entertain his audience with his fiction.

z-
Wiki-answers is the source of your response on the Russian military. Heck, Wikipedia at least requires things to be sourced.

Beretta9-
1) For the sake of a stabilized region? How about to get cheap oil. Our motives were not that altruistic. As for herding goats? You call me condescending? Our ancestors, at the beginning of this country, and in the places they emigrated from, were largely rural, largely pastoral and agricultural themselves. It’s not until the 1920’s, and various industrial factors came to fruition that most people started living in the Cities and suburbs. We had to successfully combat diseases and bring about sanitation before that happened.

The alternative we had was to treat those people as equals, to honor their religion, honor their capacity for reason. Instead, we subjugated them, exploited them imposed modern society on them in a way that threatened their traditional livelihoods and their traditional ways.

As for blacks?

The poverty rate among blacks has been cut in half. Sure there are still cultural problems, but the recovery from centuries of discrimination is never quick or easy. Your source on those statistics happens to be a guy so libertarian, he thinks people should be able to sell their own organs, and states should be able to secede from the union.

As for illegitimacy? The rise among blacks is higher, but not unique. Traditional marriage is just not seen as necessary for many modern Americans, who, in my opinion, are intimidated, rather than comforted by all the ritual, the expense, and the expectations. You blame the welfare state for the rise in poverty, but there was none. You also neglect the social effects of urban renewal, and the effect that the sexual revolution of the sixties and seventies had on social mores and stigmas.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 4, 2011 10:54 AM
Comment #318132

Please, let’s try to be civil towards each other. We all understand and acknowledge that politics and political beliefs get many people fired up and passionate. It’s only natural.

WatchBlog was created to be a place where civil discussion could be had among people of different political viewpoints. Name-calling and derogatory terms do not help.

If you cannot follow these simple rules, you will be asked to leave.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 4, 2011 12:34 PM
Comment #318133

SD
You are back in your old groove. You are coming off like you are the only one with the facts. That is how some on WB have interpreted you. If you are going to castigate Glenn Beck, who I do not watch, then do likewise with, as you would say, “your side”, the same way. Much fiction comes from MSNBC mainly, but other outlets the same. When you only label one side and not the other, then it comes off as dishonest. You continually charge “your side” with error and yet you do not look at historical facts as straight up. As a typical liberal, you spin and twist facts to meet your criteria, and then call “your side” as being in error. When it comes to financial items you again try to paint the pix as though you were an economist, and if someone cites a responsible economist you treat them as not responsible or not qualified to speak of economics.

You need to look at the truth more often and seek the truth exceeding more often. The theories of life just don’t cut it.


“Traditional marriage is just not seen as necessary for many modern Americans, who, in my opinion, are intimidated, rather than comforted by all the ritual, the expense, and the expectations.”

I acknowledge that it is your opinion. But I will respond that intimiadation is not the situation. It is moral character. It is humanism at work. It is the attitude that the institutions that God put in place are not being honored and the moral fiber of the world today is showing the result of that. Of course, this lack of morality flows into the day to day activity of society. Whether it be politics, finances, education or whatever lane of travel one wants to consider, and yes even in the “churches”. This lack of morality has become part of the character of the “leaders” of today. Lie, cheat, steal, lust, are far to prevalent in society. It is a way of life for many people. It is the reason we have huge problems in society. The fixes for any of the problems should be first and foremost a strong moral fiber in ones being. If that miracle could occur, many of the problems would almost just disappear because of the righteous and honest decisions made.

Posted by: tom humes at February 4, 2011 12:48 PM
Comment #318134

Stephen, A slim-to-none chance of getting someone better, more likely they will get the same, if not worse, than Mubarak. Stephen, maybe if you got out and traveled the world especially the Middle East your optimism would change. It’s time the U.S. realized it cannot be the world’s peacekeeper in that area. Each country in the world has a stack in the area and needs to chip in with the duty of peacekeeping. Maybe we can lead the charge but not be alone in the battle.

Posted by: KAP at February 4, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment #318135

Mr. Daugherty begin his post with this quotation…

“As it says in one particular obscure document:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

The general Welfare clause has been used numerous times by dems and libs to rationalize much of the socialism we are now experiencing to include the HC bill.

Now comes Federal Judge Vinson from Florida with a ruling on the constitutionality of this bill. His Summary Judgement includes this assessment…

“It is difficult to imagine that a nation which began, at least in part, as the result of opposition to a British mandate giving the East India Company a monopoly and imposing a nominal tax on all tea sold in America would have set out to create a government with the power to force people to buy tea in the first place. If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be “difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power” [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only. Sure this is not what the Founding Fathers could have intended.”

It will be interesting to read how the dems and libs on WB will structure their disagreement with what Judge Vinson wrote.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 2:47 PM
Comment #318136

“Please, let’s try to be civil towards each other.”

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 4, 2011

Thank you for your admonition. I should not have referred to anyone in particular as being a “Sheeple” and I will refrain from such wording in the future about any individual.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 2:52 PM
Comment #318137

KAP,
As long as people seek power for the sake of power we will continue to have problems without solutions. That is true in America, Egypt, or any other nation. And why you can blame the people, just look at the Republicans and Tea Party here in America promising to cut government spending. Sure they want to cut some money out of some programs; however, when the rubber hits the road they have added to the debt.

Thus, as citizens all we can do is to hold our Elected Officials to their promises and words and vote them out when they fall short of those Principles and Standards. For why the burden of governing has, is, or will never be easy. We can only wonder what the next few months, years, and decades will bring to the World. Besides, can America handle a Middle East willing to run with us in a Race to the Top?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 3:03 PM
Comment #318138

Royal Flush,
I agree with the Judge. We should not mandate citizens buy health insurance, but instead mandate that any health insurance policy sold provide a provision which allows the customer to invest part of their premium in their Local Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes. For if we truely want to follow the Constitution than Business should start respecting the Rights of the Individual which would be hard if not impossible to prove to date.

For why insurance should be there when one needs above average health and medical attention; however, by everyone in the Community investing in a viable Medical Staff as was done in the past by our forefathers and ancestors than their everyday health and medical needs should be taken care of at a set price.

Now, good luck getting the Health Insurance Companies and Republicans signing up for that plan.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 3:17 PM
Comment #318139

Henry, What pray tell are you talking about? Most of your comments are like Zen riddles.

Posted by: KAP at February 4, 2011 3:19 PM
Comment #318140


“The fixes for any of the problems should be first and foremost a strong moral fiber in ones being.”

That is the big rub Tom. Who determines morality in a nation of individuals? God?

I try to be a moral person. I don’t eat big mac’s but I do own and drive a car. I believe nothing is more immoral than war but I was a member of the military.

It is hard to be moral when there are so many desirable but immoral things to choose from. Many people, including many Americans think the American way of life is immoral. Example, what the bankers did with the housing derivatives was immoral, but you can do a lot of rationalizing if the result is $10 million in your pocket.

Many of the people who voted for Rangel are good moral people even though he is not. Many who voted for Vitters are moral conservatives even though he is immoral.

Morality is often distorted by rationalization. Example, liberalism is immoral. The 911 terrorists rationalized their immoral acts and we rationalized Iraq.

Conservatives may see a correlation between the rise in immorality and the rise of liberalism or progressives.

I see a correlation between the rise in immorality and the rise of corporate power and the influence it has on our government, but more so on our society.

The knowledge needed by humans to create a civilization was obtained in the Garden of Eden and Adam disobeyed God, supposedly committed an immoral act to obtain it.

Posted by: jlw at February 4, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment #318141

KAP,
Knowing that the Democrats and Republicans are technical Politically Correct “Just Because” having the Guaranteed Civil and Constitutional Rights as an American Layman Citizen who is not learned in Law or Criminal Justice I to am also allowed to hold a Politically Correct Position. Something every American should have learned by now. And though it is just My Opinion, figuring out how Labor and Management can work together in order that “The Corporation” in order to provide All Americans with what they need to help build a Green Sustainable Government & Society is something you need to talk to your Children about. For unless you want to allow this Unlearned Unbridled Anti-Authoritarian Child of the 70’s by Freewill and Self-Nature to rule the world than Americans only have one way to go.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 3:43 PM
Comment #318142

Henry, Another Zen riddle?

Posted by: KAP at February 4, 2011 3:52 PM
Comment #318143

KAP,
Not a Zen Riddle, but one which is meant to make you think outside your normal point of view. And one you need to ask the Youth of Today about since most of them can tell you why I remain a Rotten 10 year old Child.

BYW, you are telling how young you are at this point.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 4:34 PM
Comment #318144

Just as I suspect this administration will ignore Federal Judge Vinson’s ruling on the HC legislation, here’s another Federal Judge’s ruling being ignored by this outlaw bunch in the WH and in the Interior Department.

“Federal judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana excoriated the Obama Interior Department Wednesday for defying his May 2010 order to lift its groundless ban on offshore oil and gas drilling in the Gulf. Nine months later, not a single permit has been issued. Several deepwater platforms have moved out of the area to take their businesses — and an estimated 5,000 jobs — overseas. Billions of dollars in potential oil revenue and Gulf lease sales-related rent have also dried up.”

http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2011/02/04/the_interior_departments_culture_of_contempt

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 4:37 PM
Comment #318145

KAP, Henry is only cryptic when you chose to not understand the message. He has actually been spot on with some of the things he says, but it isn’t what you want to hear, so you choose to be rude. Your attack on character and interpretation is not any less an attack.

Posted by: jane doe at February 4, 2011 4:48 PM
Comment #318146

RF…… “outlaw bunch”?
You conservatives on here are like a group of spoiled little brats. If and when you don’t get your way, you throw yourselves on the ground and kick and scream and wail until somebody pays attention to you. Then when the attention comes in the form of getting your asses busted, your indignation has no bounds.
You might get more consideration when your references are someone more legitimate than Malkin.

Posted by: jane doe at February 4, 2011 4:58 PM
Comment #318148

So sad Jane that your comment didn’t include any comment on the “outlaws” choosing to ignore our Federal judiciary. Outlaws are those outside the law in my dictionary. And this bunch in Washington is certainly outside the law.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 5:09 PM
Comment #318149

Hey KAP…perhaps you should kindly ask Jane to explain what Henry means…lol.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 5:25 PM
Comment #318150

Royal Flush,
The one thing the author forgot is that by no law does Our Government have to issue a permit. And why the Judge and anyone esle can cry all they want. All the Interior Department has to do is say they are reviewing any proposals.

To me it sounds like the author is complaining because she thinks its ok if the oil companies can’t come up with a better plan than the one they all had before BP screwed up this past summer. For on those grounds alone it has already been proven the oil companies haven’t met the requirements of the permit which was in place before the BP spill. No mention of that problem huh?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 5:27 PM
Comment #318151

Royal Flush,
Care to tell me how I am wrong? For if the boy with the most toys at the end wins than jump!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #318152

It just occurred to me why Jane responded they way she did. Senator Chuckeeee Schumer revealed the new structure of our federal government by saying…We have three branches of government, the house, the senate and the president. Apparently the judiciary has been cancelled as a branch of government.

I guess our third-graders must now attend re-education classes as they would all get it wrong if asked about our federal governments structure.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 5:33 PM
Comment #318153

Henry, I can’t tell if you are wrong or right, I don’t understand what you wrote either.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 5:34 PM
Comment #318154

Royal good idea. Jane what does Henry mean? I’m not a cryptologist.

Posted by: KAP at February 4, 2011 5:38 PM
Comment #318155

“To me it sounds like the author is complaining because she thinks its ok if the oil companies can’t come up with a better plan than the one they all had before BP screwed up this past summer.”

Your exactly correct, Henry. The reason that no permits have been issued since the moratorium was lifted is very simple: the oil companies cannot demonstrate that they have the capability of containing a BP type spill. New technology is being developed but is not yet available.

Posted by: Rich at February 4, 2011 5:40 PM
Comment #318156

How about the Federal Judge the author quoted Rich?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 5:45 PM
Comment #318157

KAP & Royal Flush,
Go talk to your Local Political Leaders and get educated. For I realize that Ignorance is a trademark of Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders; however, Stupidity is not allowed by the Youth of Today. Thus, unless you are willing to admit you are wrong in your Learned and Unlearned Knowledge than I am not the one you want playoing the Political Game since years ago it was decided that no One Man can be a Monoply.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 5:49 PM
Comment #318158

Huh?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #318159

Does anyone besides me find it incredible that a few hundred thousand demonstrators in a far off country can bring the most powerful leader in the free world to his knees. The dictionary has replaced the photo of Carter with that of Obama behind the word…”LOSER”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 4, 2011 6:40 PM
Comment #318160

Royal Flush,

This quote from an article on the lack of new oil drilling permits pretty much sums up problem: “What happened this summer was pretty dramatic,” said Joseph Stanislaw, an independent energy adviser at Deloitte & Touche. “I think everyone agrees that people really need to work out the rules.” http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/12/news/economy/offshore_drilling_moratorium/index.htm

I don’t doubt that the regulatory mechanisms may have swung from unreasonably lax to unreasonably restrictive. That’s simply human nature in response to a major disaster. Nobody wants a repeat on their watch.

It is certainly an important issue and deserves public debate. We need oil and the jobs it brings. But, we also cannot tolerate addition spills like last spring. It is a balancing act. How much risk should the US tolerate? What minimal safety and mitigation standards should be required?

Posted by: Rich at February 4, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #318161

Royal Flush,

You seem to think that Obama could have saved Mubarek. You are in a distinct minority. None of our allies, with the exception of Israel, agree with that assessment. In fact, they have been outspoken in support of the protesters, e.g., the conservative, David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK was emphatic in his support of the protesters.

When the Egyptian military stands neutral, what do you honestly think that could be done to save Mubarek short of sending a division of US troops to suppress the demonstrations?

It seems to me that we need to accept the fact that their is an inherit risk in supporting totalitarian regimes. Sometimes, the people in those countries are going to revolt. There is not much that we can do under those circumstances. Blaming Obama for Mubarek’s fall is nonsensical. Blaming Carter for the Shah’s fall is equally nonsensical. They sowed the seeds of their own destruction.

Of course, if you are willing to invade the country, like the Soviet Union did in Hungary, you might be able to restore the totalitarian regime for a time. But, I don’t think that the American public is up for that.

Posted by: Rich at February 4, 2011 8:07 PM
Comment #318162

RF, your “author” doesn’t have the credentials to be taken seriously. She is little more than a self-aggrandizing wannabe, and citing being a contributor to the faux news network, is not a big plus.

Posted by: jane doe at February 4, 2011 8:28 PM
Comment #318163

Royal Flush,
Are you trying to say President Obama is a loser because he chooses to follow the teachings of non-violence? Or is it because he did not follow President Bush and invade Egypt when their own Military stood down?

No, you need to look back 40 years ago and learn why Authprity can destory itself before you start calling others loser. For it is kind of funny that Peace is the most lethal weapon a Warrior has to face. Why do you think Mubarak supporters attempted to use violence against the few hundred thousand demonstrators and lost?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #318165

“For it is kind of funny that Peace is the most lethal weapon a Warrior has to face.”

Such an ironic truth.

Posted by: Rich at February 4, 2011 9:24 PM
Comment #318166

The only “FACTS” that Mr. Daugherty recognizes is his on sources. His answer to Tom Humes mention of Glenn Beck:

“And really, if we want to talk about people with questionable mental faculties pulling down large incomes for making up fantasies, one only has to look to the millions of dollars that FoxNews pays Glenn Beck to entertain his audience with his fiction.”

Glenn Beck is probably one of the best on cable news about including facts and sources. I don’t believe Mr. Daugherty has ever seen Glenn Beck’s show.

He again attacks the source of “Z”. Then he attacks Beretta9’s source as being unstable. I read the article and Walter Williams is probably one of the most intelligent men in America.

I guess, in order to please Mr. Daugherty, we will all have to get our facts from the dailykos. Would that please Mr. Daugherty?

Royal Flush, good idea on jane doe interpreting Henry; but would the result be the Zen leading the Zen, and all falling into the ditch?

Obama is proving he is in way over his head. The alternative, gaff Joe, is even worse.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 4, 2011 9:39 PM
Comment #318167

Henry, Obama is way over his head on this middle east thing, even Hillary isn’t doing much better. IMO Hillary and Obama need to be talking to Bill and George to get some first hand advice on how to handle the situation in Egypt and the rest of the Middle East.

Posted by: KAP at February 4, 2011 9:45 PM
Comment #318169

Flush, CT, z, you’re all pathetic in your attempts to be witty. Your insight and your field of vision would all increase if you’d pull your heads, or one collective head, out of your butts!! You need to look farther out than what you get at that range to be able to speak with any substance.

Posted by: jane doe at February 4, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #318170

jane doe

I feel left out. So enlighten us on the view we should have. You have condemned us for our view but you have not submitted the alternative. What is it? You say we don’t speak with substance. I have never heard you speak with substance. So what is it we should consider?

Posted by: tom humes at February 4, 2011 10:42 PM
Comment #318171

KAP,
Sometimes the hardest thing an Adult, Parents, or Leader must do is to allow things to happen in their own way and at their own pace. Besides, I’m sure a lot more is being done behind closed doors which will never see the light of day. For how do you save Mubarak and still allow Egypt to progress forward?

Flush, CT, Z,
Still can’t face the fact that Republicans are not, can not, and never will be Absolutely Right. And while the same can be said about the Democrats, it seems the Liberals of today don’t have the same problem as they did in the 1990’s. So why are Conservatives today finding it so hard to believe they are wrong even when their plan to degut the Fedeal Government has not worked?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 4, 2011 11:45 PM
Comment #318174

Henry, Obama was told about the unrest months ago and did nothing except be surprised that it happened. Now he is blameing the intel community for his own mishandeling of the situation. I’m sure alot is being done behind closed doors to like trying to figure out who to blame so Obama don’t look bad. Obama sure did allow things to happen in their own way and pace. Now he don’t know what to do about it. Like I said he needs to sit down with Bill, George 1 and George 2 and maybe he can get some good advice on how to handle the situation because he sure aint doing to good hisself.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 12:26 AM
Comment #318176

KAP,
President Obama and the Leaders (both Democratic and Republicans) were told about the tension in Egypt and other Nations in the area; however, at no time were they told there would be a peaceful non-violent protest which would draw international media coverage. In fact, look at facebook and tweeter to see just how quickly things happened. Last night in a matter of a couple of minutes I saw over a thousand tweets just on Cario and that was around midnight EST. So tell me what Bill, Geotge 1, and George 2 could tell President Obama about a technology they don’t understand?

Like I said the hardest thing to do as an Adult, a Parents, and a World Leader is allow the Youth to have their Voice heard. Just ask the Youth of the 60’s and Silver Spoons of the 70’s what they had to go through here in America before they were allowed to have a Public Voice.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2011 1:30 AM
Comment #318178

KAP,

According to the testimony before Congress, the CIA intell of late 2010 only said that there were rumblings of unrest. It could not identify the source of the unrest or pinpoint the specific causes.

From all available data, the street revolutions of Tunisia and now in Egypt are based on internal economic dissatisfaction coupled with repressive regimes. They are a sort of Arab tea party revolt by youth organized by modern communication devices (internet, mobile phones, tweeter, etc.). What is striking about the “revolutions” is the absence of an ideological or religious basis beyond a call for democratic representation. You don’t see the traditional death to America or religious chants emanating from the crowds. Mullahs are not leading the revolts.

The traditional lens for interpreting this movement will not work. It is different.

I don’t know what GH or GW could contribute to the debate. They had very different approaches to the Middle East. One was a realist and the other an idealist (Bush Doctrine). Some on the right claim that the call for democracy is a vindication of the GW Bush Doctrine. Others claim that it was abandoned as unworkable. Conservatives are split on whether to embrace the movements or to fall back on their traditional support of friendly totalitarian leaders.

We are in uncharted waters. Perhaps, we should heed the frequent advice of GH Bush during his tenure to act with caution and prudence. I think that Obama has done exactly that thus far.

Posted by: Rich at February 5, 2011 7:23 AM
Comment #318179

Rich & Henry, If congress and the WH were told of the civil unrest in both Egypt and Tunisia I would think they would keep an eye on the situation and not be surprised when things blew up. As far as GH, GW, and Bill Clinton contributing to the debate would be their experiences which would at least give Obama some choices other then his own on how to handle the problems. IMO I don’t think the world leaders take much faith in this administration in it’s handling of foreign affairs.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 10:07 AM
Comment #318180

First let me bring a bit of good news to folks about the prospects of America remaining friends with Egypt.

According to Nate Silver at the NYT 538, A plurality of Egyptians think well of us now, by 45 to 29 Given that the previous numbers were 79 to 18 percent unfavorable, it’s good timing that Mubarak falls now, rather than earlier.

Cultivating good relationships with people can pay off, in the long run. This isn’t about some Kumbaya spirit, this about the simple calculus of interests. If we are friends, we have friends. If we have friends, we have influence. If we have influence, we can see to our interests in ways we otherwise could.

While some allege that the way to defeat our enemies is through force and intimidation, fact is, those are the hardest means to influence people by, and the ones that prompt the most resistance. People gravitate towards it because of the sense of greater power, but really, if you look at Iraq or Afghanistan, you’ll see that the sense of greater power is only that. In reality, there is no easy way to order people around to do what we want them to do.

Royal Flush-
Really, Michelle Malkin is not the most careful of sources.

To wit: Martin Feldman had oil investments at the time he made the decision. That’s what we in the reality-based community call a conflict of interest. Was he serving his own interests or the interests of the public? We can’t know, in this case.

Oil was lapping on the shores of that state from one of the worst oil spills in history, and he was calling the deepwater drilling ban “arbitrary and capricious, and therefore, unlawful.”

Some of his legal reasoning stuck, but I believe those quibbles were resolved enough to make it difficult for Feldman to take additional action. You’re not going far enough into the nuances of the law that back the ruling. So long as Obama’s folks address the concern that was at the heart of the ruling, Feldman can’t come back and put an injunction on the new executive order without getting reversed on appeal. Neither can they challenge an executive order or decision, if there isn’t a law saying that the Executive branch must do a certain thing.

Going further, Vinson’s ruling will probably be struck down itself. First, as one guy pointed out, government can and has regulated inactivity. What else is a draft, or jury duty? Or George Washington’s requirement that every American equip themselves with a gun, ammunition, and other supplies so they can be part of the state militias?

Second, there is a very reasonable case to be made that the healthcare business crosses state lines, and that the effects of people seeking out the emergency room as their provider and running up debts by doing so is affecting interstate commerce.

Third, the necessary and proper clause allows Congress to write laws and create agencies of a type not explicitly laid out in the constitution, in order to carry out the functions that are listed in the constitution.

Vinson probably screwed up by claiming that he had to throw out the entire law because of the unseverability of the mandate clause. He might have smiled to himself writing that one, but he actually doubles back on his own argument. If you’re arguing that the rest of the law doesn’t function without it, and you aren’t successful in redefining commerce clause powers, then necessary and proper kicks in by definition. If Congress has the right to regulate insurance, then it has the right to do what is necessary and proper to carry that out, so long as it doesn’t run afoul of any other constitutional prohibitions.

Vinson’s ruling is pure judicial activism, and worse for your point, a muddle mess as to its actual effect.

See, he did something very odd: he refused to put an injunction on the law’s being carried out. That would have been a very simple thing to do. But instead, he said that his ruling should be treated as a functional equivalent of one.

?

The guy just seems to be making it up as he goes along, and as a district court judge, his ruling would only have pull at the federal level if the issue was unambiguous at teh district court level. Other judges have shot down such cases, so no, it’s not binding, as of yet.

The Obama Administration did something similar when a District court judge ruled DADT unconstitutional, and went ahead and kept carrying out the law.

This ruling is mainly political theatre, and should be dignified with no greater regard than that. Your judge is legislating from the bench.

KAP
Should I have to warn you as well? Henry has his own style. He could do a better job of explaining what his particular sets of words mean, but that’s his concern.

If you want us out of that section of the world, then find some way to resolve our obligations to Israel, and our need to maintain oil supplies coming from the Middle East. Then we can speak of withdrawing.

Until that time? Well, the question I would ask you is how do you know we won’t get better than Mubarak? Why is that conclusion a necessary one?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2011 11:18 AM
Comment #318181

Stephen, What pray tell are you talking about. Warn me for what? Because I wrote Henry’s comments were like a Zen riddle to me? Your comments are sometimes like a Zen riddle. You are at it again reading something I never wrote. I never said to get out, I said that the rest of the world has to get involved in the region to because they have the same interests as we do in the region. We can’t do it by ourselves. As far as Mubarak, I don’t know if we would get better then him, but chances are we won’t. I am not as optomistic as you are seeing how I’ve been to that area of the world and seen first hand how it is.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 11:40 AM
Comment #318182

Jane Doe wrote; “Flush, CT, z, you’re all pathetic in your attempts to be witty. Your insight and your field of vision would all increase if you’d pull your heads, or one collective head, out of your butts!!

KAP wrote; “Henry, What pray tell are you talking about? Most of your comments are like Zen riddles.”

Now comes Mr. Daugherty writing; “KAP
Should I have to warn you as well?”

Mr. Daugherty’s warning to KAP concerned his reference to a comment which is well within the WB rules.

Jane Doe’s comments were directed at certain individuals by name, which is outside the WB rules.

One wonders why Mr. Daugherty warns one, abiding by the rules, and ignores the other, outside the rules.

As with politics it would appear that WB has become a place where power prevails, not justice or rules.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 5, 2011 1:22 PM
Comment #318186

Mr. Daugherty again responded by attacking RF’s source:

“Royal Flush-
Really, Michelle Malkin is not the most careful of sources.”

Again I ask the question, is there any source other than dailykos, which will be accepted by Mr. Daugherty.

Mr. Daugherty attacks the judge who told obama to open up the drilling in the Gulf. Let’s add to this another story of obama blocking oil exploration in the continental US:

“ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Shell Alaska has dropped plans to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea this year and will concentrate on obtaining permits for the 2012 season, company Vice President Pete Slaiby said Thursday.

The recent remand of air permits issued by the Environmental Protection Agency was the final driver behind the decision, Slaiby said at a news conference.

Alaska receives upward of 90 percent of its general fund revenue from the petroleum industry, and top state officials reacted strongly to the decision. U.S. Sen. Mark Begich, D-Alaska, blamed the Obama administration and the EPA.

“Their foot dragging means the loss of another exploration season in Alaska, the loss of nearly 800 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs,” Begich said. “That doesn’t count the millions of dollars in contracting that won’t happen either at a time when our economy needs the investment.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Shell-No-Beaufort-Sea-apf-844337881.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=main&asset=&ccode=

Let me ask; is it the goal of obama and the socialist liberals to completely shut down the production of oil in America?

If the flow of oil was shut down in the Middle-East as a result of war or the Suez being disrupted, what would America do? This is a potentially dangerous problem and the leftist on WB continue to attack conservatives. At what point does the leftist on WB begin to think of the security of the country?

Pertaining to jane doe and Mr. Daugherty’s failure to recognize her personal attacks; is it really a surprise? Jane doe’s one or two sentence responses to anyone have always been personal attacks. I have never seen any of jane doe’s comments actually contribute any logical thinking to the debate.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 5, 2011 3:54 PM
Comment #318189

Conservativethinker

SD is just being the liberal SD that we know him to be. His last words of wisdom lacked wisdom, so they were just words. Anybody can sit in front of their word processor and type out words to spill onto the screen and some people will eat them up as insightful and smart and wise. I am still waiting for SD to put something together that makes sense instead of some drivel from daily kos or other left-wing stretching machines.

I asked jane doe for some results. She must be still working on something.

Posted by: tom humes at February 5, 2011 4:29 PM
Comment #318192

Conservativethinker asks a question that I have wondered about for years…”At what point does the leftist on WB begin to think of the security of the country?”

Liberals believe in group rights, not individual rights and that is the first clue to their thinking about security. You see, they can not imagine anyone having the ability or drive to take care of themselves, without some advantage provided by government, and so must depend primarily for government to provide security. For them, security is found in the herd, not in themselves.

And, since liberals believe that government has all the answers and is supreme in its thinking, there simply is no need to think for themselves about security. Security is a government worker tending to their needs and doing their thinking for them.

Government tells them that fossil fuel is bad…they believe it. That incandescent light bulbs are bad, they believe it. That nuclear power is bad, they believe it. That school choice is bad, they believe it. That traditional marriage is bad, they believe it. That unencumbered talk radio is bad, they believe it. That smoking in an outdoor park is bad, they believe it. That balancing our budget by spending less is bad, they believe it. That not taxing folks for not purchasing something is bad, they believe it. That creating incentives for real jobs in the private sector is bad, they believe it. That having a secret ballot in union elections is bad, they believe it. That the welfare clause refers to government handouts, they believe it. That many in the world hate us because we aren’t nice, they believe it. That Ronald Reagan played no part in the fall of communism in the Soviet Union, they believe it. That simply spending more money on education will improve it, they believe it. That we have the worst health care system in the world, they believe it. That we must apologize to the entire world for our sinful past, they believe it.

Liberals are a really pathetic lot.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 5, 2011 5:09 PM
Comment #318194

Reality will hit liberals when we have no fuel, no food (because trucks, trains, and farmers have no fuel), no electric to plug electric cars into (because power plants aren’t running and solar or wind can’t handle a fraction of the load) and of course no one has electric cars (because they cost too much and no one has jobs). When the government is broke and the government checks don’t get mailed out. When a major city or sports event gets nuked by terrorists who just walked across the border, unhindered (because liberal socialists don’t believe in protecting the border).

I am a student of the Bible (of which liberals do not believe, because God was not able to preserve His Word), and I am also a student of Biblical prophecy. The United States is not mentioned in prophecy and I have often wondered why a nation, as great as America, would not be mentioned. The answer is simple, America has become irrelevant. It is happening before our eyes. These are very exciting times, not because of our downfall as a nation, but because God is bringing all things together.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 5, 2011 5:36 PM
Comment #318197

KAP,

I don’t actually disagree with your point that consultation with former presidents might be helpful. However, they rarely do it or publicly acknowledge such consultations. GW famously said that he had not consulted with GH before the Iraq invasion. Many thought that Brent Scowcroft’s editorial advising against the Iraq invasion was a veiled message from GH to Gw.

Your entitled to your opinion that world leaders don’t have much confidence in the current administration. I would disagree and point out that international support for the US has risen dramatically since Obama took office. That is a fact. Stephen points out the increased approval of the US by Egyptians in recent years.

Posted by: Rich at February 5, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment #318200

KAP, Et. Al
It’s one thing to critique a message, and I’m not sure I understand him sometimes myself. But you folks seem to be beating up on him, ganging up on him rather than asking for clarification.

Be civil with him. Treat him with the respect you would demand of others, while you’re busy demanding it from me.

Now, if you think I’m in to censorship, understand something about me: I don’t like to look as if I need to censor you to win. I’m a very competitive man, but I believe that my victories in any debate come from defeating my adversaries in full view of everybody else.

But I don’t tolerate people acting like bullies, being trolls, or spamming up the works to destroy the forum. I want to beat you fair and square, and I want you to have to do the same. I will not let folks on this site try to win arguments by getting so nasty they drive away those who believe otherwise.

That, by the way, is part of why I remain patient and part of why I stay. I want to keep this a place where those who win in the marketplace of ideas, win because they sold themselves well, not because they lit everybody else’s store on fire.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2011 6:21 PM
Comment #318201

These are very exciting times, not because of our downfall as a nation, but because God is bringing all things together.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 5

I am quite certain that your knowledge of the bible exceeds mine and I have enjoyed your quotes from it.

I am a Christian and don’t worry any about my life after death as I have confidence in the words of our Savior Jesus. I do worry about our nation however. We were given free will when created so the war, bloodshed, poverty and misery we have on earth is what we have willed or neglected to eliminate ourselves. How and when the end of this age will come is not for me to say. That it will is certain.

I believe we are in for very difficult times and quite soon. My heart grieves for the young of the nation as they will not experience the America I knew and loved. What we have become is grotesque in many ways. Yet, I have hope that with prayer and diligence we may yet salvage something of a future for them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 5, 2011 6:23 PM
Comment #318202

KAP,
Try being American free of Liberal and Conservative Teachings. For why they do have a role to play in our politics and society, being American means more than accepting the idea that I Can’t Do Anything Because They (Authority) Will Not Let Me.

And why that might be hard to understand for some, let me ask you if you think your Mother and Father are always Right? Than ask your Children if they believe you are always Right? Why you may not like answers, the fact still remains that even the best of us with the best intentions can always be mistaken. It is a matter of which side of the fault you stand on that makes the difference. Just remember there is a difference between being Authoritarian and Anti-Authoritarian.

Royal Flush,
Look back at the turn of the last century when poeople were supporting Whaling vs. Oil because it is not that Liberals don’t like oil, but they recognize its limitations. For example; can the oil industry alone guarantee us that they can increase production by 100% in the next fews years and maintain that supply for the next 40-50 years? And since that answer has already been given by the Worlds’ Leading Oil Experts after Katrina, why would you support a dying industry?

Conservativethinker,
America is talked about in the Bible if one cares to look. And though not mentioned by name, unless you are willing to admit that 150 years of Political Leadership in America has not helped lead to a Nation among nations than you are simply mistaken. For why I can’t and won’t say that the best of America has been shown over the last 30 years, I do believe the edication it has given the world during that time has made everyone realize that Government and Society can do a lot better than “Race to the Bottom.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2011 6:38 PM
Comment #318203

Stephen, I was civil with Henry. This isn’t the first time I asked what he was talking about. Saying his comments are like a Zen riddle is not IMO being disrespectful or bullying it is in fact asking to be clear on his comments. I suggest you convey that message about being civil to some of the left sided writers also.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 6:43 PM
Comment #318204


“Liberals are a pathetic lot.” Their saving grace, conservatives. They make liberals look good.

Because of nuclear fallout, the birds living around Chernobyl have brains that have shrunk to the size of conservative brains.

Two decades of oil under American soil so drill baby drill. Then what? How many of you conservatives will be dead in twenty years? Spoiled brats seems like a good description.

Is it possible for Americans to live their lives and have fun doing it without being the most wasteful people on the planet?

“If the flow of oil was shut down from the Middle-East”

12% of the oil we consume comes from the Middle East. Park the gas guzzling SUVs and we won’t miss that 12%.

The oil will run out and according to conservatives, we should let the kids worry about that. Why not. Use it up as fast as we can and then we can argue about something else.

Tea party conservative Rand Paul says we should stop borrowing money to give to Israel.

Tea party caucus leader Michele Bachmann says we should cut aid for our veterans.

Posted by: jlw at February 5, 2011 6:45 PM
Comment #318206

Henry, What in God’s name are you talking about.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 6:47 PM
Comment #318207

KAP,
Do you believe everything you are told by the Republicans? Yes or No.

Do you believe everything you read from Liberal and/or Conservative Oulets?

Do you believe Business has to conduct itself in the way it has for the last 40 years?

Do you believe Consumers will always be Ignorant?

The answers might surprise you considering America and Humanity are struggling with those same questions today. However, just look back 40 years ago on how Business and Consumers conducted theirselves and tell me they are the same today. So what makes you think that 40 years from now people will be acting the same way they are today?

Now, learning how to think 40 years or 100 years into the Future is something that is not taught by Politics, Religion, or even Civil Society. Hence, parents ain’t as smart as they think they are!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2011 7:14 PM
Comment #318209

Henry, the answer is NO to all the above. But what has that got to do with the crap going on in Egypt and the middle east? Henry, if you would quit writting in riddles people might take you a little more seriously and understand what you are trying to convey, but as long as you keep writting in riddles nobody is going to understand you.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 8:22 PM
Comment #318210

KAP,
What does the price of wheat in America has to to with the value of the Dollar? Nothing since food and oil is exempt from our standard of inflation; however, with the cost of wheat and other food products being increased by speculation and higher fuel prices on Wall Street not to include the Corporate Farmers needing to make up for the lower prices of their land. One could and has said it has everything to do with the unrest in Egypt and the Middle East.

So how do you suggest America and Humanity deal with the high cost of food? Freeze prices? Attempted in the 70’s and had bad results. Force Egypt and the Middle East to increase the money make per day? Good luck on that idea considering Conservatives and Republicans alike are trying to decrease the pay of Americans.

However, consider building Green Houses large enough so the people in Egypt and the Middle East can produce their own food and not be concerned about how bad Wall Street is screwing up the global market with their speculating.

See, thinking smarter than your parents is easy.

Posted by: Henery Schlatman at February 5, 2011 8:57 PM
Comment #318211

I for one do not understand most of what Henry is saying, and I have said so on many occasions.

Jlw, my question was, “If the flow of oil was shut down in the Middle-East as a result of war or the Suez being disrupted, what would America do?”

And you response was, “12% of the oil we consume comes from the Middle East. Park the gas guzzling SUVs and we won’t miss that 12%.”

Let me pose a few of questions, if you are able to answer them without spewing liberal rhetoric:

1. Where does the rest of the world get their oil?
2. What would the loss of oil do to the world’s economy?
3. Do we have an alternative to oil at this time or within the next 20 years?
4. Who should get rid of their SUV’s first: politicians, the Hollywood crowd, businesses, or elitist liberals? If we are going to get rid of SUV’s, then what about pickup trucks? What about fuel guzzling semi-trucks, or locomotives, what about fuel guzzling container ships? Why no shut down cruise lines, they do nothing except take people on vacations, and they use a lot of fuel. Perhaps you could tell us, how much fuel is actually used by SUV’s compared to all the other ways fuel is used?
Henry said, so eloquently:

“For example; can the oil industry alone guarantee us that they can increase production by 100% in the next fews years and maintain that supply for the next 40-50 years?”

Well, we’ll never know Henry, because the liberal socialist president and his administration has stopped the flow of American oil and has even defied a court order to do it. So, let’s just plan on America coming to a standstill.

And Henry, I dare not ask you to prove the Bible speaks of America. I am not sure what you might come say.

Could someone please explain to me; when did Mr. Daugherty become the manager of WB? Does he feel it is his job to step into the vacuum left by David Remer. Is he now threatening to sensor people from WB?

“I believe we are in for very difficult times and quite soon. My heart grieves for the young of the nation as they will not experience the America I knew and loved. What we have become is grotesque in many ways. Yet, I have hope that with prayer and diligence we may yet salvage something of a future for them.”
Posted by: Royal Flush at February 5, 2011 06:23 PM

Royal, my heart also grieves, but the powers that be are aligning themselves in the way God has prophesied, and America will be nothing more than a reflection of Europe and subservient to Europe.


Posted by: Beretta9 at February 5, 2011 8:59 PM
Comment #318212

Conservativethinker-
Glenn Beck regularly counts sources from considerably fringy and unreliable individuals. This Charming anti-semite is one This guy, W. Cleon Skousen was so extreme, the hard anti-communist right of the day thought he was fringe.

The fetish for sources and bibliographies is a fetish for appearances. The sources have to say what you think they say, and they’ve got to have credibility themselves to begin with. The fringiness of the sources that Beck use, and their acceptance today, are an indication of how far Conservatives have strayed from their real roots. These are the people the founders of the modern conservative movement rejected, for the precise reason that the modern Liberal thinks they’re such wonderful targets: they’re insane.

Of course, even insanity can be sold as truth if surrounded by a compelling enough wrapper.

Meanwhile, Z’s Source is essentially somebody saying something on one of those answers sites. I might start to look for an answer to a question on one of those sites to look for other links, but I wouldn’t typically want to use one of those sites, since there’s not much documenation to the claims made there.

As for Walter Williams, I don’t mean to be unfair, but what would he have those folks do, sell a kidney? You can claim he’s one of the most intelligent men in America, but I can claim that illegitimacy rates are rising across the board, and that the increased promiscuity isn’t merely an artifact of dependency, not unless you want to blame the sexual revolution in general for that.

As for where you get your facts? Maybe you can start by going beyond simply what the rightwing pundits and dittoheads shovel your way. They never give you the chance to examine things for yourself, but instead push the latest BS from your party directly.

Maybe you could get over your prejudice against the non-conservative media, and not filter so much for perceived politics. Then you could read science magazines, trade publications, neutral sources, and news articles, with a focus on facts, and not which side of the aisle it benefits.

Really, that’s the Achilles’ Heel of today’s conservatives: they consider things that harm their party liberally biased, so it’s monstrously difficult to convince you of negative stories about your side. By contrast, many Democrats were quick to throw politicians under the bus when caught in dishonesty, because we don’t see negative press coverage of them as a sign of a hostile press. We can believe that Murtha’s actions were corrupt, and that William Jefferson was on the take. We can be comfortable with hanging Charlie Rangel out to dry.

We’re not as invested in the defense of our politicians as your folks are nowadays.

That’s crucial. What the Republicans can’t admit, they can’t correct.

As far as oil goes?

What you can’t clean up, you shouldn’t be given the chance to mess up. Oil jobs are not the only jobs hanging in the blance. Oil interests are not the only interests we have. Giving corporations everything and anything they want to in order to pump up the economy is what we tried and failed at toing before.

As for energy and the rest of that rigamarole?

You may be content to wait around while our society fails, you may believe it fore-ordained, but I am not. My patriotism doesn’t lead me merely to think the best of my country. I go out and try to do what’s best for my country.

Ultimately, we cannot remain dependent on oil. We cannot simply let China become the Green Jobs capital of the world, or the sole Rare-Earth element materials manufacturer. We cannot wait, like you seem willing to, for America to go to hell in a handbasket.

As for biblical prophecy? The bible is a key, not the door. God could not inspire man to write the destiny of every man in a book that a human being could carry. That is why he gave us commandments and parables and all that, because those things could guide each of us individually, along with his grace.

I think we are called upon to be stewards of what we are left in charge of, and whether this nation is meant to go downhill or not, we are meant to take care of it to the best of our ability, and that will be what we are held accountable for.

I will not take America’s absence from the bible as a sign of God’s foreordained forsaking of our nation. I will take that as a sign to us that our future is not for us to know. That may be his challenge to us to do great things, or his mercy for us to spare us the horror of what’s to come. But I consider my God to be just and merciful, and I believe that he would want us to make the best of our lives, and for others.

God will bring things together in his own time and his own way, regardless of what we flawed humans believe will happen.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2011 9:02 PM
Comment #318214

Henry, What you are saying is fine in theory but can it be put to a practical use. You don’t really need green houses just soil and water in that area.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #318216

Stephen, “I will not take America’s absence from the bible as a sign of God’s foreordained forsaking of our nation.” “2nd Chronicles 7-14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from Heaven, and forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” If you don’t think this land of ours don’t need healing, I feel sorry for your generation.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 9:23 PM
Comment #318217

SD
“God will bring things together in his own time and his own way, regardless of what we flawed humans believe will happen.”

That is correct

But why should I allow so much of the liberal, progressive, socialist, left-wing proponents do so much damage to this great country as well as the world?

Much of what you said above is your opinion. You did not state it as your opinion. You wrote as if it was factual. Too many time facts and opinion get mixed up like a salad. You write as if your sources are absolutely correct and any source on the opposite side of you is in error. That is elitism. Whether you want to admit it or not you practice elitism. Your reference to Glenn Beck and Cleon Skousen are only your opinion. Otherwise take chapter and verse of Skousen’s writing and refute it. Don’t just say he is nuts. Show us where he is nuts. That is a classic case of opinion and not factual approach. Do the same with Beck and refute exactly what he said that is wrong. Add Michell Malkin in the mix. She also was called unreliable. BTW-Skousen was not as you portrayed him above. You got that from some left-wing source. When he was Chief of the Salt Lake City PD he was widely respected by many people of many striptes.

So you can continue to refer to these people, and others, in whatever way you want to, but it will be chaff in the wind if you cannot prove that they lie, distort, and all those other ways the left tries to show they are whatever you call them.

Posted by: tom humes at February 5, 2011 9:33 PM
Comment #318218

KAP,
Look at the average tempature and rainfall in the Middle East. Than include Dust Storms and other factors related to growning corn and wheat. For why it once held true that Egypt could grow more food than they could consume. Today, they don’t even come close to meet those demands. So yes a Green House Farming System would work today as well as 100 years from now.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment #318219

Henry, Your theory is good. You mentioned dust storms in actuallity in that region they are sand storms. Do you realize the damage they would cause to a green house?

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 10:02 PM
Comment #318220

Henry, Google green houses in Egypt, you will find that they already have them.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #318221

Royal Flush-

Critique the Message, Not the Messenger. This means you may critique any points made in another person’s writing or comments. But, you may not criticize the person themself, nor their right to comment at WatchBlog. This also means you may not criticize categories of people who visit and participate at WatchBlog (e.g. All Democrats are commies or, All Republicans are idiots). To be in compliance, critique of what other WatchBlog participants say, must be aimed at the points being made in their content.

Trolling and flame baiting are NOT acceptable. This means comments whose primary effect is to provoke hostility or anger in other participants at WatchBlog are not tolerated.

Jane doe should consider herself warned as well, in fairness. You’re pushing buttons, too, intentionally provoking others, and me as well, by the looks of it.

Read the above quotation, and consider that you may be far closer to the line, or far more over the line than you figure you were.

Moving on?

The freedom of speech is an individual right. So is the right to be secure from unwarranted and unjust search and seizure. So are a number of the rights we stand for, including now the right for a person willing to pay for health coverage to get it.

I don’t know why you’re telling me what I can and cannot imagine. A lot of my principles on financial regulation come from the certainty that people will look out for their own interests, and be quite smart about it. Unfortunately, the intelligence that allows people to play by the rules and succeed also allows them to figure out ways to cheat each other, or make money in ways that are dishonest. People, as individuals, can adapt to a system that encourages immorality as well as they can adapt to one that rewards virtue.

I do not believe Government has all the answers because I don’t believe any person or any group of people has it either. I believe Government can be useful for certain purposes.

You say we believe that fossil fuels are bad because the government tells us. Sorry, it’s scientists we believe, and who we believed from the start. The Warming Skeptics take more of their lead from their Washington politicians than we do.

We believe incandescent bulbs are inefficient because its a scientific fact. You can compare the watts necessary to generate the same light, and the life of the bulb, and calculate both the savings and the relative efficiency.

On the subject of Nuclear power, the real question is where you put the waste. Your politics doesn’t alter the quantum physics of nuclear decay, nor the elements that are susceptible to it. Rather than browbeat liberals over their concerns, maybe you should advocate for a push to reactor designs that generate less waste, or which convert the waste to a less dangerous end product.

On the subject of school choice? The question is whether we are asking the federal government to pay for somebody’s private school choice. If you’re talking about magnet and charter schools, about realistic systems of accountability, that I can agree with, but I believe that private and public school systems benefit best from being separate. We shouldn’t be subsidizing private education, especially on behalf of somebody’s church.

Is traditional marriage bad? No, not in my opinion. I would like one someday, in fact, when I meet the right woman! I think it can coexist just fine with people who just want to be partners, and folks who want to be married as same-sex couples. I don’t insist on telling a consenting adult that they can’t be married to the person of their choice.

As for unencumbered talk radio, unincumbered by what? A contrasting point of view, a response to their statements? What the Talk Radio pundits want is not to be contradicted. Where in the constitution is the freedom against being gainsayed? The airwaves are licensed to the station owners for use in the public’s interests. Shouldn’t the public have some use of those airwaves beyond the reinforcement of one party’s political points of view, especially in markets where conservatives are just one of a number of political factions? Conservatives have plenty of outlets for their pure political position, especially now in the internet age. What’s the necessity of them keeping a public resource, licensed to them by the public, all to themselves? That is neither fair, nor balanced of a way to operate the airwaves.

As for balancing our budget by spending less? We’ve shown a willingness to do it. In fact, we absorbed many of the costs of the Healthcare bill by spending less on things. Ironically enough, the Republicans attacked us on that, claiming, falsely, that we would cost seniors their benefits. We’re also, of course, more flexible about taxes, which is part of why we’ve run lower deficits over time, and proven better at reducing debt and deficit than our counterparts. That’s historic fact, the direction of the graphs telling the story. Obama would have had a smaller deficit this year than last, had he not given in to the Republicans on their temporary extension of the tax cuts for the rich.

Republicans will have to ask themselves a question: will any fiscal policy work if all you do is try to cut spending? They’re not even willing to touch most of the federal budget from the outset, and they’re quite willing to ignore politically inconvenient deficit-increasing measures- like repealing the HCR law.

On the subject of the mandate, a lot of Democrats hate it. They’d prefer a public option, medicare buy-in or moreso, single payer. But I guess you were looking to paint us all as being one solid group of unthinking believers, so it’s only natural you would run right over that disagreement among us.

As for thinking that creating jobs in the private sector is bad? No, not at all. We’re happy to tout private sector job numbers.

On the secret ballot? Well, actually we’re willing to have both that and Card Check.

On the welfare clause? We think it refers to the general wellbeing of the country, which contrary to the comments by many of the right-wing pundits, we’re actually interested in. If the elderly

As for many of the people in the world? Well, damn you would think that bombing somebody’s neighbors, invading nearby countries, disrespecting current allies, and doing all those other things would get them coming to us in droves to help start a fan clup! It’s common sense: step on people’s feet, kill folks they identify with, cause destruction, let things go chaotic in a country, and they won’t like you.

And not being liked is a problem when you aim to ask people favors. Again, common sense.

On the subject of Reagan? I think many would give Reagan credit for arms control, for his efforts to make peace with the Soviets, and push for the opening of those countries to the west. He didn’t beat the Soviets all by himself, if that’s what you’re asking, but he certainly did a lot better than some of his Neocon advisers would have had him do in bringing the end of the Cold war.

I believe that you get what you pay for. That said, how you pay for it, and what you pay for is important. I don’t however, believe that defunding schools will improve performance. Just my funky little opinion.

As for the healthcare system? Well, you can have an extraordinary healthcare system, in terms of what it can do, nominally speaking, but it’s not going to do you much good if people can’t afford to actually use it. I mean, every car dealership could sell just Ferraris, and those who could afford them could get real performance, but everybody else is walking at that point.

Since, unlike Ferraris or other cars, people can’t realistically do without healthcare, especially given the aging of our population, it doesn’t make much sense to let the healthcare system simply grow expensive beyond people’s ability to pay for it, or for the people helping folks to pay for it to get so arcane and arbitrary about their systems to make it similarly useless to people.

Finally, I believe that we must face the sins of our past, even as we keep the great things we’ve done in mind. We must realized we’re only human, and so were our forebears. Like other peoples of other times and countries, we’ve got our strengths and weaknesses, and so did they. Just as I would not condemn them, I would also not engage in the particular pernicious practice that’s so popular nowadays of disparaging the character and intellectual abilities of today’s average American.

As for what kind of lot we are? I think we’re better off than your poor, inaccurate estimation would allow for. We’ve got something else to live for, to fight for, than just obstructing and blocking our political opposition. We’ve got an actual political direction of our own, not merely a shadow built of obstruction and unrelenting negativism towards the beliefs and agendas of others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2011 10:08 PM
Comment #318222

Beretta9,
“For example; can the oil industry alone guarantee us that they can increase production by 100% in the next fews years and maintain that supply for the next 40-50 years?”
Well, we’ll never know Henry, because the liberal socialist president and his administration has stopped the flow of American oil and has even defied a court order to do it. So, let’s just plan on America coming to a standstill.”

Like I said the Experts have already proved the oil industry can’t guaranteed it. Just link to Peak Oil Production

KAP,
Now look for green houses that cover 40 acreas plus. With enough sand glass ain’t the problem.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2011 10:22 PM
Comment #318223

Bretta9,
As far as the bible goes, look up the History of Man and how Americas’ Founding Fathers viewed the clause ” a Nation among nations” the results might surprise you.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 5, 2011 10:29 PM
Comment #318225

KAP-
Christ says “Blessed are the peacemakers”, “love your enemies”, “Love your neighbors.”…

The pattern is one of doing our best to reduce tensions, mediate disagreements, reach compromise, treating others in good faith and in a good manner.

That, to me, is how you heal. While some may need to be taught it, others, I feel, need to be reminded of it. This nation will not be saved by the Right being unforgiving towards the left, treating them like mortal opponents.

tom humes-
Of course much of what I said is my opinion. But not merely my opinion. The Conservatives of yesteryear, even the Mormon Church itself did back away from Skousen.

As for elitism? If strong beliefs make one an elitist, you just called most Republicans on this site elitists. I doubt they think of themselves that way on that account. To strongly believe ones own opinion superior is not elitism.

I do my best to offer evidence to justify my belief in the superiority of a given theory or idea. I do not expect people to simply assume the correctness of my beliefs.

That to me represents my egalitarian feeling about knowledge and understanding, that it is open to whoever wants to seek it. At the same time, I also believe that the real world constrains what is right and wrong, regardless of what station one has. This means both that an elitist can be right if their facts and their inferences are good, and that they are wrong, regardless of their station, when they got them wrong. The strength of one’s self-regard is not a factor in the good or bad of one’s opinion.

The thing of it is, I’ve provided some examples of Beck’s excesses. So, I believe I have him covered. I refuted the actual factual charge that Malkin made quite a few comments ago. As for the source being left-wing, what does that have to do with it being right or wrong? Why don’t you answer that question, rather than argue at all turns to deny my evidence as worthless on political grounds?

Berreta9-
Since you judge whatever I say to be liberal rhetoric, I cannot meet your standard for proper answers.

If you are more concerned about the politics of an answer than the facts, you will always be caught up in a loop of vested interests. You won’t want to give in, because you’ve rested the value on what you say on how well it refutes the other side.

Oil today is sold on a fungible market, one that takes oil from all over and sells it all over. We wouldn’t be keeping anything we bring up. The electricity we generate here, though we can keep here.

The loss of oil, all at once would be crippling. So would it’s gradual decline without replacement fuel sources.

We have alternatives right now, feasible technology, that would allow us to at least begin the transition. The technology now is not as good as it ever will get, but it’s still good, and the advances in the computer chip industry and in materials science is helping advance our ability to generate power by other means.

As for who gets rid of their SUVs? Well, those who can’t afford to keep them up. That’s what left Detroit high and dry between 2004 and 2008. The simple costs of energy have taken the kind of vehicle that was once popular and cost effective, and turned it into a boondoggle for consumers.

SUVs tend to use between 10-20 MPG. Ten gallons gets you a hundred to two hundred miles. Hybrid engines and smaller vehicles use 20-50 MPG, which means the same ten gallons can go from 200-500 miles. I get about 400 miles for my tank.

You complain about a liberal socialist president ruining things, but the truth is, with folks gearing up automotive demand in other countries, with everybody wanting what we want, efficiency must grow, dependence must be reduced or eliminated, or else we’ll all be fighting over the scraps.

That’s the cold hard truth of globalization, of growing economies in the developing world.

On the subject of being the manager of WB? I’m not. I’m a Contributing Editor, which means that within limits, I have the power to junk comments and edit out offensives stuff.

I do my best not to abuse it, and to be frank, I don’t like messing around in that realm too much. I like to be one of the boys, not one of the big boys. But I don’t want to be looking over things and just see one nasty flame after another. I came here many years to get away from political discussion that simply degenerated into exchanges of nasty insults.

I believe we are in for time of testing, but that is not necessarily a cause for despair. We were tested at many points throughout the last century, and we came out the better for it many times, a more prosperous, more innovative, more powerful nation.

I don’t believe this time has to be any different. We can suffer setback and disaster, even after all we’ve been through, but I don’t have much desire to go through life a gloomy gus, predicting that we’ll just crash and burn.

I don’t believe that America’s best days must be ahead of it, but I do believe that America’s best days can be ahead of it. But first we got to open ourselves up to the possibility. We got to be willing to take the chance, when the opportunities come to us.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 5, 2011 10:51 PM
Comment #318228

Stephen, You miss the point, It is all about the permissive behavior we have come to know in this country and low moral standards. It isn’t just about loving your neighbor and enemies and being a peacemaker, an athiest can do that. Christ also said the two great commandments which contain the ten commandments 1 Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 2. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Do you think God will have mercy on this land with all the murdering of innocent children by abortion, and all the depravity going on daily. This country has turned it’s back on God. There is no right or left it’s one way God’s way period.

Posted by: KAP at February 5, 2011 11:36 PM
Comment #318231

KAP,
You talk of all the abortion, all the depravity going on gaily; however, you fail to mention the act of Freewill. For if this country truely has turned it’s back on God than shouldn’t the Conservatives and Republicans stand up and take their blame.

For who is it that want to give tax cuts to the Rich while cutting the entitlement programs for the Poor?

Who has said for years that it shouldn’t be up to the government to help their citizens?

Yes, the right in this country may talk about the left being against God; however, given the actions and words of those on the Right they woyuld have a hard time proving they are willing to love their neighbor especially if that neighbor happens to be a Democrat.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 2:24 AM
Comment #318233

KAP-
Yes, even an atheist can learn to forgive, to love their neighbor as they love themselves. But you know what? If those who are not called upon by religion can learn to make peace with others, as God has told us to do, what excuse do we have for being more belligerent than them?

Our lord tells us that if we make a big show of our religion, if we are ostentatious about our faith in God, then we’re getting the reward we’re going to get on Earth from those we’re trying to impress, and not from God.

The fact that it all comes down to two issues, most of the time, is just evidence of that. Abortion and Homosexuality are barely mentioned in the bible. In the Mosaic code, the death of an unborn child is not even considered the equivalent of the death of its mother. Homosexuality gets mentioned in the law once or twice, and in the the New Testament a couple times, and that’s it.

But hey! What better means to get people riled up? Unfortunately, its all the Christian Right can seem to get riled up about. Wall Street steals from investors and from pensions funds. The Housing Lenders seduce people into loans that are beyond their means. Credit Card Companies deliberately go after people they know are credit risks because they can charge them more fees on the debt they build up.

But are we talking about the immorality of that? Thievery and deception are much talked about in the bible, but not much talked about by those out there in the GOP. And if so, their aim seems to be to put an even lesser burden of laws and regulations on the people responsible.

The moralism of the Right seems focused on condemnations of the poor and out of work for being too lazy, on calling for longer sentences in harsher prisons for the same offenses, on trying to undo women’s liberation, and liberate people from the necessity to be fair and well mannered with those they consider their inferiors.

At least, that’s the broad gloss of it from my side. I recall the scene from the movie Saved where the girl throws something at the lead character and says, “I am full of Christ-Love!” and that seems to sum up the way Christianity comes across in politics these days. It’s a language of threats from within and without, homosexuals recruiting as if it were the army or the football team, abortion being held to be the equivalent of murder, a slaughter of the innocents even when its just an undeveloped embryo that’s being removed. The marketing of the right tells them that most people find the elective abortion of child in later term pregnancies abhorrent, but they talk as if women are just lining up around the block to have it done, when it’s actually extremely rare and mostly done for medical reasons to children who have no viability, or even no life at all.

That’s how it goes. Homosexuality actually isn’t so common as its presence in the media would suggest. The controversy, the fear that boys and girls would choose to have only same sex relationships if given half the chance, is overblown.

But it sure does make for sensational press, doesn’t it? Offenses against nature, murder of the innocent, and a culture to fight back against that embodies complete moral decadence.

The people who fight in these culture wars, fight believing that by doing so, they’re storing up points with the big man, and saving the country or even the world. Ha! Take that, Satan!

But the Devil is trickier than that, and God knows it. That, in my opinion, is the primary reason why Jesus talks about peace and forgiveness, rather than conquest in a worldly fashion. Why? Because when you start telling yourself that you can transcend ordinary morality to fight evil, you start becoming capable of greater and greater evil, only without the inhibition of conscience.

Limits in behavior have their value. When we start crowning ourselves as true believers, whose efforts and expedient measures are all sanctified by God, then we become as wicked and rebellious as any person we may care to defeat.

And those we would seek to convert, or force to our morality would see that, and react accordingly. They see our imperfection, and with our lack of mercy and forgiveness, we become hypocrites. Nobody likes to be dictated to by a hypocrite, by a person who will not live under the rules that would set for them.

Human beings can choose to seek knowledge, or settle for ignorance, seek wisdom, or settle for foolishness. They can seek to fulfill Jesus’ commandments in regards to others, or they can find some reason for picking fights, waging wars, showing contempt for others. That doesn’t change what he asked of us. It doesn’t change that at a fundamental level, Christ’s good news isn’t simply about a choice to accept him, but also a choice to accept his ethic of forgiveness, and respect for others.

The Devil’s genius is in telling people that so long as they’re fighting for good, that they’re failures to follow that ethic will be overlooked. After all, they are teaching people about Christ’s good news.

But teaching them about it that way teaches something very different than teaching them by way of true kindness, true forgiveness, true mercy, and true efforts to make peace and not pick fights. It teaches a kind of duplicity, a two-faced approach to Christianity that nullifies Christ’s insistence that it isn’t enough simply to do good to those who do good to us. We’ll love our enemies, that duplicity says, after we’re done utterly defeating them in your name.

Well, with the way feuds and political divisions carry on, do you ever really get the chance to heal those divisions you’ve helped make and/or maintain? There are many adults alive, myself included, who never saw the beginning of the culture wars in America, and many of the men who still fight it, who still cast their fire and brimstone on Non-Christians and Moderate to Liberal Christians are nearing the end of their years. Many, in fact, have already gone to whatever judgment God has in store for them.

You think it will end any time soon, and then, finally, all can be forgiven? How many people will, in that time, feel the harsh sting of rebuke from those they see being no better human beings than they, if not worse? The danger in adopting the pretension that you are God’s favored children is that you will not perceive when you have crossed the line, when you have become more wicked than people are willing to bear, when your own conduct has alienated people from God’s love. You will simply assume that what you are doing is God’s will, and that those who oppose you are God’s enemies, and deserve what they get.

This is why I conceive of the Gospel as definitely divinely inspired, for the insight into human nature that it provides is truly inspired indeed.

Simple fact is, folks make mistakes, and there’s no way to go back in time and not have done those mistakes. If unforgiving attitudes are the norm, if there is no recognition that people can learn from error, forsake their mistakes, then there is no escape from our flawed nature, no redemption.

Even if you repent of the mistakes, you still made them, and the notion is, you must pay the price for what you’ve done wrong. But the world is complex, and its necessities are pressing, and we often start out not knowing the full scope of the consequences that our actions can carry. From initial conditions like these comes the chaos and confusion of life, and we never really get an ideal or complete picture of how to avoid the pitfalls and snares, not even from the bible- even as we read it, we still have to understand it, and how much effort do even the literalists put into that?

Even after we are saved, we are still vulnerable to sin, and we can still fall, because salvation isn’t merely God offering us his forgiveness. It’s our accepting of that forgiveness, our acceptance of its necessity. If we continue in error, despite what we have been told, then we aren’t really asking forgiveness, but permission to continue without punishment.

God knows we can do better, but he also knows that if the person asking you to do better is not open to repenting of their sins or offenses against you, then they are going to be a stumbling block to you. That is why he talks about removing the beam in your own eye before removing the speck from somebody elses. That’s why he talks about being good to your enemies, loving your neighbor like you love yourself. It’s about both consistent teaching, and representing the promise of redemption in your person as well as in your rhetoric.

There’s no point to being inconsistent. The true best use of Christianity in politics is not the ostentation of one’s faith, but the carrying out of faith in works that quietly do the work that Christ set for us in his gospel. The true best use of Christianity in issues is not in these hot-button issues which draw people to set themselves in opposition, but in the quiet consideration of the basic morality and compassionate necessity of each issue.

You need to find it in yourselves to make peace with the rest of us, to find ways to project Christ’s goodwill, instead of imagining yourselves the instruments of his judgment. He has that judgment well in hand. Your task is to be a guide, not a stumbling block for people who might be seeking the Lord in their hearts.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 6, 2011 10:00 AM
Comment #318235

Henry, Did I mention any single group? NO!!! You are reading something that isn’t there. If you would read the last sentence I wrote it states “THERE IS NO RIGHT OR LEFT IT’S ONE WAY GOD’S WAY”

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 10:05 AM
Comment #318236

Stephen, I don’t mix politics and religion. I just showed you something from the bible, and it’s up to you to take it or leave it. As far as being saved, yes we are going to fall we are only human and God knows we are weak. But He does give us a way of forgiveness by asking to be forgiven, I do it every day Stephen. You said I need to find a way to make peace with the rest of us, God says I have to love you, but I do not have to tolerate your actions or your ideology or anyone elses life styles.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 10:18 AM
Comment #318238

KAP-
Tolerate? The question is, are you given a choice in how they act? I believe the answer in this country is no, for the most part. So, I would say Christians need to develop their people skills, rather than try to make theocratic principles work here, given how they didn’t in Europe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 6, 2011 10:47 AM
Comment #318242

Henry S. writes; “…why would you support a dying (oil) industry?”

We recognize that oil has uses other than for fuel. We recognize that oil is essential for the wheels of commerce to turn and for our very lives. Without oil tens of millions on earth would perish. Until we have sufficient supplies of alternative fuels to replace oil, I will support it. I would be a fool not to.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “This means comments whose primary effect is to provoke hostility or anger in other participants at WatchBlog are not tolerated.

You’re pushing buttons, too, intentionally provoking others, and me as well, by the looks of it.”

Please explain how I am to know in advance if a comment is provoking anger in a reader? And, how would you know my intentions? Much of what Mr. Daugherty writes provokes me and makes me angry. Will he censor himself? I will follow the rules as I understand them and if that’s not good enough then go ahead and ban my writing.

Under the leadership of Mr. Remer WatchBlog was mostly democratic and I would hope it remains as such.

We now have a gatekeeper who, in my opinion, will apply the rules of writing on WB according to his ideas of what is offensive to him.


Posted by: Royal Flush at February 6, 2011 12:01 PM
Comment #318243

Mr. Daugherty; you brought up these points, so I will ask you to explain:

“The fact that it all comes down to two issues, most of the time, is just evidence of that. Abortion and Homosexuality are barely mentioned in the bible. In the Mosaic code, the death of an unborn child is not even considered the equivalent of the death of its mother. Homosexuality gets mentioned in the law once or twice, and in the the New Testament a couple times, and that’s it.”

1. How many times does God have to say He is against something, for it to be true? Once, twice, ten times?

“That, in my opinion, is the primary reason why Jesus talks about peace and forgiveness, rather than conquest in a worldly fashion.”

2. Jesus spoke more of the torment of Hell than get did the glories of Heaven, Why?

3. “Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 6, 2011 10:00 AM”; this entire post is based upon what? Ramblings?
Mr. Daugherty considers himself a Bible scholar, but it takes more than self implication to able to discern the will of God. Mr. Daugherty denies the Bible as being the inspired Word of God, and yet he continues to try to explain God to all of us. My personal belief is that Mr. Daugherty cannot stand the idea that he might not really knbe an expert on everything, so he contines to make a fool out of himself by his comments.

The only thing we know about God, comes from His Word. Since Mr. Daugherty denies the Word of God, we must assume God is speaking to him personally or that he is delusional. I would ask Mr. Daugherty to back his ramblings with proof from the Bible, but he can’t. Therefore anything he proclaims is moot.

On the other hand, true Christians base what they believe on the Word of God. This is the reason many Christians on WB quote verses of Scripture; because they are the proof of what we believe.

Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could explain to us the difference between being a good moral person and being a Christian? Or is it possible to be a Christian and yet immoral? If Mr. Daugherty decides to take this challenge, perhaps he could offer proof with his answer.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 6, 2011 12:35 PM
Comment #318244

Stephen, Ezekiel 3:18-19 When I say unto the wicked, thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand. 19] Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity, but thou hast delivered thy soul. No Stephen I am not gien a choice on how you or anyone else acts, and No Stephen Christians do not need to develop their people skills maybe you need to develope yours. See Stephen all I have to do is warn you of your iniquity.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 12:52 PM
Comment #318245

“Please explain how I am to know in advance if a comment is provoking anger in a reader? And, how would you know my intentions? Much of what Mr. Daugherty writes provokes me and makes me angry. Will he censor himself? I will follow the rules as I understand them and if that’s not good enough then go ahead and ban my writing.

Under the leadership of Mr. Remer WatchBlog was mostly democratic and I would hope it remains as such.

We now have a gatekeeper who, in my opinion, will apply the rules of writing on WB according to his ideas of what is offensive to him.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 6, 2011 12:01 PM”

Amen to that!!!

Remer continuously banned those who disagreed with him, while being one of the most arrogant elitists on WB.

Royal Flush, the question is asked many times, “why is there so much animosity and hatred in today’s discussion of politics?” This very question came up today on a news talk show.

I have a theory; the great division did not begin until Conservative Republicans started taking control of the Congress. For forty years the Democrats ruled the Congress and did pretty much whatever they wanted. But when they lost, under a Democratic President (Clinton), it was more than they could stand. And with the help of the liberal socialist media, the whole atmosphere of Washington changed. Before that time, when the dems controlled everything, RINO’s were just happy to receive the scraps that fell from the masters table. But Conservatism has awakened and we now realize, we actually have a majority of people in America. The loss of Power is a hard thing to overcome. If you remember, many of the old guard democrats retired or resigned after the republican takeover in the 90’s. Likewise, even today we are learning of more old guard dems who are announcing retirement prior to 2012. The reason being, 2010 and obama have given them a glimps of things to come.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 6, 2011 12:54 PM
Comment #318246
We now have a gatekeeper who, in my opinion, will apply the rules of writing on WB according to his ideas of what is offensive to him.

What? Who?

David Remer is no longer Managing Editor of WatchBlog. He resigned his position in March of 2010. His administrative abilities were removed about two months ago.

There is no current Managing Editor of WatchBlog and the only moderation done is done by me, the owner and publisher of WatchBlog. I am paying attention to the threads but am not contributing. I am also relying on the community to alert me if any discussion gets out of hand. You may do so by emailing editor@watchblog.com

Remember that everyone is welcome to contribute here at WatchBlog. The rules are simple: no name-calling, no flaming and no hate speech. Above all, the rule is to be civil towards each other. If you can’t follow these simple rules you will be asked to leave. Reasoned arguments are welcome. Being unreasonable is not.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 6, 2011 1:09 PM
Comment #318247

Conservativethinker, I agree with your theory and would actually call it fact. During the years of Dem majority we had only the 3 major TV networks and the large daily newspapers, mostly supportive of the dems, to inform the public at large. We didn’t have much of an Internet and no political talk radio.

Today, conservative political views can be found everywhere and it may be one reason conservative political thought and expression is growing quickly. And, that is the primary reason the dems and libs are so adamant about crushing conservative talk radio. They know that…”the truth will set you free.”

Jesus never talked about politics, simply saying that we should render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is Gods.

So, we Christians attempt to apply God’s law to our politics as in all other areas of our lives knowing that our nation was founded on a belief in God. There is nothing in the Bible that restricts believers from speaking out against what they believe is not aligned with God’s word and will. In fact, we are urged to spread the good news of the Gospel to every land and ear.

To call a liberal an idiot is wrong by God’s law. To call someones political comment idiotic is not a violation of God’s law or, for that matter, a violation of the rules on WatchBlog. Mr. Remer called some of my comments idiotic frequently and I responded in kind. Yet, I greatly admire Mr. Remer for his many talents and have said so numerous times on Watchblog. That some have a problem with disagreement is sad, they need to grow some thicker hide.

For Christians to hate abortion and homosexuality is not a violation of God’s law and in fact takes His law as the source of that hatred of those acts.

I care little for Mr. Daugherty’s religious beliefs or preachings and just ignore them. He has every right to believe whatever he wants. I have every right to disagree and dismiss. That’s why God gave us the scroll wheel, isn’t it?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 6, 2011 1:28 PM
Comment #318248

Many thanks to the WatchBlog Publisher for taking the time to clear up my misconception. I will abide by the rules of participation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 6, 2011 1:32 PM
Comment #318249

Royal Flush-
Look over your comments again. You may say to yourself “I’m just speaking truth to them!” But the reality is, the folks you’re speaking to far from consider it the truth about themselves. I mean, look at my conversation with CT. I find it offensive to be told that I’m virtually an atheist, that my faith is not real. And when you call me a socialist, and allege all the things you do, that equally offends me. The reason would be plain to me, but not to you: I believe in God, and believe in a version of free-market capitalism, and would like to be taken at my word.

But politics ain’t beanbag, so I got to have some level of thick skin, and to a certain extent, given my ability to just censor flat out, just delete a comment outright, I’ve let you have a lot of room.

Look at everything you’ve written that I’ve let pass, that I’ve left published. Those are posts I didn’t censor. I’m not used to being in the position where I have to make that decision myself. I much prefer to write my essays and my columns, and leave the management up to somebody else.

So, when I apply the rules, in an attempt to keep the rancor from getting too intense, I wait until something is quite offensive, and quite over the line. I won’t tolerate direct namecalling, to say the least. I also won’t tolerate what was happening with Henry, where it seemed like you and the others were essentially just ganging up on him for his somewhat cryptic posts.

If you want an understandable standard, think of me as a college professor running a colloquium of some kind. While I don’t own the college (Cameron does), I do have a degree of authority over the place that this particular debate is taking place at. Now, I’ll let the debate be vigorous, perhaps even a little heated, but I don’t want it to get to the point where people are dropping the seminar because of it. I will moderate when I start losing patience with venom and vitriol. You can be edgy, but I want that edge to have some substance behind it, not simply animosity.

I want to keep it lively, I want to keep it interesting, but I don’t want the people getting the feeling folks are pouring drano into their brains while they’re reading.

In the absence of managing editor, that’s how I will manage my posts.

As for scroll wheels? They’re quite useful, in the way that you mention, but it’s most useful if the dove that flies from the ark can find something to perch on!

I suggest that you be the conservative whose comments moderate and liberal readers can land on without having to scroll away. I consider the point of politics largely to be about persuading people towards the same solution, so giving some people some reason to remain is important to me, and I think it should be important to you, too.

I will respond to the rest with CT’s post.

Conservativethinker-
#318243

1) You miss the point, if you’re simply counting up quotes. Take it from the point of view of a secular humanist, which is what I used to be, for the most part: if you don’t buy the notion that abortion is murder, if you think of it, up to a certain point, as the removal of something that might have developed into a person, but wasn’t that already, then it’s difficult to see, then it’s hard to sell that as a terrible thing, much much less as a biblical slaughter of the innocents.

As for Homosexuality, there are passages in the bible that speak out against it, that deal with it with unambiguous negativity. Again, the question is whether you think of the bible as being inspired by God, or as a virtual transcription of God’s will. Again, without having the latter attitude, folks will not agree that the reduction of barriers to openly practiced homosexuality is a bad thing, and they’ll see appeals to the bible on that count as no more binding than the necessity to avoid Shellfish.

If the point is to have continued, angry political battles, then such typically private issues are ideal for dragging things out, dividing people, and keeping them apart. A lot of people don’t want to be told how to lead their private lives, and see government intrusion in that respect as a violation of their rights.

It’s not as if the conservatives are winning those battles. Abortion remains legal, and tolerance for homosexuality has only increased. Meanwhile, folks see the absence of other positions of consistence with the bible, and a tendency towards aggression and obnoxious rhetoric that doesn’t sit well with the gentle, forgiving picture most of them have of Jesus and his Gospel. They see the preachers more as busybodies, as excessively political figures who are trying to leverage spiritual leadership into worldly power.

The conflict persists. As a political thinker, my attitude would be that breaking up the clean divisions would be a better way to go about things.

2) On the subject of the torments of hell, he spoke quite a lot about how to deal with people, how to deal with God as well. He didn’t just unleash the hellfire. And a lot of his warnings about hellfire dealt with people who wouldn’t extend forgiveness to others, or those who would not face their own sins. Some dealt with the issues of social justice, of the rich hoarding wealth in life, but dealing with the consequences after death. It wasn’t just context-free statements about the dangers of hell, he was trying to discourage a number of distinct behaviors.

3) Am I bible scholar? At best an amateur. But I believe God gives us the wits and conscience to examine his word for ourselves. You can throw insults and abuse at me for what I say, but it’s not likely that I will take your ridicule to heart and change the attitudes you despise. You hurt yourself, in my opinion, worse than you hurt me.

In fact, if we could set an epitaph for religious conservativism’s efforts over the last few decades, those would be much like the words I would put on the stone: “They hurt themselves worse than they hurt their rivals.”

Just look at the Catholic Church. Seeking to deny its secular critics the grounds to criticize them, they shipped around priests who were molesting children and teens. But rather than save them from harm to the church’s reputation, they only ended up bringing even greater shame and harm to the Catholic Church and its credibility.

So many figures on the religious right did themselves similar damage, by assuming their presence in politics, their credibility, was more important than facing the very human realities of their own behavior. People will forgive a person who admits they are human, admits they are fallible, and who forgives and is understanding with others much easier than somebody who sits in judgment and is harsh and unmerciful with others.

I take a lot of guidance from the Gospels and the Pauline letters. I think that stuff, the stuff about how we behave with others is more important than trying to figure out what the sequences of events will be for the last days. I think it’s sufficient to say that the last days, or your last days could come at any moment, and that until we die, we are always put to the test. The difference of the last days will be one of degree and ultimate result. In the meantime, we have to figure out how to live in a good way with each other, and I think that is where the bible is most helpful.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 6, 2011 3:19 PM
Comment #318252

KAP,
I understood what you wrote when you said “I wrote it states “THERE IS NO RIGHT OR LEFT IT’S ONE WAY GOD’S WAY”
However, there will always be groups since No Man can prove “Gods’ Way.” For even the most Rightous Man who has ever walked the Earth still is limited by the words of man to define something that exists beyond the letters, numbers, and symbols created so Man can have Knowledge.

For try and define “God” or “Gods Way” without using the Teachings of Man or the words that have been used in the past to define Mans’ Self Awareness and Self-Knowledge which does not come from the books he has read or the lessons others have taught him. Than attempt to explain how that Wisdom plays out in the Politics of Man since it is a given that the Market is driven by Greed.

For how can a Rightous Man say he is following “Gods Way” even if he is “Greedy” about having everything done Right Regardless? What than becomes of Freewill?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 4:41 PM
Comment #318253

Royal Flush,
We can already make plastics and a lot of other things using Biomass material; however, even if I was to give you your argument about oil than why would you support the continued burning of the resource?

Conservativethinker,
One look at history shows many examples where Christians have been immoral. In fact, many of the Christain Religions today exist because people have thought the Leaders of Christians were immoral. For name me one Christian Religion who has not put their own spin on the Teachings of Jesus or the Bible.

No, a Human can be moral and still not be a Christian. In fact, read the last book of the Old Testiment and you will find that you can be a Moral Man and outright challenge “God” and the Beliefs of any and all Religions if you dare. Because what is the difference between a Human that trys everyday to do what they believe is Right and the Christian who goes to church on Sunday, but returns to work on Monday to a job that by design is meant to abuse and oppress their fellow citizens? Who is the Moral Person?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 4:56 PM
Comment #318254

Henry

You make the fatal mistake of looking at man for everything good and righteous. God is the source of goodness and righteousness.

” Because what is the difference between a Human that trys everyday to do what they believe is Right and the Christian who goes to church on Sunday, but returns to work on Monday to a job that by design is meant to abuse and oppress their fellow citizens? Who is the Moral Person?”

Maybe the one you refer to as a “christian” was not a Christian. There are charlatans in every walk of life. In the religious word there is no exception.

Again, when you look at man for everything good and proper, it will lead to much dismay. When you look to God for guidance, and you follow His teachings, you become a winner.

Posted by: tom humes at February 6, 2011 5:45 PM
Comment #318255

Tom Humes,
Like I asked KAP, define “God” or “Gods’ Way” for surely it can and has been expressed by others to so many different things including how someone should use their Freewill even though their actions and words will cause harm to others.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 6:01 PM
Comment #318256

Mr. Daugherty said:

“Royal Flush-
Look over your comments again. You may say to yourself “I’m just speaking truth to them!” But the reality is, the folks you’re speaking to far from consider it the truth about themselves. I mean, look at my conversation with CT. I find it offensive to be told that I’m virtually an atheist, that my faith is not real.”

First off, I did not say you were an atheist, but I did say your opinions of God don’t mean squat. Opinions are like butts, everyone has one. You have a tendency to state your opinions as if they are fact. I simply say to you, “whatever knowledge we have of God, does not come from opinion; it comes from His Word”, and you do not believe His Word.

You again say:

“Am I bible scholar? At best an amateur. But I believe God gives us the wits and conscience to examine his word for ourselves…I take a lot of guidance from the Gospels and the Pauline letters.”

Then you also say:

“As for Homosexuality, there are passages in the bible that speak out against it, that deal with it with unambiguous negativity. Again, the question is whether you think of the bible as being inspired by God, or as a virtual transcription of God’s will.”

Isn’t this an oxymoron? You say you take guidance from the Gospels and Pauline Epistles and that God gives you a brain to examine His Word, but you go on to say it is not God’s Word.

You go on to explain your beliefs in the torments of Hell (which the Bible speaks of), but then you dismiss God’s judgment upon homosexuality (which you also say the Bible speaks of). The best conclusion I can come to is that you want to pick and choose what to believe out of the Bible, based upon what you believe is sin and what is not. I’m glad God will be the ultimate judge for sin and not you. I believe we are seeing a pattern here: you pick and choose what you want out of the Bible and you pick and choose what is offensive to you on WB. See the pattern?

What I believe is really going on is that Mr. Daugherty has a desire to fill Mr. Remer’s vacancy and has turned over a new leaf. A softer and more caring and compassionate Stephen Daugherty.

But anyway, Mr. Daugherty, since you take a lot of guidance from the “Pauline letters”, and since you are an amateur Bible Scholar, perhaps you could give us your pearls of wisdom on these Pauline letters:

“Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Rom 1:23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Rom 1:24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
Rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
Rom 1:26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
Rom 1:27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
Rom 1:28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;”

Here is a hint: do a word study and you will find it is talking about sexual perversion. When it says “God gave them over to a reprobate mind”, what do you think this means?

The chapter concludes with verse 32, which speaks of the judgment of God upon those who have been given over to a reprobate mind.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 6, 2011 6:07 PM
Comment #318257
What I believe is really going on is that Mr. Daugherty has a desire to fill Mr. Remer’s vacancy and has turned over a new leaf.

I offered the Managing Editor position to Stephen and he declined due to other time obligations in his life.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 6, 2011 6:18 PM
Comment #318258

Henry, Tom Humes explained it well enough. If you want more of an understanding of God and His ways read the bible. What last chapter of the bible are you refering to? The King James the last chapter is the book of Malachi and the Catholic version are the four books of Maccabees.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 6:55 PM
Comment #318260

Conservativethinker,
Tou say you are a bible scholar and say that “God” spoke against Homosexuality; however, you fail to admit what “God” said about those people and how it was up to Man to find a way to keep his word and still not harm those he put on the Earth that engage in Homosexuality. Thus, are you not speaking half truths.

For you see that is the problem Conservatives, Republicans, and Tea Party Members have by opposing President Obama on clean energy. Because unless you are willing to admit “God” wants Man to pollute the Earth to the point it is uninhabitable than you must accept the fact that Renewable Energy offers Man the opportunity to live within “Gods’ Word” of takimg care of the Planet.

Posted by: Hnry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #318261

KAP,
Saying one should follow “Gods’ Guidance or Way” leaves open the Greed of Man to only state what he wants to hear. For just as you and others say you have a hard time understanding me. How can we be sure you are understand the Writtens of the Bible?

As far as the last chapter in the Old Testiment, I have always known Malachi since the Books of Maccabees have only recently been added to the Eastern Orthodox Bible and was never printed in the Orthodox Bible.

However, both prove the point that Ones’ Beliefs and Ones’ Church does not make One a Christian or folllowing in “Gods’ Guidance.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #318262

KAP-
That’s just it, though. What is my iniquity? Is wanting greater fairness and honesty in business dealings iniquity? Is wanting this country to be peaceful with its neighbors abroad, unless it really does have to go war what you call iniquity?

I do not myself view homosexuality as iniquity, although I do not believe in abortion as a personal matter. However, I lived long enough not being a Christian to understand the opposing point of view, and to not presuppose that people are just being callously evil when they do have them.

Now, you can personally take me to task for whatever evil you see coming from me, but keep in mind all you get for pushing the laws and everything else is civil compliance, and obedience of men and women towards other men and women. You can’t get obedience to God that way.

Even the Israelites tried it, and it failed. You hand somebody that kind of power, in terms of both religious and civil life, and it goes to their head, and they’ll lead the nation into sin themselves. The best place for the fight is on the individual level, among free people. But if you’re looking to convince more than just those who are already receptive, you do need to work on the people skills.

Conservativethinker-
First, let me address your theory.

You should be old enough to remember the Vietnam War and the social and sexual revolution, and how people literally got up in arms about that. You should be old enough to remember the controversies about the civil rights laws, and the Nixonian Southern Strategy, not to mention Nixon’s Watergate Scandal. You should be old enough to remember the red scare of the fifties and the big uproar about drug use. You should remember the White Flight, Urban Renewal, the Black power movement and other such things.

I can remember all kinds of different controversies between Democrats and Republicans, long before 1994.

What this looks like to me, is you want to make it all about how great the GOP is, how envious and jealous of that greatness the Democrats are, and how petty the Democrat’s response is.

From my point of view, Republicans have been the poor sports about their political defeats. Is that just a point of view? No, I can back it with evidence of record-breaking obstruction, and truly extreme freak-outs on the Republican’s part. I don’t recall liberals threatening to head to the hills with ammunition. We’re actually somewhat afraid of getting labelled as radicals, as a party, and are much more willing to forsake the folks on the fringier end of the spectrum.

One reason I left the Republican Party, though I was big on Bush and Reagan, was the extraordinarily poor way that I saw the Republicans taking Clinton’s election. I haven’t seen much since then to convince me that the current crop of leaders are very mature.

On the subject of who has the majority? Well, Right now, despite every thing, Obama has a majority of people on his side. He’s doing what they want him to do, making deals, keeping things running properly. Say, unlike his predecessor. The Republicans unwillingness to compromise is going to make their positions very brittle, their efforts make or break. If you will accept nothing less than the ideal result, and you don’t get ideal results, well then you get nothing.

Expect a lot of heat to come onto the Republicans.

Oh, and about those Senators: You should notice that the Senators who are retiring are mainly those who were instrumental in helping your people to maintain filibusters. If the Democrats retain the Senate in 2012, they’ll be gone, replaced either by Republicans, or by Democrats who likely know better than to alienate their base by helping the Republicans to obstruct.

Me? I think even if you get the Senate, the long term Demographics don’t look good. You only ticked off the fastest growing Demographic in the Southern and Southwestern States. You ensured that Blacks would be beyond your reach for the forseesable future by treating Obama the way you have. You’ve also continued to convince my generation that your politicians couldn’t launch musketballs out of their noses if their brains were gunpowder.

Worse yet, you can’t even continue the angry tea party rhetoric now without bringing up the specter of Tuscon. Without constant, effervescent anger, the GOP has to rely on telling people that they’re going to really cut into all the nice things, that there isn’t going to be much of a future.

In essence, through one of the greatest examples of historical irony, the Republicans are now taking the position on America’s future that Jimmy Carter did during his one term.

Obama, in a role reversal of that match up, is going to take the Reaganesque position of optimism, and growing America’s economy in order to handle the obligations weighing on us, rather than imposing draconian austerity.

On the issue of Watchblog? Cameron’s telling the truth. I don’t want the job. I wish he had somebody to help him on that count, because I’d just as soon leave putting the bullies and the trolls in their place to somebody else. I’m happy just being a contributing editor.

I’ve also got no illusions about my objectivity. In the absence of somebody else being there to act, I will act, but I really would rather talk somebody down from being insulting than wield the rather blunt banhammer. There’s maybe one person I hit with that, and that was after years of taking his crap.

As for the bible?

Matthew 5:38-6:1-19, 7:1-28.

Romans 2:1-16,12:9-21, 13:1-7 14:1-12

I don’t wish to be ostentatious about it, since I know full well what the cost of that is, having read what Jesus said on the subject. But I’m not ignorant of what the bible says. I merely have a different opinion. Some argue, for the sake of effect or on account of their emotional reaction to the difference of reading, that when a person disagrees with them on the meaning of the bible, that they are nonbelievers. I think that takes things too far, invokes condemnation far too quickly. God wants us to be civil to one another, even over our profound disagreements. Folks used to understand that, used to understand that we, for the most part, stood as one people, even as we would stand up to disagree strongly.

The first verse of Paul in Romans that I quote is the follow-up to the one you quote. Together, they are a warning to believers not to condemn or judge your fellow Sinners, Jew or Gentile, that leads into a conclusion that NOBODY is righteous. The other verses talk about what that faith entails, what it asks of people.

You should ask yourself, as you cast judgment on people, whether you keep faith yourself. I say this not to condemn you, but to simply remind you that you and those you accuse of being depraved and degenerate are in the same boat.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 6, 2011 8:06 PM
Comment #318264

Henry, RECENTLY? The Roman Catholic Church in the Council of Trent in 1546 declared 11 books of the Apocrypha as canonical which the 4 books of Maccabees is part of. How can you be sure of my understanding of the bible? As one of my Pastors told me check what he preachs from the Bible by reading it for yourself so likewise Henry don’t take my word for it read it for yourself. The book of Ecclesiastes 12:13-14 Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter. Fear God and keep His commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. 14] For God shall bring every work into judgement, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 8:13 PM
Comment #318265

Stephen, You don’t believe Homosexuality is an iniquity yet you say the bible speaks against it and condemns the practice yet you say it, IYO is not an iniquity. You go against, IMO the inspired word of God. So what I get from your comment is that you can pick and choose what you believe to be iniquity even thou God say it is iniquity. It is iniquity Stephen so I stand by what I wrote in #318244.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 8:24 PM
Comment #318266

KAP,
Thanks for provinf my point for what “God” or Bible do you say is the Abosultly Right One. For you say to “Fear God and keep his commandants for this is the whole duty of man” Yet, why should I fear a “God” which commandments I attempt to uphold? Hence the problem of using a word of man to deal with what people read in the bible.

Because just I don’t Fear My Father for doing what he tells me to do or a Government that tells me I must act Civilized in Public, why would I Fear My Creator for listening to his guidance? Should I fear the Trio because I wilfully won’t follow their guidance? Should I fear the Trio for expressing a different opinion than the one My Elders are trying to teach me even when I know they are wrong?

No, Life has proven that “Fear” can mean a lot of things to a lot of different people so one must look further than the word to understand that Fear also means Respect for Ones’ Wisdom. For why I can say you must Fear jumping the Creek. Am I saying you must be scared of the Creek or Respect the fact that it is to wide and unable to be jumped. Since reading the words and comprehending their meaning are the fundamental problems we all face when trying to understand what others mean.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #318267

SD

You are mixing up condemnation of the person and condemnation of the action. It is not wrong to condemn the action. As far as the indvidual is concerned, just because one speaks of someone doing wrong it is not condemnation. Condemnation is the curse of sending someone to a place not known for it pleasant atmosphere. I can say someone is wrong without condemnation of the person.

Judging people is part of the free will given to us. If it were not, then our court system would be non-biblical. We are to judge people. We are to judge whether a person is speaking the truth. We are to judge whether the person speaking from the Bible is actually speaking from the Bible. Discerning what is right and wrong is to be part of our character. That means we are to judge right and wrong.

Henry
There are 66 books in the bible. Where do you want me to start. The middle is Psalms 119. There are 39 OT Books. There are 27 NT Books. I can start anywhere you want to show you about God and his plan for this earth and the people in it. Here is a sample:

Matt 28:19-20
19: Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and , lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

That is God’s will for all mankind.

Posted by: tom humes at February 6, 2011 8:55 PM
Comment #318268

Henry, You fear your father for what he will do to you if you don’t do what he tells you. You fear the government for what it can do to you if you don’t obey civil law. With God it’s the same. As far as the Bibles, Catholic version or King James both are the same except that the King James omitted the Apocrypha. So keep going Henry I can counter your idiotic comments.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #318271

Tom Humes,
Who decided upon those 66 books? And more important how many books did they leave out in order to protect their Authority?

KAP,
If you live your life always going against “God”, your Government, and your Father than you may be right; however, most Humans live their life trying to do what they believe to be Right so why should they Fear anything or anyone?

Yet, still Tom and you still haven’t answered my question to explain “God” or “Gods’ Guidance” without using the words of Man. For though outlawed by Man a long time ago, but there are Signs which prove “God” and his “Guidance.” And as an Anti-Authoritarian whom am I to cross those lines?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment #318273

Henry, God is who ever you want him to be. As for me I’ll take the one the Bible talks about. You don’t have to fear anything or anyone, your the one who has to face the consequences.

Posted by: KAP at February 6, 2011 9:39 PM
Comment #318274

Henry
I quoted Jesus, the Son of God. That is pretty direct.

How many books left out? None.

Posted by: tom humes at February 6, 2011 9:45 PM
Comment #318276

Tom Humes,
Have you quoted Jesus or what you have been told is the words of Jesus? As far as the books left out of the bible just google “Books not included in the Bible” or better yet go back and read history since in the 60’s they had the same debate we are having now.

KAP,
Define the word Fear and than explain how “God” no matter how you want to define him can be Feared. For just as your Government and Father forgives you doesn’t “God” as you define him? No fear has always been easier to control others than earning their respect. Just look at Egypt and the fear of violence used by government to end the peaceful protest instead of the respect the protesters where shown by other Leaders of their Society.

And still you both have failed to explain “God” without using the Teachings and Words of Man.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 10:18 PM
Comment #318278

Henry

“Have you quoted Jesus or what you have been told is the words of Jesus? As far as the books left out of the bible just google “Books not included in the Bible” or better yet go back and read history since in the 60’s they had the same debate we are having now.”

I have it on good authority that I quoted Jesus Christ the Son of God.

And what makes you think the debate of the ‘60’s had anything of substance to contribute. History before the ‘60’s was pretty well established and the facts were well known. Every generation has charlatans who come forth and try to prove the Bible to be in error. They utterly fail, every one of them. They are anti-christ (not The Anti-Christ) and false prophets. The Bible teaches that if you add or subtract anything from the Word you are in danger of hell fire and damnation.

You can continue on your course of non-belief. Several people here have given you information that should help you find the correct way. If you choose to pursue that information it could be a very wise decision on your part. If you choose not to pursue the information, your blood is not on our hands.

Posted by: tom humes at February 6, 2011 10:40 PM
Comment #318279

Mr. Daugherty, in his eagerness to quote Holy Scripture, which he does not believe IS Holy Scripture, has showed his ignorance of Holy Scripture; when he said:

“As for the bible?
Matthew 5:38-6:1-19, 7:1-28.
Romans 2:1-16,12:9-21, 13:1-7 14:1-12
The first verse of Paul in Romans that I quote is the follow-up to the one you quote. Together, they are a warning to believers not to condemn or judge your fellow Sinners, Jew or Gentile, that leads into a conclusion that NOBODY is righteous. The other verses talk about what that faith entails, what it asks of people.”

Sorry Stephen, the warning was not to “believers”. This warning was to unbelievers. Let me give you the rule for interpreting Scripture: Who’s talking, who they are talking too, and what is the subject?

The apostle Paul is speaking:
“Rom 1:1 Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God,

He is talking to the Christians at Rome:
“Rom 1:7 To all that be in Rome, beloved of God, called to be saints: Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.”

The subject is the wrath of God against the ungodly who hold not the truth:
“Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;”

If we pick up with the verse I gave you and follow through the verses you gave; this is what is being said:

These ungodly people not only take pleasure is sin and know of its consequences, but also take pleasure in watching others do the same. You will notice Romans 2, verse 1 begins with “Therefore”, meaning that Paul is drawing a conclusion. The conclusion is that these people (O man) is inexcusable and that God would judge them for their sin. Not one place in these verses are these people referred to as believers or Christians. In Paul’s address to the Roman believers, he referred to them as “saints”; the reference in the following verses are to the unredeemed or unbelievers.

“Rom 1:32 Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

Rom 2:1 Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.
Rom 2:2 But we are sure that the judgment of God is according to truth against them which commit such things.
Rom 2:3 And thinkest thou this, O man, that judgest them which do such things, and doest the same, that thou shalt escape the judgment of God?
Rom 2:4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?
Rom 2:5 But after thy hardness and impenitent heart treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God;
Rom 2:6 Who will render to every man according to his deeds:
Rom 2:7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
Rom 2:8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Rom 2:9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
Rom 2:10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
Rom 2:11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
Rom 2:12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;”

I hate to tell you this Stephen, but believers are not judged by the law. I know you meant to impress me with all your verses pertaining to judging, but you have no idea what you are talking about. But I am getting too deep for a novice student of the Bible like yourself.

In the meantime, why don’t you answer the questions I asked earlier?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 6, 2011 10:55 PM
Comment #318282

Tom Humes,
You cry charlatans, but in the 50’s as in today there are books not disclosed to the public or even found. For just the Dead Sea Scrolls are one that while know about for years are still in the hands of only a few. In fact, a lot of what was thought to be in the 50’s and 60’s has been proven and are being found today.

In fact, the Roman Church in the 60’s and to date have publicly stated they have books during the time the Bible was being compiled that they want release because they fear what it will do to Religion as well as the Governments of Man.

So why Kap, you, and others are completely welcome to stick with your beliefs and teachings, don’t think for a minute that time has stood still and everything you learned 40 years ago has to be the honest truth. For even as we speak this minute new things about the Bible and the writtings in it are being discovered. And so it shall be for the next generation of scholars who are willing to accept the Knowledge of God in a tried and true method.

For why the Earth is not flat as once taught by the Church and we are not the center of the Universe, still as much as things change they still remain the same. Hence, learning is an on going thing that goes past Space and Time. And that is why America has Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders IMHO.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011 11:22 PM
Comment #318283

Henry, You can go on saying what you want but archeology has been proving the bible accurate for years. Yes a lot of books have been written and omitted from the bible mostly for not being canonical. Some of those books are the Nostic Gospels which were written 300-400 years after Christ example the Gospel of Judas written about 300 years after Christ. Some of those gospels claimed Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married and recently an osuary was discovered that had the name Jesus son of Joseph, but it was proven fake by the Israely antiquities people.

Posted by: KAP at February 7, 2011 12:17 AM
Comment #318285

KAP,
Exactly, even the Books in the Bible most people read today have and are under going studies. And why parts have been found to be tampered with, we still do not know the whole story. In fact, it wasn’t until years later that the Enlishman who discovered a Book of Sanskrit written thousands of years ago was proven to have changed the documents.

That is one reason President Reagan had said “Confirm, but verify.” And why the Founding Fathers of America decided it was the Common Knowledge of Man and Common Sense which should govern America. For just as we can find today a paper or story to say anything we want. When put up against all that is known on the subject and reported on day to day we get a different picture than the one others would have us believe. Because why everybody can tell you about America landing on the Moon in July of 1969, who among us can say the remember the exact words Neil Armstrong spoke as he took the first step on the Moon?

It’s just to bad we did not have digital movies 2,000 years ago. Think, the why we view Religion a lot different.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 7, 2011 12:45 AM
Comment #318288

Conservativethinker-
I did not miss the audience. He was speaking to the believers themselves, counselling them against judging others harshly. In light of multiple gospel teachings about the need to extend the forebearance God has granted you to those around you, the passage makes best sense as a reminder to the Roman Christians that they are as vulnerable to sin as everybody else, and as subject to judgment.

That seems to be a point you don’t want to consider. I think we should not Lord ourselves over others, especially not other believers. We’re flawed ourselves.

You want nice, short answers?

1) It’s not God himself saying it. It’s men saying it, having been inspired by him, men who would have a certain culture.

2) I don’t recall him particularly focusing on the torments of hell. I recall him mostly telling people how to avoid them, say by preparing one’s soul before the opportunity was lost, by passing on God’s forgiveness, rather than condemning others, having been forgiven. Jesus mentioned the wailing and gnashing of teeth mostly to warn people about the consequences of not heeding his message.

3) I provided the Chapter and verses. Having done that, there was no avoiding somebody actually reading them. I backed my point with biblical verse, even if you didn’t agree with my interpretation.

Let me elaborate on those points:

I want you to think about Genesis one for a second. You argue for taking every word literally, but you can run into problems real quickly doing that.

It describes God separating the waters above from the waters below. It describes him creating a vault, a dome for the sky. It describes him setting those stars in that vault, and setting the sun and the moon in that vault.

Now, I’m sure that a literalist could insist on a complex interpretation in order to square what that would literally mean with what is obvious and observable by our technology now. But to me, that defeats the whole point of that kind of literalism, which is to avoid unnecessary logical constructions on man’s part, to simplify interpretation down to the essential basics.

Here’s what I find simpler to believe: that God inspired man to tell the tale of a God who created in an orderly, craftsman-like manner, and that when it was finally written down, perhaps about the time of the Babylonian captivity, it was written by people who saw the world in terms of a Mesopotamian, ancient Middle Eastern cosmos.

In other words, people communicated about God in terms of their own cultures, their own beliefs about right and wrong, what was permissable and not permissable. God helped shape that perspective towards something better, but people wanted to have their way. Thus you get rules about diet and behavior that Jesus and others would later alter or even eliminate. Jesus’ perspective on divorce is one example, as is the Pauline liberation of Christians from having to observe Jewish ritual cleanliness, including circumcision and dietary prohibitions.

God himself changes the rules for his people as the situation changes, or as his people mature.

It’s only in the last few centuries that we’ve become sophisticated enough in our sciences to really discern how much the picture the ancients had of the world departed from reality. When we humans were ancients, ignorant of what science has shown us, he fed us the milk we could digest of how the world came to be.

If our faith is strong, there is no need for the bible to be absolute truth. We can understand it on its own terms, as a product of its times that is still relevant to our times because of the divinely inspired truths that are its foundations. The bible doesn’t share God’s perfection, but it does share God’s message and God’s love with us. We will know his word better than that when the time comes that we can meet him face to face.

I don’t expect to understand everything, or prove everything this side of the grave. What I look for God to give me here is guidance beyond what mortal minds, myself included, can offer me. I pray for his help, and his wisdom. I’m less interested in browbeating other believers into submission, more interested in sharing the grace I’ve been given.

If I don’t adhere so strongly to some of the sensibilities of the cultures of those times, forgive me. I believe the most important aspect of what Jesus and the prophets teach, is how to be good, and fair and just to our fellow man, and how to do God’s will consistently, rather than preach forgiveness and humility, while we condemn and try to humiliate others.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2011 12:10 PM
Comment #318289

“And still you both have failed to explain “God” without using the Teachings and Words of Man.”

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 6, 2011

Henry, explaining God is an impossibility for man. We postulate theories to explain our physical world. We can not postulate theories to explain the spiritual world as we have nothing to measure, nothing to perform experiments upon, nothing to quantify or qualify.

God is spiritual and man is physical. We can have a spiritual experience, we can believe in and speculate about the spiritual world, but it is not within our ability to explain it. It would be extreme arrogance to even attempt to explain God. Only one who has no belief in God could even contemplate such an exercise.

Henry, you ask the impossible. Should you ask why man should believe in God, I and others can explain why we do, and why all should.

We can know the nature of God in his relationship with man but that certainly doesn’t explain Him. There is evidence of God’s creation all around and within each of us. That some are blind to His creation does not belie its existence.

Man has theories, God has all knowledge, all power, and all wisdom. That which is created can never explain the creator.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2011 1:59 PM
Comment #318292

Mr. Daugherty, the point of the verses you originally posted was judgment. You tried to use verses of which God promised judgment to unbelievers living in their sins, as an example of God telling believers not to judge one another or to judge unbelievers. You are wrong and I proved you wrong and now you want to jump all over the Bible and bring up stuff that was never discussed. You are not the first unbeliever I have talked to, and unbelievers always want to try to drag up every argument. Creation is a totally different subject. I gave you the 3 basic rules for studying the Bible; now I will give you another basic rule, “always interpret the Bible literally if you can, but sometimes things symbolism is used”.

Let’s go back to your latest statement:

“Conservativethinker-
I did not miss the audience. He was speaking to the believers themselves, counselling them against judging others harshly.”

WRONG, He was not talking to believers about their own sin and I showed you that in the verses. I am talking about Romans chapter 1. Those are the verses that spoke of homosexuality. Now if you want to talk about other verses, then we are talking about a completely different subject and it would have to be looked at separately. I suggest you stick to one subject at a time. I am assuming you are still talking about Romans by your next comment:

“In light of multiple gospel teachings about the need to extend the forebearance God has granted you to those around you, the passage makes best sense as a reminder to the Roman Christians that they are as vulnerable to sin as everybody else, and as subject to judgment.”

WRONG again on your conclusion, the conversation was directed at the Roman believers, but the subject was the sinfulness and judgment of the unbelievers. The book of Romans was written to the believers in Rome, but the entire book is a judgment upon unbelievers and the subject of judgment is used because The Law of Moses was about judgment (judgment of God upon those who broke the Law and the judgment of Jews against each other for those who broke the Law), but Paul goes on to say “if you want to live under the Law, then you will be judged by the Law” and by the deeds of the Law, no flesh shall be justified before God. Stephen, you completely miss the point of what is being written. In none of these verses does God ever condemn a Christian for judging another person. You go on to say:

“That seems to be a point you don’t want to consider. I think we should not Lord ourselves over others, especially not other believers. We’re flawed ourselves.”

WRONG again, this is your view point, but it is not what God says. The left has a real hang-up with the idea of Christians judging. What does it matter to you if we believe God is against abortion or sexual deviancy? You don’t answer to us, but you will answer to God. But I will give you a shocker Mr. Daugherty; the Bible says that the redeemed will stand in judgment of the unredeemed. That means Christians will stand in judgment of unbelievers. Does that blow your mind? Have I just sent you and the rest off the edge? I can only imagine what you liberals are saying as you read this, but let’s see what God has to say about it:

“1Co 6:2 Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? and if the world shall be judged by you, are ye unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life?”

Again, let us apply the rules, the Apostle Paul is speaking, he is speaking to believers at Corinth, and the subject is the right to judge believers within the Church. Read the entire chapter 5 and 6 if you want to know more. Paul concludes with, “if you have the right to judge believers within the Church, you most certainly have the right to judge angels and the rest of the world”, paraphrasing.

Mr. Daugherty, there is no sense discussing anything else you said, because you have no concept of what you are saying concerning the interpretation of God’s Word. This next verse is for you and it explains why you have no concept of what the Bible says:

“1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The natural man is the unredeemed man. This is you Stephen. In order to be able to understand God’s Word, one must have God’s Spirit dwelling within him. Before I became a Christian, I had no understanding of His Word, and I am sure many other Christians on WB will tell you the same thing.

God’s Word is foolishness to you because you don’t believe it. You have said many times, you don’t believe it. You have absolutely no hope; you have nothing to anchor to.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 7, 2011 3:24 PM
Comment #318293

Royal Flush,
Although I do not remember the Jewish Book which speaks of the Letters, Numbers, and Symbols of Man it does make a very interesting read. More important one learning how to go beyond that Limited Knowledge is an Art worthy of exploring IMHO. However, that means a Christian would have to go to the root of their religion.

For example, one of the things I like to do with engineers is to ask them to tell me how many sides a simple cube has. Now, if we listen to what we were taught in grade school the answer is six. And even after years of college we have come to look at a cube having six sides, yet a cube has 12 sides. 6 on the outside and 6 on the inside since mass cannot be absolute. And why one can explore that argument to go beyond the letters, numbers, and symbols of Man, doing so forces one to leave the physical world.

Now, how far one is willing to explore beyond that void is a personal journey and not one to be taken lightly. For it is like when we were told the “Sky is the Limit” 30 years ago even though we knew there are Stars above; however, even today we find it almost impossible to believe there is something beyond the Stars even though Man has been told of its existance for eons.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 7, 2011 5:30 PM
Comment #318295


Beretta 9, “If the flow of oil was shut down from the Middle-East”——sounds like liberal rhetoric.

That is basically the same question that was asked by a liberal elitist know as Jimmy Carter more than thirty years ago.

How did conservatives respond?

Ron and you guys got a big laugh out of Carter’s remarks.

Do you think drilling every hole in America that may contain oil will save us from the consequences of a world economic collapse due to a shutoff of Middle East oil?

Do you think we can step in and meet the worlds demand for oil?

Do you think we will give a damn about having gas in our tanks if we don’t have a job to go to and Walmart shelves are bare?

It seems obvious to me that the group that could make the biggest statement, have the greatest effect on the people by giving up their SUVs would be conservative elitists.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #318296

Henry, most things are subject to interpretation. That is why having ones preach, cajole, bully and double-talk one into belief is pure crap. Spin can be added to the nth. degree and it will still not PROVE anything. Even the greatest scientific minds can and do disagree on many things. To try and bully anyone into believing in something (someone) that belies scientific proof is no more than complete folly. And I don’t care if anyone wants to believe in jolly green giants and flying life forms….you can explain and rationalize to your last breath why you feel that way, but DO NOT force your beliefs on me. If you prefer the realm of the flat earth, by all means enjoy yourself.
The bottom line is that you are wasting precious breath by trying to get some in here to understand what you speak of.

Posted by: jane doe at February 7, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #318297

Many thanks to Jane Doe for adding her insightful remarks and original thought to the conversation. As for forcing any belief on you Jane, I didn’t see a single comment above addressed to you. Are you being forced to read those posts?

Henry, what did your last comment addressed to me have to do with the question you asked about explaining God that I responded to?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #318298

I’ve been thinking about this for some time and have come to the conclusion that Henry is a Harvard professor in philosophy and to disguise himself, writes in cryptic language. Henry…that’s a joke, hope you’re not offended.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 7, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #318299


Beretta9, based on what I think I know, the best answer to the shut down the Suez Canal scenario is that it would not cause a world economic collapse. It would cause some hardship and significant delays, but we and the rest of the world would adjust.

Posted by: jlw at February 7, 2011 7:33 PM
Comment #318300

Shutting down the Suez canal would have some but not a major impact on oil. Supertankers do not use the Suez canal. They are too big for it. There is a world surplus of supertankers. In addition, the canal was closed in the past. From 1967 until 1975, the canal was closed due to the wars with Israel. Inconvenient but not catastrophic.

Posted by: Rich at February 7, 2011 8:29 PM
Comment #318301

Royal, it seems as if Henry is commenting more on WB than he used to. I have a real hard time understanding what he is saying.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 7, 2011 8:38 PM
Comment #318302

Conservativethinker-
I do not see the New Testament as a bunch of discrete subjects that cannot be intermixed, but rather an integrated set of statements on what it means to be a Christian, not just a believer in the Hebrew God.

To whom is a believer to preach the Gospel? Just believers alone? No, the Physician goes to heal the sick.

What’s more, Jesus preached to the outcasts, those considered unclean, out of bounds by the scribes and Pharisees. Paul took it further by ministering directly and intentionally to the gentiles, not merely restricting his ministry or the religion to those who were willing to become ritual jews.

But of course, all such religions will deal with conflicts over what is right and wrong, and there certainly were conflicts with the “judaizers”, who favored forcing converts to adhere to Jewish dietary requirements and also mandating circumcision

Whatever it was, Early Christianity was not a mutual appreciation society for the holy. It was full of people struggling just like people do today with worldly and spiritual sins. Paul the doctor is not ministering to the well, he is diagnosing and healing those who are unwell in their faith, or at least giving them a check up.

There’s a certain bedside manner required to do that job. You don’t kick the patient out of the bed, and kick them on the floor.

How do you expect to convert anybody, by telling them that they’re just a bunch of degenerates, that you are qualified to judge their sins, that you’re better than they are?

Jesus tells us that those who put themselves first end up last, and those who were last become first. When the Ressurection comes, there will be no need to chase after the glory, not with the glory coming to us.

That’s all I’ll write for tonight. But I’ll leave you with this thought: You can tell anybody they’re wrong, it’s getting them to believe that which is the real job, and not enough folks on the right remember how to do it anymore.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 7, 2011 9:52 PM
Comment #318303

Ct, RF, you’re doing nothing on here any more but to convince others how unwilling you are to stray from your bully tactics.
You’re unable to do anything on your own, you rely on your pals crowding in behind you as reinforcements. You’re not having an effect any longer except that the crowd ignoring you has grown.

Posted by: jane doe at February 7, 2011 10:59 PM
Comment #318304

jane doe

Is disagreeing with someone bullying them?
How do you reach the conclusion that “pals crowding in behind” is happening?
How do you reach the conclusion that some others are unable to do anything on their own?
I observed that Conservativethinker and Royal Flush gathered thoughts that they could only have gotten by opening their Bible.
I’m still praying for you.

Posted by: tom humes at February 8, 2011 12:11 AM
Comment #318305

The way it’s done by those I noted, yes, t h.
I reached the conclusion exactly in the way you’re reinforcing it now. I wasn’t talking to/about you, but you’re right there to speak for your buds.
I don’t care where they got their thoughts. And where they got them doesn’t validate them in any way. They are thoughts, and opinions belonging only to them, and they have no right to impress them onto others.
Stephen and Henry have both voiced their thoughts in the same ways and for the same reasons, yet they don’t count because they don’t follow in lockstep with your interpretations/beliefs. But since you’re wanting to justify them and validate them, it’s alright for you all to get mouthy and malicious. You’ve got just one way that you believe things should be,and it’s your way.
Wrong!!

Posted by: jane doe at February 8, 2011 1:37 AM
Comment #318306

jane doe
Your perceptions are totaly wrong. Your perception appears to be that you disagree vehemently and therefore we are wrong. We are presenting a view and the others are presenting a view. When errors are made we try to show the error rather than just say YOUR WRONG!!, and present the evidence of where the error is wrong. I don’t see anybody getting “mouthy and malicious” from either side. Even you. You are correct that we have only one way. To be otherwise would be an unstable mind. You cannot serve two masters. Either you serve God or you serve mammon. That is the only way. Society is proof of that.
Still praying for you.

Posted by: tom humes at February 8, 2011 9:49 AM
Comment #318308

Jane Doe writes; “I don’t care where they got their thoughts. And where they got them doesn’t validate them in any way. They are thoughts, and opinions belonging only to them, and they have no right to impress them onto others.”

Once again I must thank Jane for her valuable insight and contribution to our body of knowledge. Apparently I was mistaken in thinking that WatchBlog is the place to impress or express our thoughts and opinions. I guess I need clarification on that. Jane, I also will pray that God’s grace finds a way to your heart. He does love all His creation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 11:28 AM
Comment #318309

Jane Doe-
Don’t get angry on their account. They have every right to express their opinion, and we have every right to express ours right back. If they want to be pushy about it, pushy they can be, within the limits of civility.

A lot of Right-Wing Rhetoric these days is meant to provoke. Having used it, many of those same people then get up in arms when somebody actually rises to the provocation. The two tactics occur together by intent.

If you can drive people out of a discussion, you can win the debate by pure attrition. Don’t give in to your outrage at this, and force WB management to respond along such lines.

Royal Flush, Conservativethinker-
Does it make it proud for you to skirt the line of plausible deniability? I think Henry’s writing style has been discussed quite enough. There doesn’t seem to be any real purpose with the continued discussion on that topic besides making Henry feel unwelcome in the discussion.

You’ve had your say on how he writes. It’s been said. We’ve got plenty of other topics to choose from. You ought to choose a subject that’s got greater relevance to politics.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2011 12:03 PM
Comment #318310

Sorry Mr. Daugherty, some writers comments are meant to be humorous and your comments are always humorless. Conservatives enjoy a little levity once in awhile…how about the Libs?

I will wait to hear from Henry and hope he wasn’t offended. As I wrote, it was simply an attempt at humor and I shouldn’t think suggesting that he is a Harvard professor would be offensive. But then, it could be one of those rare occasions where I am wrong.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 12:17 PM
Comment #318311

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

Hmmm, perhaps Conservatives aren’t paranoid after all!

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”

“Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #318312

Ooops…forgot to give the link for the above quotes…Here it is.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 12:31 PM
Comment #318313

SD


“A lot of Right-Wing Rhetoric these days is meant to provoke.”

A lot of Left-Wing Rhetoric these days is meant to provoke.

I just want to make sure you got equal time and space, Stephen.

Posted by: tom humes at February 8, 2011 1:02 PM
Comment #318314

Egypt, Israel and a Strategic Reconsideration

Here’s an interesting assessment from Stratfor for those with an open mind.

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110207-egypt-israel-and-strategic-reconsideration?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110208&utm_content=readmore

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 1:03 PM
Comment #318315

Royal Flush,
A Havard Profassor still is required to teach a Cube has 6 sides. If you don’t believe me than ask one. However, try to prove me wrong on My Point that a Xube has 12 sides.

Now, the question you and others need to answer id how could someone with only a high school diploma can figure something that even the so-called experts of the day can’t disprove without saying mass is absolute and that we can prove is absolutely wrong. So where did I obtain such knowledge since it is not spoken about in the History of Man?

Now, you and others say that you have a hard time understanding me, yet knowing the Teachings of “God” and Jesus” are wrote in parrables than am I to understand that you do not understand them as well? For you say to fear “God,” but the word Fear has more than one meaning. In fact, looking at the history of the word I could replace the word fear with trail, attempt, or experience and still remain within the content of what was written.

Hence, reading the Bibile and saying you know “God” is not the same as learning what the words of the Bible say and understanding “God.” For why would I think one should look as “God” as being danger when experuence “God” should be my duty? So go ahead and keep believing the words you read mean this or that or making fun of things you have no clue of how to understand. For if you can’t understand a simple man than doesn’t that prove you don’t understand the “God” you believe in? For just as a Cube has more sides than one has been taught by Man, how much more do we not know about the Universe we cannot see due to our blinded arrogance and ignorance?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 1:11 PM
Comment #318316

Henry, I am pleased that you appear to agree with my contention that we can not explain God…and you have answered your own question.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 1:23 PM
Comment #318317

Jane Doe,
Why “most things are subject to interpretation” is not acutally a true statement. Just look at how many years it took for the heneral population to accept the Earth was not the center of the Universe or the world was not flat. Even today, we are still forced by the Learned and Unlearned of Society to believe a cube has six sides even though Man has known for years mass cannot be absolute. In fact, one could say “Man is always wrong” just because he has been told that for so long it is easier to believe the saying than work to prove to others that the statement is wrong.

And though it is true others show their ignorance and unwillingness to be enlightened by saying they don’t understand me; however, following the lead of someone in history who said go forth and teach what I have said. I don’t think it is a waste of time especially given the fact that in my personally journey I have confronted many of their leaders in order to prove to myself that I am standing on solid ground.

In fact, having met a Harvard Professor in the Health Industry during the healthcare debate you should of seen the expression on his face when I proved Americans could have Health Care and Medical Coverage through investing in their Community Hospitals, Medical Facilities, and Rest Homes. All in less than a 30 minute cab ride. Who said a Mind is a teribble thing to waste?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 1:33 PM
Comment #318318

Royal Flush,
Who gave you Self-Awareness and Self-Knowledge? For without the Love of your parents and the Understanding of your neighbors there would be no 3 a.m. feedings, bo crying all night, and surely no diapers being changed.

Seems to me Our Generation ain’t as smart as they thought they believe themselves to be. For why “God” can be proven to exist I don’t see the Learned and Unlearned of Society trying to get past the Letters, Numbers, and Symbols of the Generation they rebeled against 40 years ago.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 1:41 PM
Comment #318319

Royal Flush-
It’s the strange insistence on perseverating on the subject that disturbs me. As for calling him a Harvard professor being an insult?

Well, that’s a nice segue into our next subject.

Here’s what I think: if you spend a huge amount of time telling your children that scientists and academics are elitist bastards, you might succeed in getting many of them to forgo that career!

For all their talk about the wages of sin on liberal bias, the Right in America seems to think that it doesn’t have its own bias, or at least that this bias is not a bad thing.

But my experience, especially on this site, is that there is practically no bad outcome or embarrassing situation that some on the right won’t either rationalize, or allege is a product of liberal media bias.

I would say that if there are fewer conservative academics, fewer well regarded conservative journalists, fewer postive outcomes in conservative policy, and more embarrassing incidents and stories coming out elsewhere, that might simply be because there is more punishment dealt out in the party for failing to try and manipulate the media than there is for failing to promote education, failing to avail oneself of education, failing to perform competently, or failing to own up to one’s failures and take the consequences.

The GOP doesn’t get it’s Palins, McDonnells, it’s Boehners, or it’s McConnells by sheer accident. Such selection may not be intentional, broadly speaking, but they are the result of what GOPers at the top intentionally select for.

They ran the politicians who didn’t buy into the conservative faction line out of the party. They drove out the principled opponents of special interests, and rewarded those who served them well. They constrained the party leaders to a rigid platform of perpetual antagonism to the left, to left leaning institutions. They constrained the party to a rigid set of policy prescriptions and solutions to problems.

And then they used a media purpose-built to be an exclusive channel for the right’s politics to essentially condition most Republicans into backing their views.

For the last forty years, the GOP’s done this in order to strengthen and keep strong the Republican’s hold on American politics, and to undo the legacy of the seismic shifts of the forty years that preceded them.

They’ve largely succeeded, but at a terrible price. The GOP can only maintain its power by keeping it’s rivalry with the other side super-charged, it’s adherents loyal, and its mistakes and errors safely rationalized. To do that, though, the GOP let some pretty bad habits and bad policy results go unchecked, and worse yet, have alienated both party and their base voters from mainstream America, undermining the acceptance and popularity of their party.

If the basic demographics lose influence, they’ll end up paying the price. Guess what’s happening right now?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2011 5:45 PM
Comment #318320

When Christians on Watchblog write about their love of God and faith in salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ they are often criticized. Why is that? What harm is done?

When Christians proselytize, it is done with love and a desire to share the good news of salvation. Speaking for myself, I have never received a commission check for bringing folks to Christ. I expect no worldly or afterlife reward for my efforts. If by what I write I bring someone closer to God I have helped that person in ways that I can not even imagine. Having faith in a loving God brings peace beyond the non-believers ability to understand.

When Atheists proselytize, is it done with love and a desire to share a belief that nothing exists beyond man? If the Atheist causes one to lose his/her faith have they harmed that person? Have they perhaps stolen that persons place in eternity? Have they stolen the faith from someone who may desperately have needed it to face some crisis in their life? Have they enriched that persons life?

I have nothing derogatory to say about Atheists. I have much to despise in the proselytizing Atheist.

Can anyone explain to me why some Atheists proselytize? What belief system are they promoting and how will it help those whom they convert?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 5:47 PM
Comment #318322

Mr. Daugherty writes; “And then they used a media purpose-built to be an exclusive channel for the right’s politics to essentially condition most Republicans into backing their views.”

Was the Limbaugh radio show “media purpose-built” as you suggest? Hardly, you should take the time to research his humble beginnings. There was no party or big Republican donors behind him. He gained success and has become the most listened to radio commentator by what he said, not who he was or who was backing him. Numerous attempts by dems and libs to emulate his success, with their considerable backing, have mostly failed miserably.

Mr. Daugherty writes; “The GOP can only maintain its power by keeping it’s rivalry with the other side super-charged, it’s adherents loyal…and worse yet, have alienated both party and their base voters from mainstream America, undermining the acceptance and popularity of their party”

That’s quite a comment and full of hyperbole, or envy, can’t fathom which. AS for alienating the party and base, well…I will simply point to the last election results.

With dems and libs losing popular support for their policies I can understand why Mr. Daugherty would write such drivel.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 6:20 PM
Comment #318324

Mr. Daugherty said,

“Conservativethinker-
I do not see the New Testament as a bunch of discrete subjects that cannot be intermixed, but rather an integrated set of statements on what it means to be a Christian, not just a believer in the Hebrew God.”

Mr. Daugherty sees the New Testament as he sees the entire Bible; nothing more than a history book! Tell me, why do you continue to attempt to explain or quote verses from a book you don’t believe?

Mr. Daugherty, I will consider you attempt to change the subject and failure to answer my questions with proof as a concession that I am correct.

Royal asked the question, “When Christians on Watchblog write about their love of God and faith in salvation through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ they are often criticized. Why is that? What harm is done?”

Again the answer is simple, if we go to God’s Word:

Mat 10:22 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved.

“Mat 24:9 Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.

Luk 21:17 And ye shall be hated of all men for my name’s sake.


Joh 15:18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.

Joh 15:24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

Joh 15:25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause.

Joh 17:14 I have given them thy word; and the world hath hated them, because they are not of the world, even as I am not of the world.”

I am surprised that some of the left on WB haven’t reminded us that WB is not a place to discuss religion, but it does appear there are some on the left who at least show an interest, even if it is only to prove God and the Bible wrong. Of course, unbelievers cannot comprehend what part Christianity places in the life of a believer. We have had politicians who have stated their desire to pray about a decision before following through with it, and the left has gone nuts with attacks. But the left does not and cannot understand the part that Christ plays in our lives. Hence, the best they can do is mock, attack, and show their intelligence by using a lot of 4 letter words.

Responses from those like jane doe are a fulfillment of Jesus’ prophecies concerning hatred toward Christ and His followers.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 8, 2011 6:44 PM
Comment #318326

“Can anyone explain to me why some Atheists proselytize?”

Royal Flush,

Atheists in my experience don’t proselytize. Certainly, not on this blog. Christian fundamentalists, on the other hand, are constantly quoting the Bible to support their arguments. This may lead to some objections by atheists, agnostics, other faiths, and even Christians who don’t believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible. It is not proselytzing, in my opinion, to point out a reasoned objection to an argument grounded in Biblical fundamentalism.

Posted by: Rich at February 8, 2011 6:52 PM
Comment #318327

Ct, it isn’t up to you or any other individual to determine who I, or anyone else hates! Or loves, respects, adheres to or whatever. Right now, you’re getting close to the top of the list of who I can barely tolerate, though. Speaking for myself, if I wanted to be preached to, or beat into submitting to others’ thoughts and ideas, this would be perfect. In the meantime, it would please a few of us, if you’d remember that this is a political blogsite and returning to that format would be most appropriate!
Perhaps it just makes you feel all warm and fuzzy that you have managed to drive off a few long-time posters on here. Just more substantiation that you still adhere to those playground bully tactics.

Posted by: jane doe at February 8, 2011 6:54 PM
Comment #318329

Jane Doe writes; “In the meantime, it would please a few of us, if you’d remember that this is a political blogsite and returning to that format would be most appropriate.”

Jane, it would please me too. Write something that we can respond to…OK?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 8, 2011 7:04 PM
Comment #318330

Mr. Daugherty writes:

“And then they used a media purpose-built to be an exclusive channel for the right’s politics to essentially condition most Republicans into backing their views.”

Mr. Daugherty, can you tell me that MSNBC, CNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN are not doing the same thing on the left?

I might also ask, if it is true, what you say about the Republican Party in your conclusion stated above:

” For the last forty years, the GOP’s done this in order to strengthen and keep strong the Republican’s hold on American politics, and to undo the legacy of the seismic shifts of the forty years that preceded them.
They’ve largely succeeded, but at a terrible price. The GOP can only maintain its power by keeping it’s rivalry with the other side super-charged, it’s adherents loyal, and its mistakes and errors safely rationalized. To do that, though, the GOP let some pretty bad habits and bad policy results go unchecked, and worse yet, have alienated both party and their base voters from mainstream America, undermining the acceptance and popularity of their party.”

Then explain to me why the conservative movement is attracting independents and democrats?

Your last statement is hypothetical and wishful thinking:

“If the basic demographics lose influence, they’ll end up paying the price. Guess what’s happening right now?”

Posted by: Conservativehinker at February 8, 2011 7:04 PM
Comment #318332

Conservativethinker,
It is a mot a matter of hate to question ones’ so-called Christian Beliefs. For why you may be good at selecting verses from the Bible you prove your lack of understanding by bringing them into the political realm of man. For show me one time when Jesus spoke evil of Government.

Royal Flush,
Rush has made his money by pumping out half truths and promoting or praying on the ignorance of Americans which is also promoted by Conservatives and Republicans. For example; both say the healthcare reform act will kill jobs, but offer no proof that selling and maintianing an additional 30 million policies will hurt the industry. Yet, still Rush and Palin talk of death panels or how the government wil be in charge of the healthcare one recieves by purchasing pribate healthcare insurance policies and seeing private Doctors.

So we must rationalize by the Conservatives attacking the intellegent of poeople like Prsident Obama who attended the same college as the Bushs and working to misinform the public as that which goes against the Teachings of Jesus.

Even the Tea Party has and is misleading Americans for their own gain and claim of their version of the constitution. So why certain Democrats and Independents may have voted for Republican Candidates in 2008 do you really think the decline of both political parties are due to Rush and Company? Or is it because the Media has failed to encourage Americans to support Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 8:12 PM
Comment #318334

“For example; both say the healthcare reform act will kill jobs, but offer no proof that selling and maintianing an additional 30 million policies will hurt the industry.”

An interesting point. What say you conservatives?

Posted by: Rich at February 8, 2011 8:51 PM
Comment #318337

Rich, that is assuming the 30 million policies are covered by private insurance companies, but we all know where obamacare is headed. It was always planned to ba a single payer government run plan. What would that do for insurance companies?

Henry said:

“For show me one time when Jesus spoke evil of Government.”

Ok, this is God’s view of the government of Anti-christ:

“Rev 13:1 And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy.
Rev 13:2 And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority.
Rev 13:3 And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast.
Rev 13:4 And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him?
Rev 13:5 And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months.
Rev 13:6 And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven.
Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.”

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 8, 2011 9:10 PM
Comment #318338

Conservativethinker,
Who wrote the Book of Revelation and how does the government of the Anti-Christ come into play when Americas’ Democratic and Republican Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders are under Societal Contrct to build a Better World?

No, Jesus stated give umto Ceaser what is Ceaser. And why Ceaser says abortion is legal still Christains oppose the Law of Man. Even though the Law of Man states that every Man and Woman regardless of their Race, Color, or Creed is allowed the same Liberty still Christains oppse Ceaser. And even when Ceaser states the support of Homosexuality Civil Rights still Christains oppose the word of Jesus. So tell me who is protecting the Anti-Christ by their actions and deeds.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 9:29 PM
Comment #318339

The subject of Obama lying to the American people has come up for discussion. The left has emphatically called for proof of the lies. Well, if one waits long enough, the truth comes to light:

WASHINGTON, D.C.— On Sunday, in a live, nationally televised interview just prior to the Super
Bowl, President Obama made the following claim:

“I didn’t raise taxes once. I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered taxes for
the last two years.”

Let’s break down the statement, starting with Obama’s “I didn’t raise taxes once” claim. This assertion
is blatantly false, as President Obama has signed into law at least two dozen tax increases:

Feb. 4, 2009 – Obama signs federal tobacco tax hike: Just sixteen days into his presidency, Obama
signed into law a 156 percent increase in the federal excise tax on tobacco – a hike of 62 cents per pack.
Obama’s signature on this tax hike was a violation of his central campaign promise – a “firm pledge”
that no American making less than $250,000 would see “any form of tax increase”. The median income
of smokers is just over $36,000.

March 23, 2010 – Obama signs the healthcare bill into law: Obama’s signature on the health care
bill enacted two dozen new or higher taxes (at least seven of which violate his “firm pledge” on taxes),
including but not limited to:
— Individual Mandate Excise Tax
— Employer Mandate Excise Tax
— Small business 1099-MISC Information Reporting
— Surtax on Investment Income
— Excise Tax on Comprehensive Health Insurance Plans
— Hike in Medicare Payroll Tax
— Medicine Cabinet Tax
— HSA Withdrawal Tax Hike
— Flexible Spending Account Cap – aka “Special Needs Kids Tax”
— Tax on Medical Device Manufacturers
— “Haircut” for Medical Itemized Deduction from 7.5% to 10% of AGI
— Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
— Elimination of tax deduction for employer-provided retirement Rx drug coverage
— Blue Cross/Blue Shield Tax Hike
— Excise Tax on Charitable Hospitals
— Tax on Innovator Drug Companies
— Tax on Health Insurers
— Biofuel “black liquor” tax hike
— Codification of the “economic substance doctrine”
Now let’s turn to the second part of Obama’s claim: “I lowered taxes over the last two years. I lowered
taxes for the last two years.”
• President Obama’s entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax
relief he has signed into law. The tax increases Obama has signed into law have invariably been
permanent. In fact, Obama signed into law $7 in permanent tax hikes for every $1 in permanent
tax cuts
• Over 90% of the dollar value of the tax cuts Obama signed into law are only temporary
• 100% of the tax increases Obama signed into law are, however, permanent
• Permanent changes to tax law signed by Obama amount to a net tax hike of $618.7 billion

http://www.atr.org/files/files/020711pr_Obama_I_DIDNT_Raise_Taxes_Once.pdf

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 8, 2011 9:34 PM
Comment #318340

Henry, God’s law trumps man’s law as federal law trumps state law. The whole title of the book is “The Revelation of Jesus Christ Given to John the Divine”

Posted by: KAP at February 8, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #318341

Royal Flush-
Why are they criticized? Well, because too many use religion as a substitute for a reasoned, first-principles argument that those who find politicized religion distasteful would rather be provided with.

You ask a lot of people like that, and get ticked off with them for not conceding on what they believe about the world in general, you’re going to get your hair blown back a little by their response if they’re not patient.

Some Atheists do indeed promote their beliefs, but it’s dishonest to call it proselytizing or make up some BS about Atheism being a religion as well. It’s also counterproductive to your efforts, if you’re really trying to convert people not to acknowledge that they have problems with religion. Until mine were resolved, I had strong reservations about becoming a Christian.

Keep in mind that to an atheist who believes in promoting their disbelief, they think they’re fighting against superstition. Conservativethinker wields that verse from one of the Pauline Letters to bash me for what he thinks is my unbelief, but he misses the point of what Paul is saying there: your atheist, not awakened to the spiritual, sees only foolishness there. When folks act the fools, don’t you want to talk them down from it?

Ah, but if you do get pushy with your believes with them, will they think you any less the fool for it? The organization of the human mind is a marvellously subtle thing, and I’ve found it’s a hell of a thing to try and fight. Good proselytization, heck, good persuasion in general depends on drawing people’s own thinking to the service of your idea.

The kind of insults that I field from Conservatives about what I believe don’t really fit that bill, and I’ve read the words of many Democrats who have similar objections.

The key I think is realizing that the person you’re dealing with has free will to reject you. That reframes an awful lot in terms of priorities.

Limbaugh’s show was most definitely purpose built. His program and the programs of many others are in fact subsidized by conservative organizations. They don’t have enough of an audience otherwise to keep things up. Look at Beck: his ratings drop, many sponsors won’t carry him anymore, and still he has a job.

Look at the whole lineup for Fox. Is that an accident? Is it an accident that Bill Sammon comes up with memos telling FOXNews employees to frame Obama as a Socialist, to call the Public Option the Government option, to push the Anti-Global Climate Change argument?

These folks get direct faxes of the talking points from the RNC. They are given focus-grouped lists of terms and words to call things, and they use them.

You talk of hyperbole? Well, that wouldn’t be much of a change from the usual, given your arguments. Is it just funny coincidence that Republicans had to bash their own plan to save America from Socialist Healthcare? Or maybe socialist healthcare got defined by the lobbyists from the industries that wanted to make sure that their ability to raise rates and exclude those who might cost them more than healthy youngsters remained in place?

I know the typical tactic employed at this juncture is to try and draw a equivalence between our two sides. But really, what alienated voters?

I’d say it was the sense of inaction, of frustrated action, of problems not taken care of.

But we get the sense, looking at Obama’s recent rise in popularity that all people really wanted was for things to get done. You theorize that we did too much, but that’s too convenient by half, given what polling shows people wanted. I mean, take the public option: it polled brilliantly! So did the Medicare buy-in proposal.

Wall Street Reform polled well, too. So does restrictions on deep sea drilling in the wake of the disaster. Resolving the deficit polls high, of course, but what polls even higher is resolving the jobs problem. Extending unemployment polled well, too.

And many of these things, your Party opposed.

So, let me pose an alternate theory: what the public wants is a governmen that works. The Republicans gained in November because they made the last two years such a hell of legislative gridlock, made the Democrats look so incompetent (despite what will likely be remembered later as a spectacular legislative run, in terms of things that got passed) that Americans turned to the GOP out of frustration and desperation.

Which is a problem here. If you guys come through on your promises, you might not have second terms to enjoy. See, if it’s frustration at Washington Gridlock that motivated people to take us out of the House Majority, it can sure as hell take your party out as well, and the real sad thing for your folks is, your party won’t be able to help itself. It’ll tear itself in two trying to please the mainstream and it’s fringe base at the same time.

That, or your people will quietly compromise themselves, and quietly bleed out their enthusiasm.

Conservativethinker-
I can tell you they are not doing the same thing on the left. That’s just conservative bias at work. Media bias, as its originators would actually tell you, was just a tactic meant to play the referees- which ironically means that it encouraged a conservative bias in the media.

The thing you should realize is that many of the outlets on the right were actually founded with the intent of creating conservative outlets. NBC, ABC, CBS, and CNN were founded without such a mission in mind. The first three were originally radio networks, and CNN was founded as a news channel, with no particular partisan purpose in mind.

Most news outlets you label as liberal simply got slapped with that because they were the establishment media, and Republicans wanted to get a leg-up on the Democrats by claiming victimhood.

Meanwhile, who founds FOXNews? Rupert Murdoch, a conservative tabloid media figure from overseas, and Roger Ailes, former political aide to Bush senior.

It’s not even close.

Then explain to me why the conservative movement is attracting independents and democrats?

Explain to you why you think you’re right?

Or maybe I can patiently explain to you that Independents have gone back towards the Democrats, and Moderates never left there.

As for basic demographics losing influence? Well, Hispanics, who the Republicans have gone out of their way to alienate, are the fastest growing part of the population in many Red States, a fact that might take population gains in those states, which you might think would benefit your part, and make them a wash, if not worse.

Your party’s definitely lost the young. Democrats losing the young in the Eighties gave us the rise of the GOP as majority. Now it’s our turn to benefit from the turn in the Demographic tide.

Republicans are relying in many ways, in many cases on the older demographics in this country. Well, it’s sad but true, that this generation of Americans is going to decline as the years wear on.

The trends are not hypothetical. The result might be future tense, but the GOP will definitely feel pressure it’s not prepared to deal with in a very mature fashion.

On the religious end of things?

You do a lot of stating what I believe. I believe I state what I believe quite extensively, and do not need your assistance, however well intentioned.

I don’t see the bible as a history book, although the history of Israel plays an indispensable part in the narrative. I see it as a book of stories with divinely inspired meaning. But it’s not our meaning, it’s the meaning that the ancients communicated to each other, and understanding that culture and its differences from ours will help us separate what is God’s in the bible from what is man’s.

This is what I believe. I believe that God is always trying to reach us, and our own imperfection gets in the way. I believe the bible doesn’t have to be pure history, pure fact to be an instrument of his will, and a means of extending his grace to us. Does a parent have to tell their children only stories with documented facts to teach them how to be good and decent kids?

We are children, heck, worse than children to God’s eyes. But he is patient, and he is kind and merciful. And like Jesus taught his followers then and now with stories, God teaches us, through the stories, the correspondences, the poetry, and the prophecy, something so much more complicated than mere statements of facts.

In your quest to paint me as an unbeliever, you fail to realize that I admire the beauty and the complexity of the bible, that I think the inspiration shines through despite the baggage it carries from all the writers, storytellers, cultures, and translators whose hands it went through first.

The sun isn’t dim for the fact that it shines through the darkened glass. I look at it, and marvel at how bright it must be to shine as bright as it does through all that is in the way. Like a few millenia of oral storytellers, scribes, editors, translators, and all the folks who made it their business to interpret and misinterpret what was in there.

The insight I had that one day, during that lecture about the chaos waters was that the people who wrote the bible had a far different point of view about what was going on in there from us, and far different means of recording and communicating it.

Today, you have to be pretty poor, and pretty isolated not to have access to a bible. Literacy is much greater. The printing press and its successors have made the common sharing of texts and records far easier, and gives us a far greater span of evidence to preserve and document the events of our time. We even have video and audio technology developed within the last century to document things even more vividly.

Go back to ancient times. Most people are illiterate. The main means of passing information is by word of mouth. For those who could read and write, the sources were far and few between. If you’re lucky, and lived in the right time, you could take a few months or years to go to Alexandria, to peruse that library.

And if you wanted a copy of a book? Then you copied it, or had it copied by hand.

That is the world of the people who scribed down the books of the Old Testament, who wrote the Gospels and the Letters of the New Testament.

The sciences are spare, and relatively uninfluential compared to what they are now. There was little to challenge the cosmogony laid out in the Bible, or any other work of the time. People relied on what they could see, what they could here, and the legends and myths they were told. It wasn’t that people weren’t smart, just that the cultures had not yet developed in that direction. No, the average person of that time probably lead a much different life than you or I could understand, much less endure.

They didn’t have antibiotics, they didn’t have a hospital anywhere near, they probably burned off more calories in a day than we do in a week.

That’s their world. They don’t do footnotes, they don’t do verse numbers the way we do. I mean, they don’t even have a distinction between capital and lowercase letters, or punctuation as we’re familiar with it!

Oh, it gets better: The original books of the bible get written down largely without vowels, from oral sources.

See, to me, that’s what makes it so interesting. Documentary fact, with so many filters, so many years of myths and legends intervening, becomes sort of besides the point. History isn’t the relatively tidy profession it is now, it’s not all that much different than the sort of folktales we tell about historical figures now. George Washington, Johnny Appleseed, Davy Crocket, etc.

So, the point becomes less about the fine factual details of the story, which I guarantee both the story itself and the translation in turn will muddle, but what people meant by the story. And that, I think, is something divine inspiration can overcome human nature through. If you put some stock in the notion that the stories we call myths were meant to convey values, moral lessons, and explore the relationship between humans, and between humans and the divine, and if you look at storytelling as an advance, complex means of communication…

Well then, saying it’s not all literally true is not saying its meaningless or uninspired by God. It doesn’t even have to be perfectly transcribed if the gist of what God is trying to tell us can shine through.

I think it does. As such, I believe, I have faith that what’s in the bible can help us to be better people, to be united with God, to endure the judgment without falling into the darkness.

Before I was a Christian, I used to see folks talking about Christian harshly, and not think much of it. I felt differently, of course, after I became one. But the thing you should understand is that sympathy will not come with expressed hatred in return. The Lord tells us to bless those who curse us, and you don’t seem to be doing that. You should. You should think beyond simply how much it pains you or annoys you to be spoken of in that manner, regarded in that manner, and simply accept that this is what will happen.

Having accepted that, do as you were told by Jesus. Bless them. Love them. Make what peace you can with them. Try to have one less enemy in the world.

It feels better to say “Peace be with you.” than it does to say, “I’m blessed because you hate me.”

Peace be with you, and with your own. You don’t need to curse the atheists and liberals, and set yourself against them. Embrace what may be good in every person, look for what is good, and you will find a wider world than you ever imagined existed. See man as God does, the God who is capable of forgiving every person, no matter what they’ve done in their lives.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 8, 2011 10:01 PM
Comment #318342

“• President Obama’s entire claim of being a net tax-cutter rests merely upon the temporary tax
relief he has signed into law.”

So, how has that dispute Obama’s claim? The Republican tax cuts under Bush were similarly “temporary.”

Posted by: Rich at February 8, 2011 10:02 PM
Comment #318344

Currently, today’s taxes are the lowest in the past 60 years.

But thank you for admitting that the individual mandate is a tax and nothing else.

People only pay those excise taxes if they voluntarily engage in certain behaviors, thus those taxes are completely voluntary. Nevertheless, Obama has repeatedly revised his pledge to say that he was talking about income taxes. While we’re on the topic of Obama’s tax promises: you can see Obama has a fair record of keeping most of his promises. Even if he chooses his words poorly occasionally and overstates his promise.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 8, 2011 10:14 PM
Comment #318345

SD,
Amen, God Bless You

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 8, 2011 10:26 PM
Comment #318347

KAP,
God allows Man to kill, Federal Government allows Man to kill, and States allow Man to kill so who trumps who? For why all say they are against killing, where is the Freewill and Political Will to put an end to it?

As far as the Book of Revelations, have you read its history or why Johm wrote it in the space and time that he did? For why I have no doubt about the Reality spoke in it since Our Generation has seen the Presidential Curse broken when President Reagan and President Bush did not die while holding office.

I do believe Conservatives and most Christains do not understand what the Book is talking about because they only listen to what others have told them. For replace the Anti-Christ with that of the Anti-Government or Establishment and you will find that today we have a lot of people working to undermine the Freedom of Man by enslaving them to The Corporation. Thus, breaking the word of Jesus by taking away from Ceaser what is Ceaser.

Why else would people oppose the Protestors of Egypt for wanting a Better World for themselves and Children?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #318348

Stephen, thank you for your patience, understanding and limitless attempts at “translation”. It is, however, nearly impossible to penetrate anything closed as tight as the minds you’re trying to impress with your interpretations and beliefs. They can’t see that 90% of what they throw out is received and deemed as personal attacks….vicious and hateful in nature.
One doesn’t have to accept, believe and live with an acceptance of “God” in order to have a good heart and kind ways.

Posted by: jane doe at February 8, 2011 10:44 PM
Comment #318349

Henry, thanks for your efforts, as well, in spite of being subjected to the refusal of some to try to read what your thinking, as well as what you are writing.
I’m afraid that it’s entirely an uphill battle and one that is entirely misunderstood and rejected by the very audience you’re addressing.

Posted by: jane doe at February 8, 2011 10:49 PM
Comment #318350

Henry, If your refering to the Death Penalty for certain crimes such as murder, yes God did allow that and even Jesus told Peter in the garden when he was getting arrested, “If you live by the sword, you shall die by the sword.” when Peter cut off the ear of one of the priests servants. Do you Henry, know what the book is telling us? There are many interpretations of the book of Revelation. Even you in your short comment have an interpretation of what you think it says. Me, I have read the book through 4 times, but I will not comment on it because it would be just my opinion. Jesus breaking His word? In actuallity Ceasar never owned anything because God created everything and man to boot so that makes God the owner of what ever God let Ceasar have and owner of Ceasar.

Posted by: KAP at February 8, 2011 11:03 PM
Comment #318353

Jane Doe,
If you think this is hard you should on been with me when I stood up to our Elders in the 70’s. Compared to folks today, this is a cake walk.

KAP,
Who gave Man a Nation? Who gave Man a Government? Who gave Maan a Society?

Now, show me where God or Jesus took away Mans’ Freewill to live Life. For the killing I am talking about is not the Dealth Penalty, but extends from the first murder in Mans’ History. Again, reading words and understanding their meaning goes back to ones personal journey, For although you may have read the Book of Revelation four times, without the history or the space and time it was written how are you suppose to understand the meaning of the words?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 11:26 PM
Comment #318354

Jane, You see that’s the thing with politics and religion, we all have our own ideas and beliefs. Your not going to sway me and I’m not going to sway you. We each have to accept the idea that we all have differences.

Posted by: KAP at February 8, 2011 11:30 PM
Comment #318356

Except that you, KAP, and your “cohorts” on here are not willing to accept short of clear submission and succumbing to your ideas, beliefs and will.
Henry, I have probably a better idea of mucking through the 70’s than you might think. Although, I must admit that there were a few happenings I wouldn’t mind re-living… ;)

Posted by: jane doe at February 8, 2011 11:37 PM
Comment #318357

KAP,
That is such a 1960 answer. Are you saying we should agree to disagree because you can’t or won’t accept the Reality that “Just Because” brings?

Sounds to me that you don’t want to debate, but have a conversation with others who will say it is ok for you to remain “Stupid” in what is Real and what we have come to learn as False over the last 40 years.

For just because you have not studied the Book of revelation in depth does not make you wrong, but it does still keep you ignorant of even what the leading experts of the subject today are saying about the book. And that is ok with me since I don’t expect others to have challenged Our Elders the way I have over the years.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 11:46 PM
Comment #318358

Henry, God gave man a freewill, he never took it away. God gave man a nation as well as a government and a society. Did he not create man? As far as Cain killing Able, Cain was punished for his deed. That is what happened when man first disobeyed God’s command and thinking man knows better then God. Revelation is a book of the future and is prophetic, the history, space and time it was written are immaterial. As the book of Daniel if Alexander the Great had read it we would all be talking Greek now.

Posted by: KAP at February 8, 2011 11:47 PM
Comment #318359

Jane Doe,
Having stood up to My Mayor and Cheif of Police, I’ll take your word about of mucking in the 70’s. For after getting some of My Elders so mad that they threatened harm against me My Community Elders and Peers told me to learn to walk away. Funny thing is they also told me Never to Change and to date I am still wondering why. LOL

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011 11:53 PM
Comment #318360

So Mr. Daugherty believes the Bible is a book in which you just fill in the blanks with whatever makes you feel good.

Mr. Daugherty believes I am calling him an unbeliever. Perhaps Mr. Daugherty could explaine how he became a Christian.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 9, 2011 12:13 AM
Comment #318361

KAP,
The history, space, and time in which it was written is important even to the author if you care to study. As far as the Book of Revelations being a book of the future and is prophetic. Maybe so, yet how many today believe we are living in the end of time. How many times in history has the book been used by Man to exploit what was happening in their time. In fact, who or I should say how many in the 1960’s and 1970’s was it used to wipe out entire groups?

Yes, history, space, and time of the Books being written and studing what was going on in government and society around the world during that period is something Scholars do every day. For even today we are finding out things that was not known at the time on many subjects. In fact, some of our own battlefields are now known to have taken place in different places than we were taught just 40 years ago.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 12:14 AM
Comment #318362

KAP,
Here is way history is important Alexander the Great gets a copy of Daniel So much for speek Greek, but wait Americas’ Founding Fathers insisted Our Government be established on Greek and Roman Ideas and Beliefs. And why I know the conservatives of today want you to believe differently, just read A Little American History since I’m still trying to figure out which words will allow me to the federal documents stating the fact.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 12:54 AM
Comment #318363

I have laid back and read the above carefully. I am amazed of the ignorance of some people whether here on WB or in public. Rationalization for ones own practices, beliefs, habits, opinions and so on is prostituting the word rationale. What might be applied is “don’t confuse me with the facts”. Some of you accused Beck and Limbaugh of lies and half truths. You just throw it out there and maybe it will stick to something. You offer not one shred of evidence of lies or half truths. They probably say something you disagree with, but that is not a lie. That is a simple concept called disagreement. A short blurb on the creation of Fox was given, but the other networks nothing said except CNN and that was set up by a liberal with the intent of being liberal. Ted Turner would never claim to be a moderate, but would confess to be a liberal. The Book of Revelation is indeed a book of prophecy and is supported by OT Books that contain prophecy. The Bible, whether one wants to believe it to be, is literal. We cannot pick and choose what parts of the Bible are right and wrong. If we do that, then the whole Bible becomes a lie to that person. When parables are given they are stated as parables. It is not an easy reading book, but has much wisdom and information for a person to learn and apply to their own life. If that is done, then one becomes a Christian. They surrender there life to Jesus Christ and follow the Biblical teachings on a day by day basis. My favorite scripture is found in Eccl. 12. “..it is the whole duty of man to obey GOD and keep his commandments”. That does not say that is what I do, it just says that is my duty. Every Christian fails by sinning, but we have accepted the death and resurection of Jesus Christ. And by that acceptance we can ask forgiveness for those errors and he will forgive us. The non-Christian does not have that in their lives. Modern man has done a real number on Christianity. Charlatans exist and they do things in the name of Jesus, but the acts they do are not Biblically correct. Those charlatans take the scripture and try to make it say something that is not so. They are not annointed of GOD to do that and therefore there words are null and void. In these end times people will believe a lie and fall away from what they know is right. Some people will believe a lie and promote it. It is extremely rare if a real Christian falls into that trap. A real Christian will seek the scripture and pray for guidance on the number of situations in society that we face and need spiritual guidance on.

I tried to be short and simple. I know there are some who will treat this a chaff. That is your free will choice. I have given to you what I feel is proper and correct. I make no appologies for it.

I will continue to pray for jane doe. I will add Henry and Stephen to the list. Why? I pray that as GOD speaks to you that you listen to him and obey him. It has nothing to do with me.

Posted by: tom humes at February 9, 2011 2:26 AM
Comment #318366

Tom Humes,
Having spent years speaking with those who preach and study the bible professional I feel very comfortable with what I have said to you and others. And though I respect your position due to your limited abilities to grasp the Truth about the Bible, feel free to take my words to your preacher or spritaul leader. For having grown up choosing the path of an Anti-Authoritian, I have and do not quote the Bible. However, I take very serious Its Teachings.

So please do not think I speak ill of Christainity, for having opening accepted My Right as a Man to challenge God under Malachi I realize that it is not a journey to be taken lightly. And that even some of those who preach and study the scriptures for a living won’t take because it is so demanding of Self.

However, having grown up in a time when no Authority was found telling the Unbridled Truth and charged by My Elders to go seek the Truth of Man and the Human Race I can tell you that what one learns in schools only show part or sometimes none of the complete facts which makes up the Whole of Human Knowledge and Wisdom.

For why I don’t know if you are old enough to remember when the Elders of the 70’s asked the questions of enlightenment; nevertheless, one of the questions from that time I like to ask those studing Language and Psychology is “Tell me one thing in the world to include the Universe that does not need to consume in orser to exist?”

Given just that simple question what is your answer?

For Love must be given away freely to be Love and Understand comes before Thought, Words, and Actions. Thus, learning a Gentleman must Partake and in Politics it is about Partaking, one should learn why Man decided a long time ago that his Knowledge comes from the word Consume. And why you needn’t believe me, again ask those who teach you of the scriptures to explain the Founding of the Human Race and Civilization or better still research for yourself the History of Man and how we have come to have Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders. For I can guarantee you it will help in your personal study and understand.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 7:32 AM
Comment #318367

Henry

“And though I respect your position due to your limited abilities to grasp the Truth about the Bible,…”

So I have limited abilities to grasp the truth. Since you claim to be so enlightened (your words), explain my limited abilities. I raise the question because you don’t know me personally or in any other way, yet you claim to have knowledge about my abilities.

These “Elders of the 70’s” are just people, I presume. They have convinced you that they know more than many other people, but do they? I don’t know about these “Elders of the 70’s” and I don’t want to know. I do research on the side about a variety of subjects. I don’t have time for mysticism, for that is what it appears to be.

What does a grain of sand consume? Waiting for your enlightened answer. And and new mystery.

Posted by: tom humes at February 9, 2011 10:55 AM
Comment #318368

CT,
There are some who just can’t get comfortable with a literal and fundamentalist belief in the bible. They can range from agnostic to atheists to christians who don’t take the bible completely literal (evidently this last group is not christian in your view). If you haven’t had religion indoctrinated in you very young and you want to explore the bible - you run into hardspots right away such as multiple stories of creation. For divinely inspired works, it reads alot like works written by the people of the time inspired naturally - not supernaturally. And man posesses logic, so some wonder why a god capable of everything leaves his word and evidence of existence in such a difficult to decipher manner. The only answer can be it is a test of faith - so I imagine that is the accepted reason. Then people wonder why does god want to be worshipped - well there is surely a religious answer for that as well. Then when science contradicts certain notions in the bible, well either the science is wrong or someone finds an interpretation and it is accepted.

But CT, your postings leave doubt about your faith. If you truly believed in what is awaiting you and not so many others, that should give you contentment. Instead, you show arrogance; and your joy is in this world flouting what you have and others don’t. If more men of the cloth sounded like, you religion might actually wane.

And as you lash out at, dismiss, or ignore anyone questioning your spirituality, remember you have done exactly that to Stephen in about 47 posts.

Posted by: Schwamp at February 9, 2011 11:01 AM
Comment #318369

KAP-
Jesus was talking to Pharisees who were trying to trap him into either supporting the Roman Temple Tax (which would have made him unpopular among many Judeans), or opposing it, which would have made him suspect among the Romans.

What Jesus did was not oppose the temple tax, while not apologizing for it, either. He simply said that Government and the money it minted was Man’s business, while prayer and worship were God’s business. If The emperor wanted people to pay the emperor’s money back to him, that was a secular matter. In Romans, Paul tells people to obey the government, to pay their taxes and everything, saying that God put it in place.

We are stewards of what God created, and whether we make a point of setting up our government in God’s name or not, we will be imperfect stewards. History, going back to the days of the Kings of Israel, tells us that delegating a man to speak on behalf of God, instead of letting people have their own relationship with God, only leads to abuse and corruption of that power. A person who does not answer to their fellow people, but to God alone, is a person who doesn’t truly answer to God.

Let Caesar have what God has given him. Let God have what he has asked for from us.

What Jesus is saying when he says “Those that live by the sword will die by the sword” requires some though on our part. What’s the situation? Well, Paul strikes the servant when he’s trying to defend the Son of God.

Heck, isn’t that what folks are suppose do, take up arms to defend God? Defend what is right? But God gave mankind an instinct for self preservation, so violence is almost always returned for violence.

What would have happened if Jesus had let his apostles become violent? He most certainly could have rallied his forces for the sake of avoiding his crucifixion. Who know? He might have founded an empire, subjugated the Sanhedrin and Rome, and with his power, overtaken the whole world.

Maybe God would have let him do that, only to punish him when the time for judgment came. The empire he would have founded would have been based not on what he preached, but a force of arms, men yielding not to the grace of God, but instead to the threat of death. The obedience would have been of men towards men, not man towards God.

That has been the failing of every attempt to establish God’s rule through military consequence, why they all failed. They are confounded as those at the tower of Babel are confounded. We cannot build a tower of bones to the heavens.

As for the Death Penalty? I don’t agree with it, as people’s thirst for revenge and retribution outstrips their infallibility of judges of the guilty and the innocent.

Conservativethinker-
By the time I was ten, I was an atheist. Knowing what I did about science, God seemed superfluous. You could explain creation without resorting to the supernatural.

Later, as I grew up, I was subjected to years of humiliating treatment by my peers. It made me want to appeal to some higher sense of justice. When it seemed nobody would stand for me, I began to feel the need in the world for a greater moral order.

About the same time, I started reading about chaos and complexity theory, about the limits that human beings had in being able to understand the world, about the way that much of the order in that world, rather than being the simple result of clockwork application of the rules, emerged from the mix of consequences that came from those rules I also was introduced to the strange worlds of Quantum Physics and General and Special Relativity.

I began to get a sense of how God could exist and not be beside the point, how he could remain involved without undermining the consistency of the world, which I would consider evidence that God created with imperfect judgment(and an imperfect God would be no God at all).

Just a short while later, I learned of the Transcendentalist school of American philosophy, that is to say, Emerson and Thoreau, and the concept of the overmind, which translates something close to the common reality of all people. A picture of God emerges. Perhaps you could call it the Holy Spirit.

This develops through high school, until I go to Baylor, and learn about the bible in Detail. I was familiar with some of the rationalist notions of the splitting of the Red Sea being a Tidal Wave Event in a reedy marsh. That’s where I come in with that story about the realization about what the intent of the stories in the bible were.

This picture of God, as a craftsman-like, deliberate creator, this freeing of the Old Testament from the prison of literalism helped me to accept the message with it. That is how I come to know God the Father.

Jesus was more complicated, really. To become a Christian, I really had to accept that Jesus was divine. I had to figure out what the point of having that happen was. C.S. Lewis was helpful in that, but so was the Grounding in the New Testament that I got. One big question in the way was the alien nature of God.

What do I mean by that? Well, you give me a being of perfect intelligence, perfect power, of Cosmic scale, of eternal nature, and you have somebody totally alien to our experience. How could such a God even think like us? What occured to me is that for God to create us, there had to be a part of us in him, despite his overall alien nature (His thoughts are not our thoughts, etc.)

There’s a compelling aspect to the complete underlying order of the cosmos, all the complexity and glory of such a God coming down and manifesting itself in one of us. That’s almost like a big bang in and of itself- Christ a singularity of a divinity.

So, that is how I became a Christian. I daresay I have my faith because nobody really could force me to have theirs. I developed my faith organically, as the product of much thought and meditation.

And no, I don’t think the bible is just some Rohrshach test you can just imprint your thinking willy-nilly on and be true to it. In fact, part of my admiration of it comes from the integrity of its message, especially in the New Testament, and how different that is from the gross cariacture that human culture has all too often turned it into.

tom humes-
I’ve offered many shreds, many choice morsels of Limbaugh and Beck’s lies and half truths, thank you very much.

Moving on, if the bible is literal, it confounds so much of it, Genesis, included. Read what’s there. It talks of a firmament, a domed roof, and the sun and stars fixed on them. It talks of separating the waters above from the waters below.

Unless you doubt the reality of the space program, that makes no sense when taken literally.

But if you’re not stuck on it meaning just what it says, if you can look to the deeper meaning, then it becomes a story about the way God carefully made the world, an affirmation that we’re not merely afterthoughts, or parts of a trophy of a cosmic monster. We are God’s wanted children, it says.

The meaning of the bible doesn’t have to be a hard-drive download of the will of God for it to do us good.

It’s a response to science, really, to a crediblity that is based on empiricism. If every bible verse is a fact, an incontrovertible fact, you can build up a mass of theory and a means to test it, to try and bootstrap Christianity up from being considered mere stories.

But I think the movement misses something about the nature of human communication. It will never have the precision or the unambiguous reality of the creation that scientists study. Words themselves are malleable, treacherous, and their perception is always complex, and vulnerable to the subjectivities and biases of the human mind. Anything written in human language must be interpreted by the human mind to be understood, and that always brings the imperfections of the human mind to bear.

I think God built the message of the bible more robustly, not making it dependent on something which the noise in the signal could swallow up. You can lose words and phrases in translation, but the general gist of the stories and the statements? Putting the meaning deeper allows the different parts of the things the bible says to come through despite the hazards of translation.

God knows how to make the best of an imperfect medium and an imperfect audience. That’s what I believe.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 9, 2011 12:59 PM
Comment #318370

Stephen, I know what Jesus meant when he said give unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s and God’s what is God’s. As far as the death penalty, Genesis 9:6 Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made he man. What Jesus said to Peter about the sword supports the Genesis verse, also if you read the Books pertaining to the laws laid down by God, alot of them have the death penalty attached as a punishment. Stephen, I take the Bible for what it is God’s word given to man. I do not nit pick at it but I do ask questions to get a better understanding. One pastor I had told the congregation to not take his word for what he preached but to search out and find out for ourselves to see if what he was saying was the truth. To many believe what their pastors, teachers, professors say is Gospel and they don’t find out for theirselves, case point that Baptist church that goes around protesting at soldiers funerals. If they really knew what the word of God is all about they wouldn’t be doing that. God gave man a freewill you can believe the word or do anything you want with it, but God is the ultimate judge of your actions.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2011 1:58 PM
Comment #318371

No, Jesus stated give umto Ceaser what is Ceaser. And why Ceaser says abortion is legal still Christains oppose the Law of Man. Even though the Law of Man states that every Man and Woman regardless of their Race, Color, or Creed is allowed the same Liberty still Christains oppse Ceaser. And even when Ceaser states the support of Homosexuality Civil Rights still Christains oppose the word of Jesus. So tell me who is protecting the Anti-Christ by their actions and deeds.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 8, 2011

Henry, that is an odd comment and one that I could understand. Jesus did not turn God’s authority and laws over to man for his interpretation. You need to study this passage a little more and apply some unpolitical thought to its true meaning. Your comment suggests that man’s law supersedes God’s. It would be preposterous to believe that the Son of God would invalidate His own laws.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 2:12 PM
Comment #318372

Yom Humes,
I can fill a bucket full of sand so therefore sand consumes space.

As far as the Elders of the 70’s, it is a nice way of speaking about the Establishment in Washington and those who during the time of major Civil Unrest in America and Humanity worked out the solution or Societal Contract we have today. A piece of history that is or should be known by all who lived during the Late 60’s and Early 70’s. Since without our Civil, Political, and Religious Leaders agreeing to disagree we might still be in the streets protesting oursekves about the oppressive Govennment and Society built by our parents.

Stephen,
You stated “What do I mean by that? Well, you give me a being of perfect intelligence, perfect power, of Cosmic scale, of eternal nature, and you have somebody totally alien to our experience. How could such a God even think like us? What occured to me is that for God to create us, there had to be a part of us in him, despite his overall alien nature (His thoughts are not our thoughts, etc.)”

A good point and one I thought about a lot when I was younger. And why I still have Scholars smile at me for my answer to that. For if God is Absolutely Right Regardless 100% of the time than wouldn’t he have a hard time understanding why Man having the ability to be Right Regardless forsake that Right to do something he knows or should know is wrong? Now I may be wrong; however, it does show a possible insight on God would send to Earth his only son.

Royal Flush,
Sonce abortions were going on in the time Jesus walked on Earth do you not think he would have spoke out against such actions?

As far as America goes, our Law is based on Greek and Roman Ideology and the reality right or wrong that Life begins the moment one takes their first breath since we used to believe and say that death begins when a person takes their last breath.

So how are we in violation of Gods’ Authority?

Posted by: Hemry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 3:09 PM
Comment #318373

Mr. Daugherty wrote; ““And then they used a media purpose-built to be an exclusive channel for the right’s politics to essentially condition most Republicans into backing their views.”

I responded with a question…does his statement include Rush Limbaugh.

He responded; “”Limbaugh’s show was most definitely purpose built.”

I challenge Mr. Daugherty to support his contention about Limbaugh with facts. Was the Limbaugh radio show “media purpose-built to be an exclusive channel for the right’s politics to essentially condition most Republicans into backing their views.”

And please Mr. Daugherty, don’t spin your answer with how his show was originally built with your ideas about his show today. Either put-up or shut-up.

Henry made some comments about the Limbaugh show. Unless Henry is just getting talking points from others, he apparently must be a regular listener. Keep listening and learning Henry.


Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 3:10 PM
Comment #318374

Sorry Tom still having problems with my fingers finding the right letters.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 3:11 PM
Comment #318375

Henry writes; “How could such a God even think like us?”

Wrong question Henry. The correct question might be…How could man even think like God? It would appear you have the egg laying the chicken.

Your question relates back to another question you asked which to paraphrase was…”How does man explain God.” Man can’t. I am quite certain however, that God can explain man very well indeed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 3:22 PM
Comment #318376

Royal Flush,
While I hae listened to Rush a long time ago when he was on TV, over the years he has stopped trying to talk about what he believed to be true and started thinking that every word out of his mouth is gospel.

No, I could prove than as I can prove now that Rush despite his hard work to speak about what is right for America he is still clinded by his willingness to put Conservative wants above that of all Americans. However, if you can arrange for him and me to debate the issues I would be more than willing. I just don’t think you can get him to agree to such meeting.

Posted by: Henry Schlayman at February 9, 2011 3:30 PM
Comment #318377

Henry, if such a meeting with Rush was possible, what is the primary issue you would want to talk about? No generalities please.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 3:33 PM
Comment #318378

Royal Flush,
I’m not sure were you got “How could such a God even think like us?” but as a parent have you not wondered how your children think the way they do? And they are of your own flesh and blood so why would God not wonder why Man knowing what is Right Regardless forsake that in order to do what he wanted to do?

Besides, if you think long and hard enough before you give into your own wants and put all others wants before yours and always do what is Right Regardless despite the harm it does to you than are you not doing Gods’ Will?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 3:41 PM
Comment #318379

“Last week’s surprisingly sharp decline in the unemployment rate from 9.4% to 9% and equally surprising anemic job growth…36,000 new jobs…left a lot of investors scratching their heads. How could the unemployment rate plummet so significantly while such a trivial number of new jobs were created? If adding 36,000 jobs to the 139 million jobs in the U.S. economy lowers the unemployment rate by 0.4 percentage points, then adding just 720,000 jobs should lower the unemployment rate by 8 points, from 9% to only 1%.”

That’s nonsensical and evidence of the BLS pedaling bull dung.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/story/real-unemployment-number/19833935/

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 3:56 PM
Comment #318380

Royal Flush,
To long to write a list from A-Z; however, if America is the Land of Opportunity than why doesn’t he use his airtime to promote the endless ways we could make every American economicallt viable and financially independent? For in a time where we are going to be talking about entitlements the quickest way to eliminate the need for the government spending money on such programs, For example; Food Stamps are used to help those who do not have enough income to purchase food for themselve and their family; however, find an opportunity for them to make the money in the private sector and we eliminate the need for Food Stamps.

Yet, all I hear from Rush is how awful those folks are and that he doesn’t understand why his tax dollars are going to pay for their food. Thus, he clearly shows he is clueless about what the Founding Fathers and even Americas’ Corporations are doing in order to ensure America stays the Land of Opportunity. Especially when they cannot and will not guarantee 100% employment for All Americans.

And what would really drive him nuts is the fact he could not enjoy the lifestyle he has unless we had people working for wages which don’t allow to be able to buy the food to feed themselves and their family. Because how many trips to McDonalds could he afford if a regular hamburger cost him $100.00?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 4:03 PM
Comment #318381

Hmmm, some contradiction from Henry. He wrote; “While I hae listened to Rush a long time ago when he was on TV…”

Then he wrote; “Yet, all I hear from Rush is how awful those folks are and that he doesn’t understand why his tax dollars are going to pay for their food.”

Rush has not been on TV for years, so my question for Henry is from where is he getting his updates on Rush’s program and concerns?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 4:16 PM
Comment #318382

Henry, I asked what one topic or question would you like to discuss with Limbaugh if given the opportunity. From your response above, am I correct to believe the most pressing topic or question would relate to…”Food Stamps”?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment #318387

Royal Flush,
You assume I don’t have a radio to listen to Rush; however, I still check in from time to time to hear what he has to say about this and that. For like Hannity and the to many of the conservative talk shows today I have grown sick of listening to their Hate toward America and Americans.

As far as Food Stamps, it is a topic which lends itself to alot of issues. From unemployment to how business depends on handouts from the government. For without farmers getting government aid and being forced to raise their prices than wouldn’t every other corporation have to do the same? Yes, the mind of Old Folks might not be able to handle such complex debates; nevertheless, it would be fun to see if Rush could handle such a debate without the help of his staff.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 5:21 PM
Comment #318388

Henry
Your definition of consume is construed. Sand occupies space it does not consume it. It is inert and cannot consume.

Posted by: tom humes at February 9, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment #318390

Tom Humes,
Look up the word consume for it means more than to eat or destroy. Like I have said repeatedly understanding the words that our written is important. For what else can you put in the same place sand occupies? Hence, the problem of reading only what you want to believe is the meaning of those words are that you might miss the enitire point someone is trying to make.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 5:54 PM
Comment #318391

Henry wrote; “I still check in from time to time to hear what he (Limbaugh) has to say about this and that.”

Thank you for your honesty Henry. As I said before…listen with an open mind and learn.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 5:55 PM
Comment #318392

Henry, you beat me to it….I was going to tell th that he should know what a word literally means before he starts correcting others on its’ use.

Posted by: jane doe at February 9, 2011 5:59 PM
Comment #318395

Henry writes what apparently represents a “gotcha” moment…”Like I have said repeatedly understanding the words that our written is important.”

Sorry Henry, Tom is correct with his understanding of the word you used. If you wish to use some arcane meaning of a word as entrapment it will fail to impress.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #318397

Many thanks to Jane Doe for her valuable and insightful contribution to the discussion about the meaning of the word “consume”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 6:12 PM
Comment #318398

Royal Flush and Tom,
The word Consume means to destroy among other things. In fact, if you follow the word back far enough it will link you to Sanskrit and explain how Man used to word to explain the difference between Gods’ Knowledge (create) and Mans’ Knowledge (destroy). For like I said what else can you put is the space a grain of sand occupies? In fact, can I build a Home in the same space your Home occupies without destorying what the first house has destoryed? Really folks is our education system that bad.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 6:13 PM
Comment #318399

Henry, I wouldn’t touch your last comment with ConservativeThinkers 20 foot pole. I will admit however, you did give me a good laugh. And, I agree, someones education is really lacking.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 6:19 PM
Comment #318400

RF, you’re quite welcome…..I just hate to see people make themselves look stupid, ‘specially when they’re obviously trying to make someone else look that way, and the attempt backfires.

Posted by: jane doe at February 9, 2011 6:29 PM
Comment #318401

Sorry you don’t feel the luv Jane. What will it take to please you?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 6:33 PM
Comment #318402

A few posts ago Jane Doe asked for a new subject and to get off religious topics. Jane, here’s some meat for you to chew on.

Social Scientist Sees Bias Within

“If a group circles around sacred values, they will evolve into a tribal-moral community,” he said. “They’ll embrace science whenever it supports their sacred values, but they’ll ditch it or distort it as soon as it threatens a sacred value.”

“Society is engaged in the present in solving problems of the past.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/08/science/08tier.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha210

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 6:48 PM
Comment #318403

jane doe

Get this straight. I was not trying to make anybody look stupid. You continually mis-interpret what people say. All I was doing was conversing with Henry about consume and occupy. I still see a grain of sand as occuping not consuming. It is a twist of word meanings. No big deal.
Still praying for you

Posted by: tom humes at February 9, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment #318405

Tom Humes,
The word occupy means to hold, take possession, control. Hence, to destory (consume)the use by others. So is it a twist of words or knowing how words can be properly used to make a point?

For you are right to assume it makes “No Big Deal” for one only interested in repeating what they have been told; however, for those of us brave enough to challange Authority in whatever form it wants to take Loving to Understand what cannot be seen by the naked eye really does make all the difference in the World.

Royal Flush,
Present day society is engaged in solving problems of the past because they lack the knowledge today to understand what their actions will have on their society of tomorrow. Hence, that is why we are still dealing with the Issues of the 20th Century and are unable or unwilling to address the Issues of the 21St Century.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 7:36 PM
Comment #318406

Henry, thanks for the comment even though it is obvious to me that you only read the quote and not the article.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 9, 2011 7:40 PM
Comment #318407

th, you can start by getting and keeping your finger out of my face.
You have been told repeatedly, along with some of your other bully buddies, to quit with the tormenting of others. You continue to goad Henry at every turn. You have a pack mentality and don’t like it when you get jerked back on something, so you work until you can find another angle to attack from.

Posted by: jane doe at February 9, 2011 7:43 PM
Comment #318408

Royal good link on the unemployment rate issue facing the country. It helps us to realize that despite the tax incentives over the past decade business has not created private sector jobs in many years. It is a real problem, not a “they just want to collect unemployment” issue or a “if we only cut taxes for business” issue. It is a structural issue that needs to be dealt with.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #318409

Royal Flush,
In the middle of posting I could not help but comment. However, it is funny that you post such an article. For just as some people even with the highest degrees of Learned Knowledge still find it hard to believe those without any schooling can actually know more it does drive a wedge deep into Tribal Thinking.

For why Tom and you make fun of Jane Doe, I wonder if you would be willing to explain to us why “Man is Always Wrong?” For a long time held Belief in Our Generation I suppose you could blame it on Tribal Thinking; however, enter into the reasoning behind it and I bet today even the Scholars of Harvard fear to touch the subject.

Me, I will always think it is funny and am amazed at how quickly a Man today will back down when cofronted by a Lady with a “Loaded Shotgun” for in your argument of Belief IMHO if you are not willing to stand up at that point and be counted. What other Tribal Beliefs will you accept instead of the Wors of Truth?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 8:08 PM
Comment #318411

Royal Flush,

Your linked article regarding the dangers of biased research due to the overwhelming political preferences (liberal) of professionals in the fields of psychology and sociology makes a very reasonable point. It is somewhat ironic, also, since it was psychological researchers that first identified the problem (Rosenthal, “Pygmalion in the Classroom”) of researcher bias. That has led to a complete revision of research protocols in a wide number of areas. Today, double blind studies in pharmacological research, etc. are an essential component of the designs to insure limitation on research bias.

I don’t know what one can do about encouraging more conservatives to take a greater interest in careers in higher academics. Liberals dominate academic positions in all disciplines. Perhaps, conservatives might start by backing off their anti-intellectual rhetoric.

Posted by: Rich at February 9, 2011 8:31 PM
Comment #318413

Mr. Daugherty, I read your last post and I must say I am flabbergasted. I asked the question, explain to me how you became a Christian and you went on and on and on about God only knows what. I do not believe you believe the Bible, no matter how you try to spin it otherwise. In order for one to believe the Bible, one must believe what is written in it. The Bible says, it is the inspired Word of God; it says not one jot or tittle of it will pass away; it says Heaven and Earth shall pass away, but God’s Word will not; It says holy men of God wrote the very words that God inspired them to write. You do not believe this. You come up with some mumbo-jumbo about the stories of the bible being inspired, but not the book itself. You say the interpretation of the Bible is up to the individual and in this case you, but the Bible says Scripture is of no private interpretation. If you take away the inspiration, the infallibility, and the ability to put together 66 books and not have one single contradiction, then you have nothing more than another book off the library shelf.

I asked you how you knew you were a Christian, and you tell me of a time when you were meditating, and because you could find no other answer to your questions, you became a Christian. This is what the Bible says: the individual must realize he is a black hearted sinner and separated from God and lost in his own sins, he must then believe Jesus is the Son of God and voluntarily went to the cross of Calvary to die a substitutionary death for our sins, and finally one must be willing to confess to God his own sins and ask Christ to come into his heart and save him. Not very complicated is it? But the arrogance and pride of man has cast many headlong into a devil’s Hell. I hope this is what you have done, and if you are interested I could give you dozens of verses to back this up. There are many on here who claim Christians are arrogant and elitist because of their beliefs; but in reality, every born again Christian on WB are the most humble of people. Humble enough to get on our knees and admit to God that we are complete failures and put our entire dependence upon Him. The real problem is that unbelievers cannot understand believers and they mistake our assurance of eternal life for arrogance, and it is far from it.

On a lighter thought, what is Henry smoking and who put the burr under jane’s saddle?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 9, 2011 8:37 PM
Comment #318414

J2T2,
Considering we know the numbers are going to be revamped in a few weeks I wouldn’t put much stock in the report. For with a bad winter hitting mosy of America during that time I imagine a lot of the information never made it in the report. However, you do bring up a good point. For if the tax cuts to the Wealthy are supposed to create jobs where are they? Surely with all the extra burden of snow removal and the likes many of people could have been put to woek especially when we see buildings falling down and insurance claims having to be paid because of the sbow.

So I wonder how the Republicans are going to explain the lack of jobs while they are busy trying to pass Abortion Bills? How many jobs will that save? How much ill it help lower the Debt?

Sounds to me that instead of complaining about the report Conservatives should feel lucky the unemployment rate didn’t increase due to people being unable to make it in to work.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 8:41 PM
Comment #318415

“Perhaps, conservatives might start by backing off their anti-intellectual rhetoric.”

I persoannly don’t have a problem with intelligence. In fact I believe Walter Williams is one of the most intelligent me in America. Did anyone know that Bush’s intelligence level is and was (during college) much higher than Bill Clinton and John Kerry? Who would have thunk it?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 9, 2011 8:43 PM
Comment #318416

Conservativethinker,
Try and prove what I have said is wrong! For if anyone is smoking something it most be you. For show were the Bigle states is the inspired Word of God or It says holy men of God wrote the very words that God inspired them to write. What Chapter? What Verse? For told that information by the Preachers and Scholars of such Knowledge, I want to see where one finds those EXACT WORDS written in the Bible. Is it not wrong to misrepresent what exactly what the bible states within the Chapters?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 8:53 PM
Comment #318418

Henry, 2Timothy3:16, 2Peter1:21, Rev 1:1, 14:13, Are the verses that may interrest you on the inspired word of God given to man.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2011 9:08 PM
Comment #318420

KAP,
All good points; however, they do not use the words “Inspired by God” But thanks I do enjoy rereading the passages even though so many misquote the Bible.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 9:18 PM
Comment #318422

Henry, 2Timothy 3:16 “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD,AND IS PROFITABLE FOR DOCTRINE,FOR REPROOF,FOR CORRECTION,FOR INSTRUCTION IN RIGHTEOUSNESS. Henry you can spin this anyway you want but the first 8 words prove you wrong.

Posted by: KAP at February 9, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment #318423

“Conservativethinker,
Try and prove what I have said is wrong! For if anyone is smoking something it most be you. For show were the Bigle states is the inspired Word of God or It says holy men of God wrote the very words that God inspired them to write. What Chapter? What Verse? For told that information by the Preachers and Scholars of such Knowledge, I want to see where one finds those EXACT WORDS written in the Bible. Is it not wrong to misrepresent what exactly what the bible states within the Chapters?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 08:53 PM”


1. “2Ti 3:16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”

This verse was given by KAP, after which Henry responded:

“KAP,
All good points; however, they do not use the words “Inspired by God” But thanks I do enjoy rereading the passages even though so many misquote the Bible.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 9, 2011 09:18 PM”

The term “given by inspiration of God” and “Inspired by God” are the same.

2. “2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”

The word “moved” is the Greek word “phero”, meaning “lead” or “instructed” by the Holy Ghost.


I’ll add these verses too:

“2Pe 1:20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”

“Mat 24:35 Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 9, 2011 9:49 PM
Comment #318424

Sorry, I missed a verse:

“Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.”

Before some wise liberal makes the statement, this is talking about the Law and not the Word of God, I might add, The word “law” is the Greek word “nomos” and means the Law of Moses and the Gospel, i.e. the Old and New Testament.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 9, 2011 9:56 PM
Comment #318425

Henry

Show me where I make fun of jane doe.

This is really hard to believe. You and jane making accusations that are off the chart. I don’t make fun of people on WB. If you disagree with me or I with you it is not big deal. You and jane are making a mountain out of a mole hill. You are stretching and reaching for something that does not exist.

I’m praying for both of you.

Posted by: tom humes at February 9, 2011 10:48 PM
Comment #318426

Henry, yes this past election was all about jobs yet we have seen nothing from the newly elected that would lead us to believe they are aware of it. The rhetoric from those on the right has subsided but nothing has been done to move forward with the creation of jobs.

I was surprised that Royal broke from the crowd to tell us the recent change in the unemployment numbers was because of the number of people falling off of unemployment and not due to the recent election.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 9, 2011 11:31 PM
Comment #318427

J2T2,
What is sad is the refusal of Conservatives and Republicans to support such things as high speed rails. For with the air space crowed, planes having to dump million of gallons of fuel, and our railways in need of replacement, one would think the jobs created, ability to reduce air traffic, avoid TTA screening,increase effiency in freight delivers, and open up travel to and from the Over Fly States not to mention reduced air polution and jobs in the energy industry just to name a few societal benefits. You would think Americans would cheer using the technology they paid for over the last 30 years.

No, in their zealous to make themselve richer all I see is that they want to invest more and more money overseas. In fact, one night in debating a Conservative they told me they could buy stock in China and Europe who happens to be building high speed rails because they worried the American Dollar and Investments wouldn’t offer them the returns they were making in the 1990’s under President Clinton.

So as more and more Americans fall off the Unemployment Charts due to the fact Republicans don’t want to extend their Unemployment Insurance Benefits I suppose if we go long enough we can get back to 4% unemployment without having to create a single job. That is why I support Americans rejecting their parents Ideology of the Corporation. For if the Owners and Stockholders of Americas’ Business don’t want to support Americas’ Labor and Management than the American Workforce should seek to create an income which no longers depends on Corporations. But that is a different story.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 10, 2011 1:33 AM
Comment #318428

Tom Humes,
Knowing that in the Middle Ages you could be put to death for misquoting the Bible, the words “I’ll pray for you” is making fun of someone who still believes there is a reason we are told not to change the words written in the Bible. For why you say it is no big deal to twist the meaning of words. During the Middle Ages you would have been put on trail for such remarks. So who should be praying for whom when it is you who are clearly violating Gods’ Law?

For why Conservativethinker and you might think the words ihttp://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inspiration and imspired">http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Inspired”>imspired mean the same thing; however, try to replace them and are you now saying given by arousel of God is the same as given by inspriration of God.

No, changing the words in the Bible is wrong regardless of the reason and is why everyone is taught to learn Chapter and Verse. So why you make fun of Jane Doe for mot stepping down to your level, think about the fact she is smart enough to know not to make the mistake of quoting the Bible you all claim that make you Christian since Jesus, himself said something about even those who attend church every week and worship will not see his house in heaven.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 10, 2011 1:58 AM
Comment #318429

Sorry links shoud be Inspiration http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Inspiration+

and inspired http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/inspired

One of these days I’ll have to learn how to type.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 10, 2011 2:18 AM
Comment #318430

Henry
We don’t live in the Middle Ages. The Bible says to pray for those who are against you. I am not mocking nor making fun of anybody. I am living what the Bible teaches me to do in the best way possible.
I will continue to pray for you.

Posted by: tom humes at February 10, 2011 7:33 AM
Comment #318431

Henry, you asked for proof that the things I quoted were in the Bible and I gave you the “chapter and verse”, as you asked. Now you try to change the meaning of the word “Inspiration”. The New Testament was originally written in Greek and the definition of the word “Inspiration” according to Strong’s Concordance and Vines Expository Dictionary is this:

“θεόπνευστος
theopneustos
theh-op’-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.”

Now you can act stupid and argue all you want; but the word “inspiration” means these words were “God breathed” into the men doing the writing. The proper thing for you to do would have been to admit that I gave you the information you requested, but as David Remer would have said, “you lack the intelligence level to comprehend or understand the facts”. I believe my discussions with you are finished. Concerning yours and jane doe’s accusations of an orchestrated attack by the conservatives on the two of you: nonsense, your comments are, as said before, like a Zen puzzle and jane doe writes NOTHING that contributes to any discussion on WB. If there was ever a definition of “trolling” or “flame baiting”, she could qualify.

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 10, 2011 9:28 AM
Comment #318432

I found this and it goes along with the previous explanation:

http://www.gotquestions.org/Bible-inspired.html

“Question: “What does it mean that the Bible is inspired?”

Answer: When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary” inspiration. That means the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary). Some people believe only parts of the Bible are inspired or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of the Bible’s claims about itself. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.

The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every word from Genesis to Revelation. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how be in a right relationship with God. The Bible claims not only to be inspired by God, but also to have the supernatural ability to change us and make us “complete.” What more can we need?

Another verse that deals with the inspiration of the Scriptures is 2 Peter 1:21. This verse helps us to understand that even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote. Jesus Himself confirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law…” (Matthew 5:17-18). In these verses, Jesus is reinforcing the accuracy of the Scriptures down to the smallest detail and the slightest punctuation mark, because it is the very Word of God.

Because the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, we can conclude that they are also inerrant and authoritative. A correct view of God will lead us to a correct view of His Word. Because God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely perfect, His Word will by its very nature have the same characteristics. The same verses that establish the inspiration of the Scriptures also establish that it is both inerrant and authoritative. Without a doubt the Bible is what it claims to be—the undeniable,

Posted by: TomT at February 10, 2011 9:38 AM
Comment #318436

TomT,

Using verses of the Bible itself to prove that it is the “inspired” literal word of God is absurd. These words are inspired because I say they are inspired is hardly proof.

You are entitled to believe that the Bible is the actual “inspired” word of God. But you offer no evidence of that assertion beyond the document itself which is undeniably a work of man.

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2011 10:55 AM
Comment #318437

Henry writes; “For just as some people even with the highest degrees of Learned Knowledge still find it hard to believe those without any schooling can actually know more it does drive a wedge deep into Tribal Thinking.”

Thank you for you comment Henry.

By the way Henry, how many sides does a hollow cube have? How many sides does a solid cube have?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2011 11:44 AM
Comment #318438

Henry writes; “For why Tom and you make fun of Jane Doe.”

Henry, I am crushed by your comment. I have expressed admiration and love for Jane. Please re-read my comments regarding her.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2011 11:46 AM
Comment #318439

Rich writes; “I don’t know what one can do about encouraging more conservatives to take a greater interest in careers in higher academics. Liberals dominate academic positions in all disciplines.”

I have an idea about that Rich. Perhaps a less hostile enviroment would help.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2011 11:50 AM
Comment #318441

Just a reminder to keep the discussion on-topic. This thread is in danger of being hijacked by those who wish to have a religious debate, not a political one. If you would like to discuss religion, you are welcome to go do so somewhere else.

Kevin: Your author account is still active. You should be able to post articles to the Red column.

Jane Doe: Do you want an author account? Please let me know.

Royal Flush: Do you want an author account? Please let me know.

Everyone who participates regularly in these discussions is welcome to become an Author. All you need to do is ask. Email editor@watchblog.com if you have any questions.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 10, 2011 3:26 PM
Comment #318445

Kevin, for the love of God, write something in the red column. I have made a few suggestions.

But here is another: “CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/cbo-director-says-obamacare-would-reduce-employment-800000-workers_547288.html

Posted by: 1776 at February 10, 2011 5:08 PM
Comment #318446

Royal Flush,

Conservatives and Republicans have traded upon a populist anti-intellectual theme for the past few decades. It is not surprising that they are under-represented in the higher professions and academics. It is their own doing. If conservatives wish to improve their representation, then I would suggest that they reassess their anti-intellectual rhetoric and policies.

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2011 6:02 PM
Comment #318447

Rich, I am confused by your comment about conservative academics and why they are underrepresented. Are you writing that they need to “reassess their anti-intellectual rhetoric and policies?” Does that mean that they are anti-intellectual intellectuals?

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2011 6:31 PM
Comment #318449

Wow, that was quite a statement and impressive testimony by Elmendorf. I can’t wait to read how the dems and libs on WB will spin that. Thanks for the link 1776.

With the Watchblog Publisher’s invitation for more authors on Watchblog it should become even more interesting and lively in the near future. He is a very gracious person.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2011 6:58 PM
Comment #318450

Our political hack CIA director sure did make a fool out of himself with this mornings erroneous statement about an impending Mubarak resignation. So very sad.

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 10, 2011 7:30 PM
Comment #318451

Royal Flush,

You are not confused. You are fully aware that the majority of the higher professions and academics are liberal. The article that you linked to expressed concern that the overwhelming political persuasion of the professional and research community could result in a bias in research and outcome toward liberal policies. I agreed with that concern and pointed out that psychologists have long understood the problem of researcher bias and research today employs double blind studies to control for research bias. Nonetheless, the concern is legitimate.

You seem to think that the causes for the dominance of liberal political persuasion among the higher professions is due to some active suppression of conservative academics. That of course discards the obvious explanation: that the most highly educated believe that liberal policies are more correct and appropriate for the nation.

I might also point out that conservatives have made a cottage industry out of bashing educational “elites.” The populist ant-intellectual message of Republicans over the past decades contributes to the conservative gap within academics and the professions. Why would anyone expect that a political movement that is anti-intellectual would be welcomed within intellectual circles or why conservatives would even want to be part of such a community?

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2011 7:45 PM
Comment #318452

“Our political hack CIA director sure did make a fool out of himself with this mornings erroneous statement about an impending Mubarak resignation. So very sad.”

Well, the hack generals of the Egyptian military also seem to have made the same mistake. It was they who stated this morning that all the demands of the demonstrators have been met. The ball is now in the court of the Egyptian military. The crowd this evening was chanting “the military and the people.” What was anticipated today will occur tomorrow.

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2011 7:57 PM
Comment #318453

“they need to “reassess their anti-intellectual rhetoric and policies?” Does that mean that they are anti-intellectual intellectuals.”

You know full well that I was referring to the conservative political establishment as anti-intellectual.

Posted by: Rich at February 10, 2011 8:02 PM
Comment #318454

Royal proclaims “Wow, that was quite a statement and impressive testimony by Elmendorf. I can’t wait to read how the dems and libs on WB will spin that. Thanks for the link 1776.”

The quote below is what the carefully worded drivel from the national standard was trying to say, Royal. This does not mean the economy will lose 800k jobs in case that is what you are thinking.

“For the economy outside the health sector, the most significant impact of the legislation will be through the labor market,” Elmendorf said on Oct. 22. “We estimated that the legislation, on net, will reduce the amount of labor used in the economy by roughly half a percent, primarily by reducing the amount that people choose to work.”

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/cbo-director-obamacare-will-drive-people-0

Read the rest of the link for the real story not the misinformation half truths and outright lies of the national standard regurgitation of right wing talking points.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 10, 2011 8:12 PM
Comment #318455

Royal Flush,
If you have a hollow cube or what is thought to be a solid cube since mass is not absolute you have 12 sides. The difference between the inside and outside measurements is known as thickness. For if you try and put two electons together you are told they have a repealling force equal to about 9 trillion sticks of TNT. Not my knowledge but Learned Knowledge of those who have studied such things.

Personally, having watched movies of what splitting an atom does and have watched the Learned shot protons at each other I’m not sure they are wrong. For having asked a Professor of Electromagnetics what would happen if I placed two electromagnets of negative charge together and dropped a 100,000 volts on both sides. I wonder if you would care to hold one for me?

Yes, there is a huge gap of Wisdom between the Learned and Unlearned of Society and though we still can’t explain how one can take two like seeds and grow them up under the same exact conditions and still have two different plants or even explain exactly how a single cell divides. You need to be very careful when you say something based on theory.

For why one cab say a lot about the Books written by Man, are you aware that even after thousands of years the Bible still holds the record on thigs said which have been proven to be Right Regardless? Even our best autbors and scholars can’t make that claim. So is the Bible a good book to learn when talking to others about Politics since both are based on the Argument of Partake?

1776,
Like the name! As far as 800,000 jobs being lost, I noticed no one are saying what type of jobs would fall to the ax. Could that be due to the fact that healthcare costing more than the wages being paid by corporations would not look good to the American Workforce?

For would you really want a job that paid you $25,000.00/yr. when your healthcare insurance premium cost $28,000.00/yr,? Sounds to me that the Author and Chairman Paul Ryan might want people to believe it would be 800,000 hood paying jobs lost instead of the low paying jobs (cheap labor) they want to promote.

Rich,
With 40% pf Conservatives and Republicans still not knowing what religion President Obama is or the healthcare reform act don’t have Death Panels or that Republicans are not reducing the Debt of America do you really need to talk about Higher Knowledge in the Political Parties? To Easy!

Posted by: Henry Schlayman at February 10, 2011 9:00 PM
Comment #318456

Rich

Look at the leadership of the top academic institutions over the last 50 years. Look at the people associated with those same institutions. Look at the foundations that give money to those same institutions. You will find an overwhelming left-leaning structure.

Posted by: tom humes at February 10, 2011 9:03 PM
Comment #318457

J2T2,
There you go ruining a prefectly good debate by adding the Reality of what was said and meant ibstead of allowing people to use fear and scare tactics to show how bad Obamacare will be for Americans. Guess will just have to attack the idea that the healthcare industry will take away to many workers from those corporations who wish to keep low paying jobs. Certainlly that would be bad for America?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 10, 2011 9:11 PM
Comment #318459

Tom Humes,
If you are taling about Americas’ Institutions over the last 50 years pushing the Limits of Mans’ Knowledge and advancing Breaking Technology (being progressuve) than you are right. However, I would not call it “Left-Leaning” unless you are willing to admit the “Right Leaning” would have Americas’ Institutions only teaching Pre-WWII Ideology.

Do you want a world without Cell Phones, Computers, and DVDs? What about cars that get 50mpg? What about the big screen TV? Washers and Dryers, Microwave Ovens and the list goes on and on. And the sad part about it all is the fact today most over the age of 30 don’t even realize that current technology can build a world 40 years ago Humans could only dream about. Just to bad some people want to allow politics to get in the way of the Whole of Human Knowledge and Wisdom.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 10, 2011 9:28 PM
Comment #318460

I see Henry Schlatman has moved on to other accusations, rather than admit he was wrong concerning the verses of the Bible that he had requested.

Perhaps Rich could explain to us the reason why every state that is near bankruptcy is controlled by liberal intellectuals. Is there a correlation between democratic controlled states and liberal intellectual leadership?

Posted by: Conservativethinker at February 10, 2011 9:57 PM
Comment #318462
why every state that is near bankruptcy is controlled by liberal intellectuals.

The states with conservative leadership are the ones facing the largest budget shortfalls.

Posted by: Warped Reality at February 10, 2011 10:23 PM
Comment #318463
I see Henry Schlatman has moved on to other accusations, rather than admit he was wrong concerning the verses of the Bible that he had requested.
Apparently, he read and understood the cautionary comment by the manager. Posted by: jane doe at February 10, 2011 10:25 PM
Comment #318464

Jane Doe,
Considering politics and religion both use the Argument of Partake, all I was trying to do is to point out that one exists to maintain “The Word” and one is by designed create to “Twist the Word.” The problem with most people since the 1960’s and 70’s is they get the to mixed up. And I wonder if the problem is the reason so many don’t know why Facts Matter! For we are always hearing that why you are entitled to your on opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. So I guess it depends on which one you believe keeps “The Word” and which obe allows you to “Twist the Word” since we still have those who are not enlightebed on the difference.

Warped Reality,
Good pick up! What is strange to me is how Republicans want to cut Energy Programs for the Poor, but not cut a dime from the Corporate Welfare of the Oil Companies. Of course I guess one could say they are cutting funding for the Oil Companies by refusing to pay American Small Businesses for delivering energy to the Poor while the Big Oil Companies are making record profits on Wall Street. Thus, once again working to make the Rich richer and the Poor poorer which has been the Status Quo over the last 30 years.

Do you wonder what they will do when Consumers will no longer buy the other corporations products and services in order to keep feeding the profits of the Big Oil Companies?

Conservativethinker,
Read what I wrote to Jane Doe. Can you tell me the which one is which? Note: Remember, I write in Zen like Thinking.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 11, 2011 2:08 AM
Comment #318465

Conservativethinker,

You might want to read this article about the huge budget deficit of gulp, Texas. http://www.businessinsider.com/texas-state-budget-crisis-2011-1#

Posted by: Rich at February 11, 2011 6:02 AM
Comment #318467

“Perhaps Rich could explain to us the reason why every state that is near bankruptcy is controlled by liberal intellectuals.”

Aside from the inaccuracy as to which states are near bankruptcy, you may have a point about the “intelligence” of the blue liberal states’ leadership. It is a well established fact that the blue states are on average net federal tax losers as compared to the red states. They are sending more dollars to Washington than they are getting back in federal spending. The reverse is the case for the red states. In other words, the blue liberal states are subsidizing red states with their federal tax dollars. http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html; http://www.visualeconomics.com/united-states-federal-tax-dollars/

How stupid is that! If the blue states were to demand an equitable return for their tax dollars, their states might be in better shape fiscally. Of course, the conservative states would be in even more dire fiscal shape than they currently are. Why California might even have a surplus.

Posted by: Rich at February 11, 2011 7:37 AM
Comment #318468

j2t2 writes; “Read the rest of the link for the real story…”

Thank you very much for the link. Here’s the “real story” from his link. Hmmmm, that’s not a revelation for conservaties. How about for the libs?

From the article linked by j2t2 we read, “Elmendorf revealed that some of ObamaCare’s so-called reforms may not be reforms at all. Analyzing the many provisions that are supposed to make health care more efficient and less expensive, Elmendorf said that there was little evidence any of them would actually work — leading CBO to view their potential with skepticism.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at February 11, 2011 12:26 PM
Comment #318469

Rich,
Couldn’t get the first link to show all the page; however, the second link clearly shows the impact on how the Social Idea of Federal Tax Sharing helps the Red States. If one was to only listen to Rush and Company you would think the exact opposite was true. Once again showing how Twisting the Words has mislead the Conservatives and Republicans into believing what is spoken and written.

Good Job!

Now, can you show us a study that proves the difference and who created that study. For when I googled “Red States receive less federal tax dollars than Blue States” all I found was articles that proved your point. So where and whom did Conservativethinker and others got their information from?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at February 11, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment #318471

Henry, I both understand and agree with the theory of participation, in many things. Some people’s thoughts and ideas are mercurial, so consistency isn’t always maintained, and the strength of their own convictions isn’t always at hand. Some of the people on here are not able to clearly make a point, or prove it, so they can only rely on being loud, pushy and obnoxious. They also only know how to bully when accompanied by the rest of the pack. The proof of ignorance always surfaces in the form of volume by belittling and tormenting an individual. I don’t like bullies and find it incredible that they are the first ones to run off crying when the tables are turned.

Posted by: jane doe at February 11, 2011 2:39 PM
Comment #318472

Royal, You seem to be upset that the CBO analysis was nonpartisan and the responses from Elmendorf were honest. I think we can all agree that trying to innovate, as Congress did in this case, is at least a step in the right direction.

The real story as you see it is the CBO is skeptical of how effective some of the reforms will be. I think that is a good thing as we all should be skeptical of what the insurance industry and others may come up with to circumvent the reforms in this law. Remember this was a law by committee and compromise. No one is happy with it, for various reasons, and everybody lost something in the deal. After all the dems essentially gave us the repub response to Hillarycare. I would guess that many of the reforms will be met with resistance, many of the reforms will work and many will not.

Once the conservatives get over the fallacies they have created about the law and realize the repeal of the law is not the answer perhaps we can move forward as a Country to solve the real issues which is health insurance that works for the insured not the insurance companies and health care that is affordable to all. Lets face it the repubs/conservatives have not presented any viable answers to the problem. The answers they did present would only put the fox in charge of the chickens and make matters worst. The marketplace is the problem not the answer, despite the rhetoric to the contrary.

Hopefully the repub leadership in Congress will put America first for a change and work with the dems to fix the health care law in a constructive way. I am however skeptical they can pull their heads out of their ideologies long enough to do something good on this issue.

Posted by: j2t2 at February 11, 2011 2:46 PM
Comment #318473

Rich, I can actually remember back many years to when California actually did have a surplus. Jerry Brown was around then, too….and we’d encounter him in Capitol Park riding his bicycle. He always had time to stop and just chat for a few minutes.

Posted by: jane doe at February 11, 2011 2:47 PM
Comment #318474

Sorry I haven’t gotten back to you all. I rarely get sick, but I just got knocked on my backside by this one.

Conservative Thinker-
There’s a contradiction in the first few pages, between the first Creation account and the second.

I don’t mind, because I don’t need a perfectly dictated bible as perfect proof of God. I have faith that God, Jesus, and all the Angels and saints are real with the need for proof.

Words are treacherous. Even if everybody agrees to literally intepret something, people can always be flexible with that interpretation on the back end. Words are a product of the minds of human, and are always an imperfect reflection of any meaning. But with human beings, you have to take what you can get. So, I believe God spiritually inspired those writing the bible, and the pages of the bible reflect that.

I don’t need to believe it’s inerrant, just that God’s grace flows through it. Nothing we humans could possibly write would be without error.

Also, as a person with Asperger’s Syndrome, and a Characteristic tendency to take people literally, I know being too literal can lose the meaning in a passage, in a message. To effectively concentrate meaning, many people, and the writers of the bible are no exception, use figurative language, or tell parables, stories that are not literally true, but contain a truth.

As a writer, I’ve come to recognize that in storytelling, that sort of truth is very important to us as human beings, and such stories are a means of us passing on that inspiration.

Long story short, I believe the bible inspired, not word for word, but in the spiritual sense, through our imperfect words and means of communication. But really, that’s all I need.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 11, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment #318495

jane doe

Are you refering to the ones that left are now on their new blog site? The table did turn on them. Just wondering and still praying for you.

Posted by: tom humes at February 11, 2011 7:00 PM
Comment #318496

David Remer and a few of our authors have left WatchBlog and begun their own web site. We wish them the best of luck. They are, of course, also welcome to continue writing and contributing here at WatchBlog — and some have chosen to do just that.

We have signed up several new authors, and are recruiting more.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 11, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment #318521

th, I have no idea what “ones” you’re talking about first of all, and another thing is that I find it very offensive that you continue with the religion-connected comments. Quit! if and when addressing me.

Posted by: jane doe at February 11, 2011 10:30 PM
Comment #318525

Again, please remember: this is a political discussion web site. If you would like to debate religion there are plenty of other web sites on the Internet that would be happy to have your participation.

Final warning.

Posted by: WatchBlog Publisher at February 11, 2011 10:43 PM
Comment #318530

WatchBlog Publisher

I just made a comment about practicing my particular faith. It was not a debate statement. If someone wants to tell me to “quit” then I am being denied my right to practice my faith. I hope the warning was not meant for me.
Thank You.

Posted by: tom humes at February 11, 2011 11:15 PM
Comment #318531

jane doe
telling me to quit my faith fell on deaf ears. I will continue to practice my faith.

Posted by: tom humes at February 11, 2011 11:16 PM
Post a comment