Nobody Yelled "Kill Him"

The Secret Service has stated that, after an investigation of a newspaper’s claim that a reporter had heard an attendee at a McCain rally yell “Kill him!” of Barak Obama, they could not substantiate the claim.

An article posted on the Internet by the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader details the results of the investigation, saying-

"(Secret Service) Agent Bill Slavoski said he was in the audience, along with an undisclosed number of additional secret service agents and other law enforcement officers and not one heard the comment."

That the Secret Service does not take such reports lightly is well documented. The story contiues-

"Slavoski said more than 20 non-security agents were interviewed Wednesday, from news media to ordinary citizens in attendance at the rally for the Republican vice presidential candidate held at the Riverfront Sports Complex. He said Singleton was the only one to say he heard someone yell 'kill him.'"

For their part the Times-Tribune was standing firm-

"When contacted Wednesday afternoon, Singleton referred questions to Times-Tribune Metro Editor Jeff Sonderman. Sonderman said, 'We stand by the story. The facts reported are true and that’s really all there is.'”

That this report by a single reporter has become cause to label the base of a whole political party as dangerous is a sign of the times. Perhaps the real danger does not lie with them at all.

Posted by Lee Emmerich Jamison at October 16, 2008 2:52 PM
Comments
Comment #267087

We have video of a number of these incidents

The trick of it is, if you have Secret service agents in the crowd, the noise is going to be deafening, especially when you’re stoking a crowd. The acoustics are problematic, so it’s understandable that not everybody’s going hear an intelligible remark. Even so, at least one agent heard the threat, and so did news reporters. I know you like to exclude people based on what you think are their politics, but such partisan exclusions have excluded possibilities that actual video and audio documentation have confirmed as true.

Will their always be a reason for you to doubt what kind of fervor your people have been incited to, and over what issues? The Republicans have become decidedly schizophrenic concerning what they speak amongst themselves, and what they are willing to share with everybody else.

These outbursts at rally are just symptoms of that.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #267088

First, the secret service doesn’t say boo to the media unless their boss tells them what to say. Their boss, for the moment, is GW Bush. Anyone see a potential bias in the orders given to the Secret Service as to what to say to the media on this topic?

Sounds like Republicans grasping at straws to keep from drowning in the McCain boat which struck the Obama ice berg. It is a titanic sinking of the GOP ship now underway, and not enough lifeboats for a number of GOP incumbent Senators and Representatives.

Oh, the horror of it all! ! !

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 4:08 PM
Comment #267089

David,

You encourage us to give government agencies more power over our lives on the assumption they can do better for us than the private sector. Yet, when government agencies with a lot of power are being run by people you consider problematic you are quick to question the veracity of what they say and, perhaps, the safety of what they do.

So, should government (or any other large organization) have more power at the risk of coming under the influence of bad people, or should they be constrained to reduce the inherent risk of bad people? by what mechanism will you restrain the government you grant more power?

Perhaps we should keep all those dangerous conservatives from voting so they can’t elect people who make you scared about the Secret Service?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 16, 2008 4:20 PM
Comment #267091

Perhaps you can also rationalize the decision of a Sacramento Republican Party official to post material calling for Barack Obama to be Waterboarded. Or perhaps this Other Californian Republican Groups decision to mail out images of Barack Obama on a ten buck bill Labelled US Food Stamps, complete with kool-aid, ribs, fried chicken, and watermelon.

Or perhaps you would like to repudiate this mailer which photoshops Osama Bin Laden’s face to make it resemble Barack Obama’s.

What’s happening with these embarrassing outbursts is simply your party’s crypto-racist appeals crossing over into genuine racism and outward hatred . Or Democrats using the internet to raise awareness of the low level stuff your people used to get away with. Either way, it’s your problem, not ours, that people are gettin offended.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #267092

Lee said: “You encourage us to give government agencies more power over our lives”

I have never made such a blanket statement in my life, Lee. You are pulling a John McCain here.

You continued: on the assumption they can do better for us than the private sector.

Sounds like your assumption of what I assume.

Lee said: Yet, when government agencies with a lot of power are being run by people you consider problematic

I consider problematic, Lee? Try 3/4 of the American population if you are referring to GW Bush. You can’t fool all the people all the time, there, Lee. You must be trying to speak to the 1/4 who can be fooled all the time. You do realize that 31% of registered Republicans and only 25% of Americans approve of Bush’s performance. A substantial percentage of Republicans now disapprove of Republican leadership.


Lee said: “So, should government (or any other large organization) have more power at the risk of coming under the influence of bad people”

Here your comment makes a typical Republican error. The government is a non-profit organization organized to serve the American people. Other large organizations like Lehman Bros., AIG, and Bear Stearns are for profit corporations who serve a very small subset of the population called their employees and shareholders.

The Constitution is a good place to learn about our government. By definition within the Constitution, as the nation’s population grows, so must the government. It is written right there in the Constitution. Perhaps you should contribute to the Friends of Article V Convention if you wish to rewrite the part of the Constitution which requires the House of Representatives to grow with the census.

As for corporations, I have repeatedly made the point in my writings that the mergers and acquisitions in the financial industry unleased by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of 1999, was opening the door to the calmity we now face with corporations too large to allow to fail because of their size and involvement with such an enormous part of our economy. Gramm in that bill’s title refers to one of McCain’s primary economic advisors.

Government can only be constrained by the voters. That is what the Constitution and its amendments stipulate. Don’t like our Constitution? Seek an Article V Convention. Voting out incumbents to communicate a shift from politicians controlling us to us controlling them, is a good stand in measure until the Blue Moon when a Convention is called.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 4:40 PM
Comment #267093

What you have, Stephen, is videos of people calling Obama a “terrorist” and yelling “treason”. Nobody has called to kill him, although a reporter might, now, just to get it on tape.

As I was noting with a history professor at Sam Houston State University this afternoon such accusations pale badly against the commonplace of campaigns starting with those against Thomas Jefferson, who, as the “AntiChrist”, was going to “ravage the Constitution” and “sell out the country”.

The campaign against Andrew Jackson was so vicious that his wife died shortly after his election at the end of his second campaign. His first campaign had been so contentious that even after winning a majority of the popular vote a lack of a majority in the electoral college threw the election into the House of Representatives, who chose the also-ran son of John Adams, John Quincy Adams.

If Obama and his supporters are so thin-skinned that they can’t stand to be called a few names what will he, and they, do when Hugo Chavez decides he doesn’t like him? Give him an aircraft carrier and blubber about being a bad neighbor?

Get some spine!

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 16, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #267094

Lee Jamison-
Sometimes the ability of a government to do better than a private individual in confronting certain problems has less to do with the relative wisdom of the regulators or legislators, and everything to do with the authority they wield under our constitution, as our government.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2008 4:42 PM
Comment #267096

Stephen
The “trick” of it is, you did not provide video of somebody yelling “kill him” about Obama. Your link even says that it is unclear as to whether that “one man in the audience” was talking about Obama or Ayers. And seeing how they just got done talking about Ayers and his domestic terrorism, its not totally unfair to link the two together.

Now, IF you have enough proof to show all Republicans are racists and all their rallies are nothing more than Klan meetings, like you are trying to convince voters Republicans are, I would love to see it.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 4:48 PM
Comment #267097

Lee, Obama thin skinned? I think last night’s debate demonstrated who has the thin skin in this race according to polls.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #267098

Lee Jamison-
I would think we would recount the atrocities of yesteryear in the process of repudiating going in their direction, not justifying it.

In modern times, new media make messages vivid and instant, and the capacity of the media to stir up such hatefulness has grown exponentially. Additionally, speedy transportation makes it easier to close in on an intended target before time on the road cools one off enough to lead one to abandon such plans.

Many people make such irresponsible charges and claims. But they are not a major party with nationwide reach. Your people have been spreading paranoid rumors about him all years, pounding on Rev. Wright, and playing to every kind of fear you can find, much of it with an emphasis on the security of this country against attack. Like it or not, you are succeeding at falsely portraying Obama as a mortal threat to this country to some, and a minority of those people might feel inspired to respond to that perceived mortal threat in kind.

You are reaping what you sow. If you don’t like how it makes you look, find something else than race-baiting, religion baiting, terrorism-baiting to get people to vote for you.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2008 4:52 PM
Comment #267099

David wrote-

I consider problematic, Lee? Try 3/4 of the American population if you are referring to GW Bush. You can’t fool all the people all the time, there, Lee. You must be trying to speak to the 1/4 who can be fooled all the time.”

I’ll take your 3/4ths of the population on the executive branch and raise it with the 9/10ths of the population who are fuming over the Democrat-led legislative branch.— Oh, I know you’ll trot out a poll next, and so on and so forth. We’ve got a real poll coming up in a month and that will have the final say.

The point remains the same. Non-profit, non-sense-it, the Federal government is the world’s largest corporation. It is led by a particularly power-hungry batch of people who only dimly reflect our desires in the best of times, and who find any requirement to “serve” us highly inconvenient, if not downright odious, in the worst of times.

Gramm Leach Bliley had been well dealt with by the Democrat who signed it (Clinton) along with every responsible member of his financial team. It’s only being touted by people who are out to find a way to tar the Gramm of the moniker.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 16, 2008 4:54 PM
Comment #267100

kctim, give it up, man! The polls show the public is not buying your defense of the careless and faulty judgment way McCain has conducted his campaign. Palin’s attempts to swiftboat Obama led to Republican followers recorded for the MSM believing Obama is an Arab, and a terrorist, and determined to destroy this country. That is grotesque desperation to win by any means and at all costs.

It was getting so bad, that even McCain himself realized the monster being created and saw fit to incur the boos of his own audience to correct the misled and misguided supporters in his own supporting audience.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 4:57 PM
Comment #267101

I doubt if these Secret Service guys were focused on the things these people were yelling as they were supporting the person that the Secret Service was protecting. It is hard for people to hear things when their attention is elsewhere. Also, as Stephen rightly noted it’s all where you are in the crowd when these things get yelled out.

No matter whether someone yelled “Kill Him!” they did yell some pretty vile stuff. If I were a conservative I wouldn’t be defending these knuckle-dragging, mouth breathers because they are morons. These idiots are only about one step away from getting out the pitchforks and torches and attacking the castle. Mobs are dangerous things when incited in the way Palin does.

I thought McCain was going to break down when he talked last night about John Lewis and how hurt he was that he was compared to George Wallace. Well McCain, sorry but your campaign is responsible for whipping up the anger in people that don’t need a lot of encouragement to behave in a hateful way. You give them cover and justification for their hateful views and make them feel like they are justified in taking out their aggressions on another human being. Thankfully, none of these morons have acted out on this anger but if it keeps up it is likely to lead to someone getting hurt and the McCain/Palin campaign will share some of the blame.

And Lee, it’s not about spine. I don’t think Obama has said he was afraid of what might happen to him. His campaign is just pointing out the vitriol coming from these rallies. It just shows how desperate the McCain campaign and the rabid fringe of their supporters are as an Obama presidency becomes more inevitable every day.

I didn’t think Obama should have distanced himself at all from Lewis. I thought it was ridiculous of McCain to show such indignation at what Lewis said about inciting these mobs and how similar it was to what George Wallace did in Alabama because it is a pretty appropriate analogy.

Posted by: tcsned at October 16, 2008 4:59 PM
Comment #267102

Lee now demonstrates why Republicans cannot be trusted with power in government when he says: “the Federal government is the world’s largest corporation.”

And Republicans sure as hell ran it that way, Lee. That’s way they are on there way out. Sen. Ted Stevens saw no problem profiting from his office in government to the tune of $250,000 in illegal contributions. Abramoff and Delay saw no need to observe laws or ethics, being the largest ‘corporation’ in America and beyond anyone’s reach. Hell, even Rep. William Jefferson saw government as a corporation and himself as a primary shareholder in a bribe sting.

Sorry, government is not, and was never intended to be, a corporation. Perhaps a read of the Constitution and The Wealth of Nations might enlighten your comments a bit on this topic.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 5:02 PM
Comment #267103

Lee

This is interesting, but anything you say goes to deaf ears. Honestly, I don’t know why anyone, especially a conservative, writes anything on this blog. There are 3 columns and yet when a conservative writes anything all in the blue and green column attacks him. There should only be 2 columns, blue and red. There are probably not more than 6 or 7 conservatives writing in any column.

Some of these people write for the Daily Kos. The most disgusting blog site on the Internet. These same people go from one talking point to another and they all say the same thing. Today the talking point is the hatred and violence of conservatives and the followers of Palin or McCain. This story speaks of a liar in the media who said someone said “kill him”. The secret service investigated and found nothing. Two days ago, the secret service visited a woman who was accused of violence toward BHO, by a BHO campaign worker. It was also a lie. But it doesn’t matter to those on the left if it is a lie. They will continue to spout the words of their leaders and defend their own actions.

At the risk of becoming the center of vicious attacks I will quote a few verses from the most hated book of the left:

“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto [them that are] wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto [them that are] mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

If ever a verse described the left, this is it.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 16, 2008 5:03 PM
Comment #267104

And that supports the medias notion that all Republicans are racists and hold Klan rallies how, David?

Your all’s holy quest to ensure Obama is elected at all costs is nothing compared to the damage this labeling will cause. This divide and conqueor tactic is going to come back and bite you guys in the ass, bigtime.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 5:08 PM
Comment #267106

all the right has anymore it seems is fear and dirty tricks

http://www.jetastudio.com/images/va-mailer.gif

—Savage

Posted by: A Savage at October 16, 2008 5:10 PM
Comment #267107

kctim, what medias? I don’t read rags, biased blogs, or Fox news. So, I must be missing the media making such generalized claims about Republicans as you suggest.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 5:13 PM
Comment #267108

DRR

This is a “Biased Blog”

Posted by: Oldguy at October 16, 2008 5:15 PM
Comment #267109

OldGuy. Of course it is. Very astute of you. It has 3 columns for various biased views toward one political party or philosophy or another. Many biases are represented here.

I will give you some Republican bias:


Obama’s Plan:
Mohamed Atta Gets His Driver’s License

Dear Fellow American:

We have just weeks to go before Election Day … time is running short for us to avert a major disaster for our country. That disaster’s name is President Barack Obama.

But this disaster can be averted. I’m confident about this — even though the slanted media are overstating Obama’s inevitability.

But the numbers don’t lie.

The latest Zogby poll had John McCain trailing Obama by two points. Just two points!

Despite the full-court press to destroy McCain and Sarah Palin, Katie Couric’s antics against her, and a daily onslaught of media spin … McCain is still within striking distance.

The stakes have never been higher for the future of the country.

We either patriotically turn the country over to a man who has proudly served his nation in war time and peace — or we face electing a man who has a checkered past, a man who has counted domestic terrorists among his friends, and a man who spent 15 years in a church where his pastor regularly damned and condemned the United States.

Barack Obama is not simply a risky choice as our next president —
He is a dangerous one.

This is why I have taken the helm here at the National Republican Trust Political Action Committee.

Here at the National Republican Trust, we understand our mission. It’s simple. It will also drive the left-wing media nuts.

Here’s the plan: We will tell the American people the truth about Barack Obama!

Every time John McCain or Sarah Palin tries to tell the truth about Obama, they are painted as mean-spirited and negative.

We here at the National Republican Trust can do the job McCain and Palin can’t.

But we need your help. Time is urgent — it’s crunch time.

The latest reports show Obama outspending McCain by 3-to-1 in key states.

Millions of dubious new voters with the help of groups like ACORN are being registered to put the most extreme liberal in the history of the presidency in the White House.

But I’ll shock you: that’s OK!

Let them spend millions in getting new “voters” and millions more in TV ads.

I believe truth is more powerful than lies. How powerful?

Well, so powerful, in fact, that I believe one airing of our TV ads will equal at least 10 airings of theirs.

This issue will nail him.

In the closing weeks of this election, Obama is trying to remake himself as a moderate to win over lower-income, white, Democratic and independent voters.

He wants to hide the facts about his record. He is the most extreme liberal ever to be nominated by a major party.

We all know his 100 percent liberal rating in Congress, his support for the TOTAL gun ban in Washington, D.C., his opposition to protecting babies born alive, and his support for tax increases.

But there is one issue almost all Americans agree on: Illegal aliens should not be given driver’s licenses.

Mohamed Atta’s Florida
driver’s license.

Not after 9/11.


Did you know that Mohamed Atta, the 9/11 ring leader, had a valid Florida driver’s license?

Did you know 13 of the 19 hijackers had obtained valid driver’s licenses? Armed with these licenses, eight of the hijackers even registered to vote!

Here is the shocking fact: Obama strongly supports giving illegal aliens in America driver’s licenses.

He said as much during two Democratic debates earlier this year.

The head of Homeland Security said such thinking was dangerous for national security.

Even Hillary Clinton backed away from Obama’s radical driver’s license plan.

Obama’s position is not a new one: We discovered that Obama has been a major proponent of driver’s licenses for illegals since his days as an Illinois state senator.

We have no doubt that, as president, Obama will also champion this radical plan.

With Osama bin Laden still at large, with al-Qaida promising “spectacular” attacks on the U.S homeland, with the threat of them using weapons of mass destruction against our cities — biological, chemical, and nuclear — can we risk putting such a man in the Oval Office?

Doesn’t he remember what happened on 9/11? More than 3,000 Americans were murdered.

Doesn’t he want to prevent that from ever happening again?

If he supports driver’s licenses for illegals, the answer is clear.

We need to inform millions of Americans about this man and his risky judgment.

We are days away from our new TV ad exposing Obama’s support for driver’s licenses for illegals.

But we need your help. We’re already preparing our ad budget in key swing states. The more you can donate to us today, the more we can spend in the coming days.

And don’t forget, you can donate a maximum of $5,000. Your spouse can also make a $5,000 donation.

With $5,000 we can saturate a whole city/market in a key swing state for one whole night.

But even $1,000 helps us. With $1,000 we can run 10 TV ads in a key market.

Whatever you can give, $500, $250 or any amount, can make a huge difference.

We at the National Republican Trust PAC appreciate your support and love of our country. We will not fail you. Too much is at stake.




Help Expose Obama’s License Plan

Thank you.

Yours for America,

Scott Wheeler

Executive Director

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 16, 2008 5:24 PM
Comment #267110

I’m going to ask one more time, how anyone outside of the most narrow-minded and vicious, flame-baiting, neo-con even wastes their time by lending credibility to this post, and the poster.
This is absurd, ridiculous and should no longer even be tolerated on here.
This article essentially is giving approval to the most despicable of human traits, and that is the desire to kill another human being, based on race. Responding to it just throws fuel into the fire.

Posted by: janedoe at October 16, 2008 5:34 PM
Comment #267111

and the above post is a sample of whats different about the parties.The left is leading with a gotv campaign, while the right just begs for more negative advertising cash.

“But the numbers don’t lie.
The latest Zogby poll had John McCain trailing Obama by two points. Just two points!”

And then they are perfectly willing to lie to the few people that still trust them to get it.

I was raised republican and voted the same for many years —
I just wonder what good old grand-dad would think of the party he used to love— since his memories are from before they took up the racist suck up to the church for votes mantel — I do not think he would respect this party anymore.

Posted by: A Savage at October 16, 2008 5:40 PM
Comment #267113

Janedoe
Did you even read the post?

“That this report by a single reporter has become cause to label the base of a whole political party as dangerous is a sign of the times. Perhaps the real danger does not lie with them at all.”

There is no “flame-baiting” or defense of the actions of a few. Instead, it points out that the accusation that all Republicans are racist is unfounded.

Narrow-minded is denying what is true and accepting what you want, wish and need to be true.

Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 5:46 PM
Comment #267122

>Narrow-minded is denying what is true and accepting what you want, wish and need to be true.
Posted by: kctim at October 16, 2008 05:46 PM

kctim,

http://crooksandliars.com/david-neiwert/mccainpalin-supporters-let-their-rac

You’re certainly right about that…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 16, 2008 7:11 PM
Comment #267131

This is interesting, but anything you say goes to deaf ears. Honestly, I don’t know why anyone, especially a conservative, writes anything on this blog. There are 3 columns and yet when a conservative writes anything all in the blue and green column attacks him. There should only be 2 columns, blue and red. There are probably not more than 6 or 7 conservatives writing in any column.
correct me if I am wrong but my impression is that this is more or less a debate forum, in that the authors post their thoughts with the full knowledge that the other parties are here to point out the falsies.

There are probably not more than 6 or 7 conservatives writing in any column.
and is that the right or the lefts fault?
There is not much we can do about the fact your party is committing suicide — even if we where so inclined.
Some of these people write for the Daily Kos. The most disgusting blog site on the Internet.
well I am sorry you have not found any of the many sites that are the same on the right but its not our job to lead you by the hand.Or is that just selective filtering on your part when your at those sites?
At the risk of becoming the center of vicious attacks I will quote a few verses from the most hated book of the left:
and the most selectively quoted book also — odd how those that quote it so seldom follow it
“Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto [them that are] wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight! Woe unto [them that are] mighty to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink: Which justify the wicked for reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!”

If ever a verse described the right, this is it.

Posted by: A Savage at October 16, 2008 8:48 PM
Comment #267135

oldguy-
Democrats are energized, have a network of people feeding them information as well as opinion. We don’t cut ourselves off from mainstream media stories, and haven’t made ourselves dependent on the party.

Republicans vulnerability is that they now depend on a media they don’t have in common with anybody else. The Democrats don’t benefit from the mainstream media because they’re never challenged by it, but because they’ve adapted to its rigors, and share the common culture with most Americans. Republicans, having convinced themselves that they needed their own media system to keep their flock on their ranch, have essentially made Republicans a party whose dealings with people beyond their ranks are delicate at best.

The Republicans were tough because they stuck together with insane consistency, because they had a broadband pipeline of their propaganda in the media. Now, though, they’re having to compete against the Democrats who have found their own media system for their political base, who can fight in the mainstream media, who have shed their hesitance and wimpiness in advocating for their side.

You can moralize about what bad guys we are, about what a horrible place Daily Kos is, never confronting your own party’s nastiness these last few years.

This is what you’ve been dishing our way for a long time. And now you can’t take it.

If Republicans want to return to some kind of dignity, and argue with force, they have to stop relying on the Central GOP talking points. Democrats have decentralized themselves. We don’t hesitate to confront our party when it’s weak or stupid, or to put our money where our mouth is on the candidates we want in place.

The looser organization of the party works to our advantage. Where your people are trying to push an unwilling public to focus on character issues during a terrible economic crisis, ours are using information from all around to inform people in a persuasive way, slowly prying the Republican’s hold on America’s imagination away.

Nothing, though keeps the Republicans from doing the same thing. They must learn, though, to persuade people through solid facts shared in common, rather than strongly brewed propaganda dropped from above. As long as they have to defend a party that’s betrayed them and their interests, not to mention the rest of the country’s, people will put little credibility in Republican talking points.

kctim-
The point isn’t that the Republicans are ostentatious racists, one and all. No, the problem rather is that the Republicans are encouraging people to view the Democratic candidate as something little short of a terrorist. They’re the ones employing rhetoric that divides along lines of racial grievance, rather than reaching out across them. They’re the ones more or less calling Democrats terrorist sympathizers, if not terrorists themselves.

What’s happening here is the Democrats essentially winning back all the Demographics the Republicans once had a lock on. It is their “divide and conquer” strategy, practiced for the last half century, finally collapsing back on them.

The Democrats can likely heal more divides than the Republicans can open up. That’s how we’ll win the election.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 16, 2008 9:13 PM
Comment #267139

Stephen, you’re putting forth an extremely romanticized (not to mention sanitized) depiction of both Democratic electoral success and governance. And one, frankly, which demonstrates a great deal of premature triumphalism.

Let’s look at two different things: winning elections and governing.

As far as winning elections go, you want to talk about the superior organizational skills of Democrats, about “dignity,” about holding sway over “America’s imaginations,” etc., but the fact is that Republicans are currently losing because of 1). incumbency during a struggling economy, and b). the cyclical nature of American politics, which has very rarely allowed one party to hold exclusive sway for long periods of time.

Even considering these natural political cycles, we have to look at how Democrats have managed to win elections of late. Take 2006, for example. When the Democrats took back Congress, they weren’t winning elections by running candidates of the Daily Kos, Democratic alternative-media unabashedly liberal types which you celebrate. They ran and won with a bunch of Blue Dog Democrats who often ran to the RIGHT of their Republican opponents. And currently we have Barack Obama—who is promising to cut taxes. Also, have you happened to look at Congress’s approval rating lately?

In any case, winning elections is the comparatively easy part. Once you win, what do you do next?

This has been a problem that Democrats have not had to deal with in any substantial way for a very long time now. When you’re out of power, it’s very easy to maintain “group cohesion” among your party’s competing interests because you share a common goal—reasserting your political power.

Once in power, however, especially when your party controls all the branches of the federal government, three things happen which damage both your ability to govern and your future electoral prospects:

1). All the separate groups of your party which were held together by the common goal of winning elections suddenly want to see their agendas enacted and don’t understand why it isn’t happening—after all, the party they fought for is now in power. This brings all kinds of antagonisms to the surface that were previously buried. Republicans know about this—we’ve lived through it. If anyone believes that the competing interests in the Democratic party aren’t going to end up at each others throats, they’re deluding themselves.

2). The considerable segment of the public which is not hard-core Democrat or hard-core Republican associates your party with the status quo, and there are always things about the status quo that upset Americans. Fairly or not, everything from rising gas prices, failing schools, political instability in far off lands, or rising health care costs gets put on your doorstep. Even if you’ve done certain things well, your failures become magnified.

3). The opposition party, out of power, suddenly enjoys incredible flexibility in how they they get to attack you. Since they’re not responsible to the same extent for what’s happening in government, they get points for simply pointing out and magnifying your failings. Monday-morning quarterbacking becomes the order of the day. And all the while the out-of-power party gets to snipe from the sidelines, the different parts of their coalition become increasingly unified. Unburdened by the actual responsibility of government, they come together an increase their chances of winning subsequent elections.

Politics is cyclical. Much of it is entirely predictable. The sun goes up, the goes down again, and reading into it superior Democratic virtue is to be like the crowing rooster who wants to take credit for the dawn.

Posted by: Loyal Oppostion at October 16, 2008 10:51 PM
Comment #267148

It sounds like some on the left are preparing the spin in case BHO looses. What evil lurks within the Republican Party. When McCain wins, will it be another stolen election?

A Savage

Write your own material, instead of “I KNOW YOU ARE, BUT WHAT AM I”

Posted by: Oldguy at October 17, 2008 1:20 AM
Comment #267151

Foreign Policy

Obama said he would sit down with Iran’s Ahmedinejad without pre-conditions. That would be a big mistake. An American president doesn’t give someone like him legitimacy by lending the prestige of a face to face meeting with no pre-conditions. Obama’s naïveté and inexperience makes him dangerous in dealing with foreign affairs.

McCain says there are certain conditions under which he might sit down with Ahmedinejad. Those conditions being that the Iranians would change their policy toward Israel(they want to wipe them off the face of the earth); another is they would have to quit trying to run us out of Iraq(they send explosive devices into Iraq killing U.S. soldiers), and they would have to stop supporting terrorists organizations.

Our unilateral foreign policy has been our policy since George Washington was our president. The U.S. must always consider itself first in order to protect and preserve our national security. I don’t think you can blame the present administration for the lack of respect we have in the world. Countries like Iran, North Korea, etc/, have no respect for democracies. They especially hate us because we promote freedom and human rights.

Your argument that McCain would rob Iran, North Korea, Russia and Hamas of their self-respect indicates you think we have that kind of influence over them. They hate us. They don’t respect us. If Obama wants to sit down with them and see if we can all move to the middle, that’s scary. How do we move to the middle about human rights, nuclear weapons, terrorism, our freedoms etc.? We cannot, and we don’t need a president who doesn’t understand that.

Iraq and Afghanistan

it is important to understand that because of Iraq we have an advantageous position in that region of the world. If we pull out before it is stable, we will lose it to terrorist or to Iran. Considering the war on terror we are waging, we will probably always have some troops stationed in Iraq, much like we have in Europe etc since WWII. If memory serves, we are providing infrastructure, food, medical facilities, electricity, and clean water for Iraq.

Change

Obama talks the talk of change, but his record says he walks the walk of the typical Democratic philosophy of higher taxes on everyone, bigger government, more regulation, excessive spending, and weak national defense. He has a socialistic view that says the people can’t take care of themselves, so the government has to do it. He told a guy the other day that he wants to redistribute the wealth in this country. That is take from the rich and give to the poor. I am certainly not against giving to charity, and taking care of those who are truly in need, but a government that practices redistribution of wealth is a socialist government.

When John Edwards was asked if he’d be willing to raise taxes to fund a universal health care plan, he said, “Yes, we’ll have to raise taxes. The only way you can pay for a health care plan…that costs anywhere from $90 to $120 billion dollars… is there has to be a revenue source.” The Democrats want to take our money, set up a substandard health care system, and tell us where we can go. Consequently, the level of care will fall dramatically.

Yes, I agree that both parties want things their way, but it is McCain that has reached across the aisle and worked against members of his own party to try and get things done. The Washington Times stated in a recent article that Democrats made up 55% of McCain’s political partners in Congress in the last two Congresses compared to 13% Republicans with Obama since he’s been in Congress. Obama hasn’t reached across the aisle on anything risky, and there’s a reason he has been awarded the title, Most Liberal Senator in the Senate(far-left voting record).

When McCain said “I will veto every bill(with earmarks)…you will know their names” he was trying to make the point that he wants to get rid of the excessive spending Congress is so famous for. I find that admirable. Why is that a bad thing?

Economics

McCain’s and Obama’s economic plans are worlds apart. Number one, McCain won’t raise taxes, Obama will; number two, McCain has had no earmarks, and will fight them, Obama made $750 million in earmark requests in the almost 4 years he’s been in congress; number three, McCain will cut capital gains tax, Obama will raise it. There is so much more, but you get the idea. Let me remind you that Clinton also said that he wouldn’t raise taxes on the middle class, but then, proceeded to sign the biggest tax increase in history. That really hurt my husband and me, but in contrast, the Bush tax cuts felt really nice.

Personalities

Obama may say that he got differing viewpoints to come together when he was a community organizer, but the fact is he worked closely with a known domestic terrorist, William Ayers, a financial backer, friend and convicted felon,
Tony Rezko, and with a group called ACORN, which is the largest radical, left-wing organization in the country. ACORN is right now being investigated in more than a dozen states for voter fraud. Obama trained members of ACORN, donated to them, and worked with them on a number of projects.

The McCain ad that said Obama wants sex education in kindergarten was correct. Obama added that it is the right thing to do and it of course would be “age appropriate”. His campaign later said that it had to do with inappropriate touching. (I watched the video on the internet)

About Sarah Palin, she is a very impressive individual. She is also a wonderful Christian, wife, and mother. Evidently, she has been a great mayor and governor. Her approval rating in Alaska is in the 80’s! In this day and time, you have to look at a political figure’s record in order to learn about them. You can’t rely on the media because of its bias.

I disagree that the Republican Party is angry and negative any more so than the Democratic Party. If you think that, you must be listening to the mainstream media. That is exactly how they want you to think. They show Obama in ways that make him look saintly and peacful, but are consistently belligerent to McCain and Palin.

Abortion and Same-sex marriage

While it is true that we have been unsuccessful in overturning Roe vs Wade, does that mean we are to stop fighting for the innocent victims that can’t fight for themselves? Are we to give up trying while millions of babies are murdered every year? If Joe Biden believes that life begins at conception, but doesn’t want to stop the murder, what does that say of him? Would he let convicted murderers go free because he doesn’t want to force his beliefs on them? It was a dark day indeed when the Supreme Court upheld Roe vs Wade, and I believe that God has withheld His blessings from America since that time.

If Obama is elected president, you can count on same-sex marriages getting the same recognition as marriages between one woman and one man. They will also try to pass a Gay Right’s Amendment. That will be one black day for America.

The religious right certainly has its extremists, and they do things I don’t approve of, but the foundation on which they stand is the Bible. The Bible does say that we are to stand for truth and fight against evil. That is the good fight of faith.
In II Timothy 4:7, Paul says “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the course, I have kept the faith.”

The United States of America began as a Christian nation founded upon the principles of the Bible. I don’t believe that it is unreasonable of us to expect those principles to continue to be the basis by which we live. The Constitution says the government cannot set up a ‘state church” which is what is meant by separation of church and state(a phrase that is not even in the Constitution). Just because the Constitution also says that you don’t have to take any religious test in order to hold office, doesn’t mean that we can’t hope that Christians will be the ones to hold office. Our political and social situation in this country has reached a point where if we don’t fight for Christian principles, they will be legislated right out from under us.

Neither party is completely right, nor certainly perfect, but as a responsible, discerning Christian, I must look at the record of each party and each candidate and vote for the ones who are closest to the truths I hold so dear in my heart….the truths of God’s Word. For me, in this political world, at this crucial time, that has to be the Republican Party.

Posted by: Gail at October 17, 2008 1:55 AM
Comment #267154

Gail -

WHERE did you get your ‘facts’?

Number one, McCain won’t raise taxes, Obama will; number two, McCain has had no earmarks, and will fight them, Obama made $750 million in earmark requests in the almost 4 years he’s been in congress; number three, McCain will cut capital gains tax, Obama will raise it.

McCain claims he won’t raise taxes. Have you seen the deficit lately? Or our overall national debt? McCain’s giving a campaign promise that could not be kept. Obama admits he WILL raise taxes…only on those who make over a quarter million per year. 95% of Americans do NOT make that much money…which is why he can rightfully claim he won’t raise taxes on 95% percent of Americans. McCain did not have any earmarks, but he DOES have FAR more lobbyists on his campaign staff than does Obama), and Palin had more earmarks per capita than anyone else in the nation in both her terms as mayor and governor.

The next time you start bringing out claims, Gail, I suggest you go to factcheck.org - they’re truly non-partisan and skewer any false claim made by any candidate. Perhaps there you can find out that Fox News isn’t as ‘fair and balanced’ as you may think.

Now, let’s approach things from a religious aspect. Remember “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Paul backed that up by saying, “I judge those inside the Church, but not those outside the Church” (or words to that effect).

In other words, we Christians are NOT to condemn anyone for any act not illegal. We ARE required to follow the law (“Render unto Caesar…”). Anyone who claims to be Christian but flouts the law of the land (as in refusing Congressional subpoenas) is committing willful sin.

And when it comes to gays and lesbians…are you attracted to women? I assume that you are of course NOT. I assume that there is NOTHING that could ever force you to be attracted to other women. Ever.

So taking into consideration your own experience of enjoying one type of sex (hetero) and NOT the other type (homo), then what makes you think that a true homosexual can be ‘convinced’ to be attracted to the opposite sex?

So if a homosexual can NEVER be convinced to be attracted to the opposite sex, then what American right have we to tell him he has NO right to the pursuit of happiness as our Founding Fathers laid down in the Declaration of Independence? And don’t give me “the Bible says so”, because we have freedom of religion in America…which means we have NO right to force our disparate religious beliefs on anyone else!

And let’s not stop there! If marriage is to be only between a man and a woman, then WHY did God allow true hermaphrodites? And then there’s women with AIS - Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome - which gives them all the parts of a female…but also an internal set of testes AND the ‘Y’ chromosome? How could God, being perfect as He certainly is, demand that homosexuality was so sinful, yet allow hermaphrodites and AIS? The only other possibility is that those who recorded the Bible allowed some of their cultural mores to influence their writing…and even Jeremiah railed against those who were not accurate in their recordings of Scripture.

Gail, I am very much a Christian…but I also know that Christianity has to agree with scientific and logical fact. Those who feel they ignore hard scientific fact to protect their faith…are simply weak in the faith.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 2:49 AM
Comment #267166

Glenn Contrarian

You ask Gail, “WHERE did you get your ‘facts’?”
Then you proceed to say McCain must raise taxes, based upon his campaign promises. Do you have facts that McCain will raise taxes, or is this just your opinion?

Now concerning BHO”s statement of not raising taxes on 95% of American tax payers. He is disingenuous because the bottom 40% do not even pay taxes. That is a fact.

Concerning the quarter of a million dollars. Now tell me is the $250,000 net or gross? The media and BHO’s campaign has had a lot to say about Joe, the plumber. By the way, I predict Joe the plumber to be the next point of attack and the next lefty talking point. Biden said 95% of small business owners made less than 250 thousand a year. This is a lie and you can look up the stats, since you know so much more about researching subjects. My son owns his own electric company. He hires on the average of 3 and sometimes 4 union electricians. He is what you call a small business. His net income last year was over $350,000 and that means he falls under BHO tax hike which is used to share the wealth with those have no desire to better themselves.

Now concerning religion, Gail said:
“The United States of America began as a Christian nation founded upon the principles of the Bible. I don’t believe that it is unreasonable of us to expect those principles to continue to be the basis by which we live. The Constitution says the government cannot set up a ‘state church” which is what is meant by separation of church and state(a phrase that is not even in the Constitution). Just because the Constitution also says that you don’t have to take any religious test in order to hold office, doesn’t mean that we can’t hope that Christians will be the ones to hold office. Our political and social situation in this country has reached a point where if we don’t fight for Christian principles, they will be legislated right out from under us.

Neither party is completely right, nor certainly perfect, but as a responsible, discerning Christian, I must look at the record of each party and each candidate and vote for the ones who are closest to the truths I hold so dear in my heart….the truths of God’s Word. For me, in this political world, at this crucial time, that has to be the Republican Party.”

Gail was forcing none of her religious views on you or anyone else. Everything she said is true and she concluded that she would like to see men and women in office with Godly principles. That is her position. But the left becomes furious at the very mention of Christianity and the Bible. They are not able to control themselves, quoting verses from the bible brings out the natural hatred unredeemed man has for anything Holy and good.

Your answer to Gail for quoting the bible was to throw forth quotes of your own. Now the same bible that says “Render unto Caesar” and “Judge not…” also condemns homosexuality. Either you were showing your knowledge of the bible by quoting verses and not actually believing what you write, or you believe what wrote but failed to present verses in which God called homosexuality “an abomination”.

Romans 1:26-27, “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: 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”

“Gail, I am very much a Christian…but I also know that Christianity has to agree with scientific and logical fact. Those who feel they ignore hard scientific fact to protect their faith…are simply weak in the faith.

You make two mistakes in this sentence: Christianity does not have to agree with scientific or logical facts. If you are a Christian, as you say, then you must understand that it is science and logic that must agree with the bible. To a Christian, the bible is the standard by which all others things are measured. Now you speak of faith and say Christians must believe in hard scientific fact to protect their faith. This is illogical, again we go to the bible, Hebrews 11:1, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” If you need proof to have faith, then it is not faith.

Lastly, your answers about homosexuality seem to come from the premise that a loving God would not allow certain things to happen. Now, I know you do not believe the bible, but the evil that is in the world is not of God, it is the result of man alienating himself from God. In a perfect world there would be no “freaks” (for lack of a better world) of nature. But, we do not live in a perfect world; we live in a world wrecked by sin. Not sin that God created, but sin that Satan and man chose for themselves.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 17, 2008 9:42 AM
Comment #267168

LO-
Your party didn’t lose because it was in the bad part of a cycle. On one subject after another, the Republicans have lost their grip on the public discourse. They failed to manage the budget, when the authority to manage it was all theirs. They failed to win a war, when the authority to manage it was all theirs.

When they had the government all to themselves, the economy on the ground level slumped, and only soared at the upper levels by depending on the updrafts of the housing market. Now even that is gone, and in its place is a financial mess generations will be cleaning up. Corruption and stonewalling of investigations have become common incidents, and people, naturally, have a limit to what they can take in all these cases.

You crossed those limits, and convinced people that your particular point of view, if rewarded, will lead you to repeat or aggravate your mistakes.

The insularity of your party is not helping things. You’ve become very averse to being judged by outsiders, but as a consequence, you folks have lost your touch in appealing to those people. Getting things like Fox News has only made you folks more out of touch, almost by design. But in a time where you need to be reading people better, when you need to understand the direction the country is going and respond to that, you’re being fed a near constant diet of false reassurance and political and policy apologetics.

These crowds out there are reflecting that insularity, convincing people that your party does not share their values, or even much respect the rest of America. The rhetoric doesn’t help you, either. Inside the party, it may get cheers and laughs, but outside, its a good way to get things frosty real fast.

One thing that’s fed into this whole problem you’re dealing with, is the difference between the reasonable people that Democrats field, and the scary names and labels you slap on people. As people get to know us, get to understand our policies, they’ve become more and more unmoved by charges of socialism and palling around with terrorists. It can also backfire on you people if people identify with our policies. If they find the prospect of getting a tax cut aimed at themselves to be a good thing, just how do you think they react when somebody talks about that as socialism?

The Republicans have lost perspective on how the public judges their policies and the Democrats. That’s why they’re going to lose elections.

Oldguy-
Why are your folks bringing up ACORN and Voter Registration Fraud? Because you want to cast doubt on the results of an election that you’re 95% likely to lose. But ask yourself something: does reliance on a narrative like this benefit your party? I think the leadership in your party is increasingly trying to insulate itself from its own failure. But doing that means taking away the motivation to actually fix the problems within the party.

It’s not an easy thing to face, and it doesn’t get better when all you do is sulk in the corner about how everybody’s so unfair to you. The Republican party, after monopolizing power for so long, has grown dogmatically behind the times, and unused to Democrats who aren’t ashamed to be liberals. Y’all need a better narrative than “we wuz robbed”

Gail-
It’s not naive to meet without pre-conditions. It’s naive to expect that a hostile or adversarial political power will give us something for nothing before we will even meet with them. Even the Bush Administration has had to abandon that approach.

You are not restricted to photo-ops. You can make tough statements, both in private, and in public. The point is to get them playing our game. Once we start doing that, we can shape that game to our advantage.

American can consider itself first all it wants to, but in the modern age, we are unavoidably entangled in the rest of the world. Acting like we can just selfishly impose our own interests and everybody just has to take it, is as naive as thinking that hostile or adversarial powers would just suddenly agree with us, just for the honor of a Presidential visit.

The question is, can we get there from here? We can demand the rest of the world help secure loose nukes, but will the demand create an actual effect, or just resound in the empty spaces around us, with the soothing music of the crickets to accompany? Diplomacy is about coordination between allies who don’t always agree, who have different priorities. Diplomacy is about achieving different ends around the world with countries and peoples that have positive to negative relationships with us. It’s about getting other people to fight our fight our fights for us. It’s about any number of things. The talk is just the communication of policy alternatives, dependent on what the other guy does.

Build the reactor, and we may move to sanction, or not give you that foreign aid we were talking about. Now folks may lie to us, play games with us, but we’ll be introducing new variables into their calculations, affecting their decisions.

Those people you listed, they’re probably not heartbroken that we don’t like them or respect them. They draw much of their legitimacy from their opposition to us. Here diplomacy can play a role, as we use manipulation of their interests behind the scene to ensnare them in internal political debates, turn their nice neat little systems to our ends.

Middle grounds have little to do with what we would be doing. What it has everything to do with is having a seat at the game. When we withhold our presence, we deprive ourselves, not them, of the opportunity to influence policy, shape events. We give them power by remaining aloof so long as they don’t publically hamstring themselves by caving in to our demands. Does that seem likely, or are you counting on our military to solve all these tough problems?

Iraq was unnecessary. We wouldn’t have been in a position to lose both it and Afghanistan had we not invaded. As for losing Iraq to Iran, even if we are successful as Bush defines it, that will have happened.

They are now basically allies. It is telling that when violence flared up in the South of Iraq after al-Sadr broke the cease-fire, they went to Iran to be the honest broker between the Iraqi government and the Sadrists.

The infrastructural stuff shouldn’t remain our business at this late date. I think it bears repeating that the bulk of what we consider the Iraq war has been essentially a post-war insurgency and civil conflict. Those who wanted a genuinely peaceful Iraq, Democratic, rebuilt, capable of standing on its own with a full army and police force have been bitterly disappointed. by the slide in Iraq’s condition. We’re essentially leaving behind a failed state no matter what we do, and that’s the shame of the hard-headed Bush policy.

On change? Republicans claim a lot of things about policies, mostly to scare people. As people have seen that the Republican’s dire picture is generally inaccurate, people have come to our side.

Why? Because we’re genuinely moderate. We can vote for both tax cuts and additional taxes. We can move towards both diplomacy and war. We can cut spending, and prudently elevate it. We can reform in whatever direction we care to, and do it publically. Democrats answer less to a central ideology, and more to a central set of principles.

Republicans, meanwhile have demonstrated time and again that they believe, like others, in serving America’s interests, but only through the rigidly defined platform of their party. Any other way, they’ve defined as being too risky, to socialist, too this or that.

And unfortunately, much of how they define this has been through a haphazard contrarianism, which more or less means that if liberals or moderates like it, they don’t. In this way, the Republicans, despite their best intentions, have gotten on the wrong side of history.

Americans want more options. Better options. Options they think will work.

As opposed to that of the Republicans.

Taxes are a perfect example. So far, the application of this panacea has only yielded deficit, inflation, and greater debt. McCain’s denied earmarks to himself, but has shown little problem in approving huge spending bills riddled with them. Like taxes, earmarks are McCain’s advertised cure-all. The truth with taxes is that sometimes a little pain now means less pain later. Clinton’s raising of taxes contributed to the budget surplus, which benefited everybody. What we need is somebody who taxes and spends responsibly, not somebody trying to run away from cold hard economic realities.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 17, 2008 9:59 AM
Comment #267170

oldguy

“I predict Joe the plumber to be the next point of attack and the next lefty talking point.”

it’s already started here at WB. check the blue column under “McCain’s Own Frankenstein Creature”.

“Lastly, your answers about homosexuality seem to come from the premise that a loving God would not allow certain things to happen. Now, I know you do not believe the bible, but the evil that is in the world is not of God, it is the result of man alienating himself from God. In a perfect world there would be no “freaks” (for lack of a better world) of nature. But, we do not live in a perfect world; we live in a world wrecked by sin. Not sin that God created, but sin that Satan and man chose for themselves.”

spot on oldguy. the BS in this world exists because we were given freedom of choice.


Posted by: dbs at October 17, 2008 10:22 AM
Comment #267173

Old,

Just the thoughts of an old atheist, but, if your god created man in his own image, he created homosexuals, hermaphrodites, etc., too. The bible was written by several hundreds of people, some of whom were in committee. Have you ever seen anything useful come out of committee?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 11:05 AM
Comment #267175

Stephen
“The point isn’t that the Republicans are ostentatious racists, one and all. No, the problem rather is that the Republicans are encouraging people to view the Democratic candidate as something little short of a terrorist”

If that is the case, then why label McCain/Palin supporters all as being full of hatred and racists?
You and Dude provide links which prove what we already know: there are uninformed people who hold ignorant beliefs out there. But in both links, the goal is to make people think those people are representitive of all Republicans.

Its kind of hard to heal any divides when you are trying to create a huge one just to win an election.

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 11:17 AM
Comment #267182

Oldguy and dbs:

“Lastly, your answers about homosexuality seem to come from the premise that a loving God would not allow certain things to happen. Now, I know you do not believe the bible, but the evil that is in the world is not of God, it is the result of man alienating himself from God. In a perfect world there would be no “freaks” (for lack of a better world) of nature. But, we do not live in a perfect world; we live in a world wrecked by sin. Not sin that God created, but sin that Satan and man chose for themselves.

spot on oldguy. the BS in this world exists because we were given freedom of choice.

Have either of you actually read the bible? “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.” Isaih 45:7, KJV.

Posted by: Jarandhel at October 17, 2008 12:14 PM
Comment #267187

Loyal Opposition,
Terrific comment earlier in the thread on the cyclical nature of majorities and minorities. Much appreciated.

Posted by: phx8 at October 17, 2008 12:41 PM
Comment #267188

Jarendahl, that’s a great retort. Too bad it will be lost in those you’re responding to. Being selective is not a short suit for radicals.

Posted by: janedoe at October 17, 2008 12:49 PM
Comment #267199

>You and Dude provide links which prove what we already know: there are uninformed people who hold ignorant beliefs out there. But in both links, the goal is to make people think those people are representitive of all Republicans.

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 11:17 AM

kctim,

You can’t be reading the same stuff that I am. I can’t speak for the others who post links to these hatefests, but I don’t believe all or even most Republicans are racist or have any stronger biases than any of the rest of us.

MY PROBLEM IS THAT THESE SCENES ARE REPEATEDLY FOISTED ON BY CAMPAIGN STAFF AND THE CAMPAIGNERS. They, of course want to win the election, and they may even believe they could help lead this country out of some of the doodoo we’ve gotten ourselves in to. But, to win an election by inciting what is most base in their audiences, and by either not attempting to stop it, or smilingly encouraging it as Palin does, or half heatedly speaking of it or joking about it as mccain does, is unconscionable.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 1:45 PM
Comment #267202

oldguy

Christianity does not have to agree with scientific or logical facts. If you are a Christian, as you say, then you must understand that it is science and logic that must agree with the bible. To a Christian, the bible is the standard by which all others things are measured.

It is that very lack of logic which lends credence to the separation of church and state. Ideologies lacking logic serve no useful purpose in determinations of pragmatism. That is why people of logic resist the influx and influence of religious ideology into government. It is difficult to justify decisions of state by way of a doctrine which worships an icon which can neither be seen or conversed with in real world terms.

Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 2:12 PM
Comment #267208

>It is difficult to justify decisions of state by way of a doctrine which worships an icon which can neither be seen or conversed with in real world terms.
Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 02:12 PM

RickIL,

Even worse than that is trying to choose WHICH one to use as the ‘great guide in the sky’.

Assuming that the one the christians call GOD existed at one time or the other:

The God of Abraham is the God of Jews and Allah, the God of Muslims. They are one in the same.

Jseus is the ‘son of God’ to christians, but Muhammed is the ‘son of Allah to Muslims.

The Mormans have God…then Jesus…then Joseph Smith and then hte current leader of the church who is also a sacred being.

The catholics have God…then Jesus…then the sitter on the throne of Peter as a sacred being.

The Shiis…and the, oh hell, I get lost in it all.

But you see what I mean? This nation is falling apart and someone says we should become a religious freak show to appease his psyche…oh well.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 2:32 PM
Comment #267219

Dude
You don’t believe that of Republicans but yet you call their groupings “hatefests?”

I have no problem with you guys not liking Ayers or Obama’s muslim backgound being brought up. Condemn those tactics all you want. But all of this started when the left took the ignorant remarks of a couple people and tried to paint the whole Republican party as racists and that simply is not the case.

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 3:27 PM
Comment #267222

ITA with LO for once: “Stephen, you’re putting forth an extremely romanticized (not to mention sanitized) depiction of both Democratic electoral success and governance. And one, frankly, which demonstrates a great deal of premature triumphalism.”

The economy is in such bad shape that Kucinich or Gravel would probably have had a chance of being elected this year. BHO’s chances are less, in spite of the fairy tales being spun by his supporters here and in his most significant support, the media. There is barely any mention anywhere of the fact that there are other people running for POTUS than the duopoly candidates.

Posted by: ohrealy at October 17, 2008 3:33 PM
Comment #267228

>You don’t believe that of Republicans but yet you call their groupings “hatefests?”

Posted by: kctim at October 17, 2008 03:27 PM

kctim,

Only the groupings that encourage hate…hence, the term ‘hatefest’…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 4:29 PM
Comment #267234

Jarendahl & Janedoe
Try reading the whole chapter instead of picking and choosing verses that can be misleading if read by themselves.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2008 4:53 PM
Comment #267236

kctim

But all of this started when the left took the ignorant remarks of a couple people and tried to paint the whole Republican party as racists and that simply is not the case.

Don’t be ridiculous Kc. I don’t believe anyone is painting the entire republican party as racist. By this statement are you referring to all republicans or GOP members. Personally my problem is not with the people voicing the hatreds. There will always be a degree of bigots in most any crowd. It is safe to say that those who motivated the responses were preying on the sensibilities of the racially prejudiced. That said it is also fair to associate the motivators as racist. The fact that they allowed those prejudices to simmer rather than instantly denouncing them says everything about the situation.

Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #267242

dude

The Shiis…and the, oh hell, I get lost in it all.

I do know what you mean. There is no reasonable method of reckoning with these folks because first of all their very belief system is derived from logic based on faith in religious speculation.

They will tell you that all those other icons mean nothing. Their God is genuine and all other religions are nothing more than heretic in nature. Personally I find that approach a bit arrogant. Especially when we are talking about something which can not be logically rationalized.

Have the faith brother. As a good friend of mine used to say: “Don’t worry about nothing, and nothing will be all right”.

Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #267251

This whole story is only a story because people believe reporters over evidence. Yes, bad things have been said BEFORE at rallies (both Republican and Democrat)… but then reporters have LIED BEFORE, too.

Until there is evidence, like we find the Democrat “plant” who admits he yelled it, there is no story. I’d like to hear that interview with “Barry, the ‘plant’.”

Let’s stick with the real issues, like what kind of government school will your kids have to attend… where the highest achievers’ are punished with lower grades so that the lowest achievers’ grades can rewarded with higher grades? “Fairness in grading”, I think it’s called.

— Don

Posted by: Don at October 17, 2008 6:07 PM
Comment #267253

Oldguy

I appreciate what you had to say after you read my blog. Some of the other responses are typical of the liberal party double talk that they do so well. They love to quote scripture out of context and just those verses that serve their purpose. It really gets attention when we talk about being Christians and how our country was founded on the Bible. Our forefathers never invisioned an America without God and His Word.

I stand by everything I wrote. I can prove it if necessary.

Gail

Posted by: gail at October 17, 2008 6:23 PM
Comment #267255

RickIL,

I was just pointing out the results of the belief in the one GOD that so-called Christians believe in. I said nothing of those Buddhists, Janists, Hindus, Taoists, Shintoists, etc.

The Republicans of the weird right all talk about this being a Christian nation, and one of the reasons America became a place to settle was one or two sects of Christians running from one or two other sects of Christians who were agonna kill ‘em. And, the same God that Christians say sent his son Jesus to save them, is the God Muslims say sent Muhammad to save them, and the same God that Mormons say sent Smith to save them, and the same God that Jews say is still to send them a Messiah to save them.

That has got to be the busiest God possible. I wonder why He can’t convince OUR Christians to be a little better citizens and to tolerate those who are not like them…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #267260

Dude
Christians tolerate you, just like you tolerate us. To you we are all nuts and to us you are all nuts. TIT FOR TAT.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2008 7:27 PM
Comment #267262

Oldguy -

I said: “I also know that Christianity has to agree with scientific and logical fact. Those who feel they ignore hard scientific fact to protect their faith…are simply weak in the faith.”

YOU said: “You make two mistakes in this sentence: Christianity does not have to agree with scientific or logical facts.”

Soooo… WHERE exactly did all those dinosaur bones come from?

If you can’t make your belief agree with solid scientific FACT, then you are NO different from those who believe the world rests on the back of a turtle.

Me, I refuse to be blind. Belief must be based on facts. Facts must NEVER be based on belief.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 17, 2008 7:31 PM
Comment #267267

Glen
Science and logical fact? Darwinism fact or fiction? Where did those dino bones come from? Was there a world wide flood that covered the earth or did a rogue asteroid hit the earth way back when killing every living thing? I once heard that science disproves itself daily as new discoveries are found and old beliefs are found to be false. Science says the earth is millions of years old, the bible says thousands. Who is right?

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2008 7:57 PM
Comment #267270

>Christians tolerate you, just like you tolerate us. To you we are all nuts and to us you are all nuts. TIT FOR TAT.
Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2008 07:27 PM

KAP,

Nope, wrong again…you don’t tolerate me, you try to convert me, and when you can’t convert me you want to take my way of life away from me, and when that doesn’t work you want to take my citizenship away from me, and when that doesn’t work you try to infiltrate my government, so that I no longer have recourse.

I, personally, don’t care if you believe the Easter Bunny created the Tooth Fairy, but you don’t give me that same latitude.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 8:35 PM
Comment #267271

dude….
;)

Posted by: janedoe at October 17, 2008 8:42 PM
Comment #267272

Dude
I don’t care what you do or do not believe in. NO I DO NOT WANT TO CONVERT YOU!!! I DO NOT WANT TO INFILTRATE YOUR GOVERNMENT!!!! DO NOT INFILTRATE MINE!!!! You don’t want to believe in a God or god that is your business. DON’T PUT ME DOWN FOR MINE. Maybe then we may get along better in this world.

Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2008 8:52 PM
Comment #267277

RickIl,
It is safe to say that those who motivated the responses were preying on the sensibilities of the racially prejudiced. That said it is also fair to associate the motivators as racist.

Rick, I’ve said for a number of years there are two kinds of bigot. One is the sort who simply can’t imagine thinking another way, and is terrified to try. Outside of their arena of prejudice they are very loving, giving, even sacrificial people. These people do terrible things thinking, no, fervently believing they are the right and good thing for all society. If there is a heaven many of these people are there, desperately sorrowful for having been so wrong.

The second kind is people who know their bigotry does serious harm, but they feel empowered and uplifed by it. This would include people like Huey Long and Adolph Hitler, who may even have been deluded by their reach to grandeur into not caring how much evil they did. They may even have had such assurance of their personal importance that achieving their goals made everything they did the “right” thing. If there is a hell these folks will wish they could lick the floors clean in heaven.

Personally, though, I find holding Heaven to be an object of faith interferes with clear thinking. I say that as a Christian, but one who deeply admires the Sadducees, who could maintain a faith in the Living God even though they didn’t expect a reward in heaven.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 17, 2008 9:25 PM
Comment #267278

> DON’T PUT ME DOWN FOR MINE. Maybe then we may get along better in this world.
Posted by: KAP at October 17, 2008 08:52 PM

KAP,

You still haven’t understood…no one cares what you believe, and Christianity struggled along with the rest of us, and we all enjoyed life in America, until Christians decided to join/take over the government, so they could change and make laws that coincided with their religious beliefs. Again I say…I don’t care what you believe, and I don’t put you down about it until you step on my toes. You are stepping on my toes, and that gives me the right to step back on yours…it’s the American way.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 9:31 PM
Comment #267279

dude

That has got to be the busiest God possible. I wonder why He can’t convince OUR Christians to be a little better citizens and to tolerate those who are not like them…

They can’t tolerate us because in their view we are pagan heretics incapable of moral decency. They are taught that it is their responsibility to save us from ourselves. I actually have respect for the church to a degree. I run into a problem when I am told that I must be moral or experience the wrath of a God that will commit me to eternal damnation. I simply can not figure out what is preventing me from being a moral person without the inducement of fear. The church could be a lot more effective if they were to ditch that whole fear of a deity thing and concentrate on teaching morality by effort and example rather than trying to scare it into people.

Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 9:32 PM
Comment #267280

janedoe,

;)

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 9:33 PM
Comment #267281

> The church could be a lot more effective if they were to ditch that whole fear of a deity thing and concentrate on teaching morality by effort and example rather than trying to scare it into people.
Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 09:32 PM

RickIL,

I’ve never, in my lifetime, been able to understand why people of intelligence would want to spend eternity with a God they have to fear, and one who demands they jump through hoops for. Where is the benefit?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 9:36 PM
Comment #267282

By the way, being a Christian does not mean one must believe in all the things official Christians, whatever those may be, hold to be all the minutiae of the faith. As an extistentialist who believes in an omnipotent creator what is crucial is the story God has placed me in right now. In the midst of the NOW what will I do next?

Will I take a side against “science”? (Wouldn’t the creator have made the stuff I was rejecting by doing so?) Will I take a position merely intended to curry favor with some “important” group or person? Will I seek principally to serve myself or my personal interests, or will I see through to what the creator (who in my existential isolation is ultimately always the ‘other’ in my interaction with the universe of my experience) has challenged me with?

It’s a pretty trippy, very personal, theology, but it helps keep me from saying stupid things to Stephen Daugherty and David Remer.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 17, 2008 9:43 PM
Comment #267284

All the religion discussion is so funny. The middle 20th Century atheist Albert Camus said life was “absurd”. For a long time I really puzzled over that.

When I went through my crisis of faith I got the joke. You see, the difference between believing and being a hard core atheist was that, now that I believed again, y’all got to continue to exist after I died.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 17, 2008 9:59 PM
Comment #267287

Lee

Rick, I’ve said for a number of years there are two kinds of bigot. One is the sort who simply can’t imagine thinking another way, and is terrified to try. Outside of their arena of prejudice they are very loving, giving, even sacrificial people. These people do terrible things thinking, no, fervently believing they are the right and good thing for all society.

I agree with your assessments of the variances in types of bigotry. In the end it all comes down to the fact that most people are a product of the environment they evolve in. Some ascribe to group think because it is easy and simply what they have always done. Others choose as you say to pursue a less honorable and more intentionally bigoted path because they like that feeling of empowerment and dominance over others. The human psyche is very complex, mostly unpredictable, and I would say at the mercy of and influenced largely by individual life events. I think hatred like compassion is learned and begins at the earliest levels of comprehension. We learn these things from those who surround us in our formative years. The church in using fear of damnation and those who do not follow their particular bent, to demand a more compassionate lifestyle indirectly breeds hatreds of the sort you speak of. Religion has failed largely to evolve with the ideologies of the modern day world. There is a place for it. It just needs to abandon some outdated biases and ideologies to become a more useful tool.

Thank you for the Sadducees history. I did some reading. Not being nearly as astute at history as most here I found it to be some fascinating reading. In those times superstitions, unknowns and lots of purpose driven speculation was used to direct the masses from point A to point B. It is the fact that some of those centuries old tendencies have carried over to this day that mystifies me.

Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 10:30 PM
Comment #267290

dude

Where is the benefit?

The benefit is in being able to effectively control masses of people. It is a lot like training a dog. You do it over and over until eventually what you are trying to teach the dog becomes instinctual and he reacts at just the hint of a command.

Posted by: RickIL at October 17, 2008 10:37 PM
Comment #267296

RickIL,

Do you mean Pavlov is God? Damn…I just didn’t know where to look…all thee years wasted…lol. I think I’ll go to bed, I seem to be rambling…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 17, 2008 11:07 PM
Comment #267307

KAP

the left is not interested in what you believe. they are interested in your money, and redistribution thereof, they are interested your guns, and thier eventual confiscation, they are interested in your children, and thier re education, and indoctrination into thier leftist theology, through the public school system. they talk about the const. and personal liberty, but that is only as long as it is a right or liberty they feel you need. if they feel that right or liberty does not serve ” THE GREATER GOOD ” you can kiss it goodbye. hypocracy anyone ?

Posted by: dbs at October 18, 2008 8:57 AM
Comment #267310

dbs-
We’ll tell you what we’re interested in. You don’t have to put words in our mouths.

everybody-
A video of some Palin supporters. This is the element Palin’s attracting.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2008 9:02 AM
Comment #267315

Stephen,

It might be a good time to compare this activity with the street scene in NY City that the right was so incensed about. In NY it was street people gesturing with their middle fingers at a group of folks who were being deliberately provocative, those gesturing were not a group gathered for a political purpose. We are not even sure if those people were actually Democrats.

This is a different situation entirely, i.e., these folks were obviously gathering for political purposes, were just as obviously Republican, and rather than just finger gestures, they were using vulgar, violent and insulting signs, gestures, caricatures, while shouting ugly, ugly stuff.

Even the most obtuse among us can realize the differences.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 9:44 AM
Comment #267318

Stephen

looks a lot like the ignorant responses i saw to the people marching in new york with mc cain signs. remember the cat calls and middle fingers. i stand by my above comment. i have no intention of defending those people in that clip. that clip proves nothing other than there are ignorant people in both camps. for you to imply that somehow extreme mc cain supporters are worse than extreme obama supporters is nonsense. the difference is i’m not blinded by idiology, and realize this. in other words niether camp of extremists has any credibility in my eyes.

Posted by: dbs at October 18, 2008 9:50 AM
Comment #267319

“We are not even sure if those people were actually Democrats.”

HUH!!!! no of course not, thier mc cain supporters, and other republicans.

Posted by: dbs at October 18, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #267321

I’ve seen these responses, by the left, to Christians who quote the bible, many times before.

The left absolutely cannot understand the mind of a Christian. I am not talking about a “Christian”, I am talking about a Christian who has a personal relationship with God.

The answer that the bible was just written by many men over many centuries is a common answer by those who doubt its authority. But to be able to write the bible, containing 66 books, over a span of hundred of years, and have that bible to be in complete agreement, is nothing less than a miracle.

There is no disagreement between the bible and true science. The bible allows for the creation of the earth millions of years ago, although, man has only been on it 6000 years. The bible does not dispute the existence of dinosaurs or their bones. The bible tells us that all things are made up of invisible things called molecules and atoms. I would go so far to say that the bible does not disagree with a “Big Bang Theory”, but this is not the time or place to prove these things. I risk the wrath of the left, by bringing them up. The only reason I do is because of the responses to Gail’s post.

I will say there is great fear among many people in this country. If the votes are close to 50/50, as they have been in the past few election cycles, then at least 50% of Americans have fear of the democratic party holding a veto, filibuster proof majority in the congress and controlling the white house. And there is great reason to fear. We would see changes similar to the changes Germany saw when Hitler came into power. We have seen this socialist move in Europe for the past few decades and we will eventually see it in this country. If not in this election, then in one in the future. The left will settle for nothing less than complete socialism.

But, the bible says, “God raises up kingdoms and God puts them down”. Just remember this, when you don’t think it is possible for things to get any worse, “lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh”.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 10:20 AM
Comment #267322

Old,

That the Bible contains 66 books is the first fallacy. While the current bible you currently use contains 66 books, not all modern bibles are so limited. Not only that but previous bibles included many more. It was cut close to its current level by the Council of Nicaea in the third century, but a little research will let you know that the ‘perfect’ book has been changed (sometimes drastically) and is still being changed.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 10:37 AM
Comment #267324

dude

Do you mean Pavlov is God?

Well I guess since most religions seem to center around some sort of behavioral science, I guess one might be able to place him somewhere in the list of deities.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 10:55 AM
Comment #267325

dude

In NY it was street people gesturing with their middle fingers at a group of folks who were being deliberately provocative, those gesturing were not a group gathered for a political purpose. We are not even sure if those people were actually Democrats.

That is a very good observation. It is funny how the mind works. Someone presents a link in which bystanders are flipping off people marching in a political rally and infer that those doing the flipping must be dems. The result is that most will simply accept that as so. But as you so astutely point out those doing the flipping were not an organized group of any kind. Therefore it is impossible to accurately pin a label on them. Hell, who knows maybe they were being flipped off for something having nothing to do with McCain specifically. I would have to say that your observation renders the point moot and nothing better than speculation.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:07 AM
Comment #267326

Stephen

Your video showed a truly disgusting and sick lot of individuals. What is even worse is that their were children in that line of bigots absorbing all that hatred. I commented earlier on in this thread about people being a product of their environment. I have to wonder how many of those children will go on to emulate the bigots in that crowd. It is scary that some of those folks refer to themselves as what they obviously believe to be the true representation of good Americans. That is scary in itself.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:15 AM
Comment #267327

RickIL,

Not only that, but they were New Yawkahs. Them folks are rude to popes and presidents. Politics has nothing to do with New York rudness.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 11:19 AM
Comment #267328

RickIL,

post 267327 was in re your entry 267325, not your response to Stephen…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 11:21 AM
Comment #267329

RickIL


“Someone presents a link in which bystanders are flipping off people marching in a political rally and infer that those doing the flipping must be dems.”

the marchers are mc cain supporters. it’s not much of a stretch to assume those displaying the middle finger are dems, or at least liberals. it is the most obvious conclusion. it’s a pretty good bet they’re not republicans or conservatives. why is it you guys seem to have such a hard time connecting those dots ?

Posted by: dbs at October 18, 2008 11:22 AM
Comment #267331

dude

It was cut close to its current level by the Council of Nicaea in the third century, but a little research will let you know that the ‘perfect’ book has been changed (sometimes drastically) and is still being changed.

You are planting seeds of doubt. The Bible has fail safes written into its code to protect against such attacks on its methods of behavioral control.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:25 AM
Comment #267334

RickIL

sorry i didn’t cover this in the last response.


“Your video showed a truly disgusting and sick lot of individuals. What is even worse is that their were children in that line of bigots absorbing all that hatred. I commented earlier on in this thread about people being a product of their environment. I have to wonder how many of those children will go on to emulate the bigots in that crowd. It is scary that some of those folks refer to themselves as what they obviously believe to be the true representation of good Americans. That is scary in itself.”

do you suppose that the children of those in the crowd displaying the middle finger and making provocative remarks will grow to emulate thier anti social behavior ? isn’t that equally as scary. lets face it, a poor role model is a poor role model.

Posted by: dbs at October 18, 2008 11:31 AM
Comment #267335

dbs

the marchers are mc cain supporters. it’s not much of a stretch to assume those displaying the middle finger are dems, or at least liberals. it is the most obvious conclusion. it’s a pretty good bet they’re not republicans or conservatives. why is it you guys seem to have such a hard time connecting those dots ?

You are working on speculation only. Now you are assuming that anyone who opposes McCain marchers are all liberals or democrats. Are you saying that there are not any conservatives or republicans who are infuriated at McCain or the GOP specifically or both for the events of the last eight years? Fact is those on the sidelines were not an organized group of any kind. That is unless you consider all random New Yorkers as an organized group. It is easy to make associations and assumptions on lots of things. But when one gets down to the details they will not always pan out as speculated. That is without some sort of factual proof otherwise.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:34 AM
Comment #267336

dbs

lets face it, a poor role model is a poor role model.

You will get no argument from me on that one.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:37 AM
Comment #267339

RickIL


“You are working on speculation only.”


no i’m stating what is the highest probability.


“Now you are assuming that anyone who opposes McCain marchers are all liberals or democrats. Are you saying that there are not any conservatives or republicans who are infuriated at McCain or the GOP specifically or both for the events of the last eight years?”

once again it is the highest probability. saying those could be conservatives, and or republicans is quite a stretch, and highly unlikely. i wouldn’t even give even money on that scenario in vegas.

“But when one gets down to the details they will not always pan out as speculated. That is without some sort of factual proof otherwise.”

that may be true, but i’de give you at least 100 to 1 odds, that this is not one of those times. you can extrapolate all kinds of other scenarios, but you’ll always end up at the most likely explanation.

if there was a car racing down the sreet between all these people nearly hitting them, and the same gestures were being made then i would agree with you that i is just as likely they are republicans, and typical new yorkers, but thats not the case here. once again what is the most likely explanation.

Posted by: dbs at October 18, 2008 11:53 AM
Comment #267341

dbs

Probabilities are generally the result of some sort of speculation.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:58 AM
Comment #267342

>You are planting seeds of doubt. The Bible has fail safes written into its code to protect against such attacks on its methods of behavioral control.
Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 11:25 AM

RickIL,

I would never bring the subject up…but, somehow somewhere someone will say something like…America is a Christian Nation, and it sets me off. My AMERICA is NOT a Christian Nation, period. It may have been founded on Christian principles, and it may have been founded by predominantly Christian men, but it was NOT founded as a Christian nation.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 12:07 PM
Comment #267347

dude

You and I are of the same reasoning on this one. It is why we can have a civilized conversation between the two of us. I do not hate or dislike Christians. I simply see no practical value in inserting ideologies which rely on a system of faith in belief to substantiate it’s validity and application to governance. The fact that we are even having this discussion invites controversy. I agree that our nation was not founded as a christian nation. The intent of all language is subject to individual interpretations. Most people will base their interpretations on what they want to believe. I personally believe that our founding fathers were trying to avoid the pitfalls, prejudices and controlling biases of the church by removing their influence from the state via separation of the two. They saw the practical value of not mixing matters of faith with those of factual tangibles.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 1:03 PM
Comment #267349

kctim-
Obama doesn’t HAVE a Muslim Background, if you’re speaking about him. He was raised secular and became a Christian.

As for where this starts? Republicans at a lower level have been stoking these fires for quite some time. It’s not a coincidence that the whole Wright and Ayers thing runs through Hannity in many cases. The Republicans at a higher level overlook this, and express surprise as one racist and bigoted attack after another is launched.

This is not about every Republican being like this. I’m inclined to believe that most of them don’t like this sort of stuff. This is about the leadership of the party, both high and low, readily aggravating these situations for political benefit.

ohrealy-
Kucinich and Gravel? The perennial candidate and the guy who stared into the camera for two minutes before chunking a rock into a pond? There’s a reason that the economy didn’t lead to these guys being put in charge.

As for the other candidates not being covered, that’s the breaks when the strongest likelihood is that one of the two main party candidates will be elected.

Frankly, I think people who believe the media can force a bad candidate on voters nowadays aren’t paying attention. There’s a certain level of feedback going on, and if your people aren’t organizing to get your candidate visible to voters, the media’s not going to make you interesting for them.

KAP-
Science disproves itself daily, but only in parts, often small parts. Rarely does it overturn everything, and only when somebody really does their homework.

My view of the bible is that it’s a spiritual document, a religious work, not a textbook. It is a product of a different time. You could argue that it’s endurance to modern times is a historical accident (of divine origin? Now that’s the question).

I think it’s central message can endure, so long as you don’t depend on the bible for knowledge beyond that of the heart, soul, and human condition.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2008 1:28 PM
Comment #267353

Marysdude

The Old Testament was written in Hebrew and the New Testament was written in Greek. Both of them together contain 66 books. For 300 years the accepted translation to English was the King James 1611 and it contains 66 books.

Liberals have attacked the bible, like all other things. You are surprised liberals are interested in Christianity? Why not, if they word re-write history and seek to change the constitution, why wouldn’t they also try to re-write the Bible? I consider the modern translation nothing more than heresy.

While you and RickIL are congratulating each other for the civil, unbiased conversation you are having, you do not agree with each other.

You said, “My AMERICA is NOT a Christian Nation, period. It may have been founded on Christian principles, and it may have been founded by predominantly Christian men, but it was NOT founded as a Christian nation.”

And RickIL said, “You and I are of the same reasoning on this one. It is why we can have a civilized conversation between the two of us. I do not hate or dislike Christians…I agree that our nation was not founded as a christian nation.”

Now was America founded of Christian principles or not? While both of you disagree whether American was founded on Christian principles, I will agree it was founded on those principles, and for over 200 years these were an asset. But since the 1960’s they are not profitable for us anymore. I also agree America is not a Christian nation; I believe America is a godless nation and it will be our downfall.

Now RickIL also said he did not hate Christians, but can name one leader in government, or business, or the court system, who claims to be an evangelical Christian, who has not been attacked by the left?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 2:00 PM
Comment #267355

SD

“I think it’s central message can endure, so long as you don’t depend on the bible for knowledge beyond that of the heart, soul, and human condition.”

Then can you explain to me why the bible is used by archeologist to research historical sites? Evidently it is very accurate for historical research. The bible deals with history, of which its accuracy can be attested, it deals with prophecy and much of the prophecy can be shown to be correct after the fact, and as you say it deals with the heart, soul, and the human condition.

Now, since most Americans no longer believe the bible to be God’s Word given to man, then it has no effect on the heart, soul and human condition of man. Our ability to understand right from wrong is what separates us from the beasts of the field. America and the rest of the world believe they are capable of ushering in a perfect world. This is why liberals believe in big government; they believe the more government is involved in our lives, the closer we come to a perfect world. Yet, without God and His principles in our lives we are unable to distinguish between right and wrong.

The bible says, “The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it?” and that man left to his own devices is basically evil from the crown of his head to the soul of his foot. If man is basically evil, how can we expect any good thing to come from him?

If man is in this condition, what good can we expect to come from him? Our country is more than political parties and our nation was founded on more than politics. The very statements posted by those on the left said Christen men founded our country on Christian principles. Why, if these principles were the basis of our country 250 years ago, would we want to throw them out today?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 2:38 PM
Comment #267358

Oldguy
The KJV and some other versions contain 66 books but the Catholic version contains books called the aprocrapha [probably misspelled] which contains 12 or more books mostly family history.
S.D.
I can agree in part about science. The bible is a spiritual document, but it can also be used as a text book and was used as such back when this country began.

Posted by: KAP at October 18, 2008 3:06 PM
Comment #267360

KAP - Are those dinosaur bones going to get disproved? Hm?

Oldguy - No, the Bible itself makes it plain that there were already people around…otherwise it would’ve been difficult for the children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve to procreate. They went to find wives elsewhere, remember?

Those who claim to be part of ‘mainstream Christianity’ like to discount carbon dating when it shows that mankind has been around for FAR longer than the 6K or so years they’d like to believe.

Just another example of weakness of faith, when one ignores scientific fact to protect one’s faith.

Posted by: Glenn Contrarian at October 18, 2008 3:20 PM
Comment #267364

Glenn Contrarian

“Oldguy - No, the Bible itself makes it plain that there were already people around…otherwise it would’ve been difficult for the children and grandchildren of Adam and Eve to procreate. They went to find wives elsewhere, remember?

Those who claim to be part of ‘mainstream Christianity’ like to discount carbon dating when it shows that mankind has been around for FAR longer than the 6K or so years they’d like to believe.”

I am telling you, I see no dispute between the bible and the carbon dating of earth. I am not part of “Mainstream Christianity”, in fact I don’t even know what that term means. I am a student of the bible and have been for 40 years. I am also a “born again” Christain and as I said before, there is no dispute between the bible and true science. I believe science compliments the bible.

Now, if you would like to know my specific beliefs, give me your email address and I will be glad send them. I realize this is a political blog and I try to stay away from biblical teachings as much as possible. Simply for the fact, it infuriates the left.

I am not isolated in my beliefs, I am Baptist and most pastors among Independent Baptist hold to the same beliefs, concerning creation. So I would appreciate it if your did not try to lump me in with a bunch of ignorant “christians” who cannot understand or be able to prove what they believe.

And the bible does not plainly state there were people around at the time of the dinasaurs.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 3:47 PM
Comment #267367

Old,

Christian principles and over-reaching Christianity are wholly different. I have no more argument with your belief than I do someone from Tibet theirs. My problem is with over-reaching Christianity. Every time I say you are a Christian, I do not at the same time say you are not American. Every time you say this is a Christian nation, you are saying that I am not an American. I have served this nation in her military, have produced productive children for this nation to grow, I have been productively employed for fifty three years of my life, and was born in the heartland of the country by parents, one of which also served in our military. MY country is NOT a Christian nation.

There is no argument with the guiding principles of Christianity, any more than there are arguments against the Magna Carta being the guiding principle of our Constitution and legal system. MY country is NOT a Christian nation.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 4:12 PM
Comment #267368

RickIl,
“In those times superstitions, unknowns and lots of purpose driven speculation was used to direct the masses from point A to point B. It is the fact that some of those centuries old tendencies have carried over to this day that mystifies me.”

One of the things that I find fascinating about Christianity is its relative resistance to superstitious wandering. Take, for example, Taoism in China. Lao Tsu, the religion’s founder, really established a very philosophical, reflective sort of moral/ethical foundation for his ideal. There is no magic in the original text. Placed in the hands of the peasant classes and those who preyed upon them, however, the religion sprouted all manner of superstition and magic.

Even Christianity as practiced by peoples isolated for long periods from Christianity’s international culture has sprouted some pretty wacky aberrations. Appalachian Christian practice came to involve lots of stuff even modern evangelicals would shake their heads in disbelief over. But Christianity has a larger culture and a sense of an intellectual center. It is out of that that Gregor Mendel, a Catholic monk, could engage in the studies that indicated a mathematical relationship to genetic traits. His work is the foundation of genetics.

At the heart of Christinity is an intellectual affirmation that God made the world logical. He is not capricious. It is fundamentally the same affirmation any scientist makes. This frees people of faith to challenge the faithful, and even to rationally stand alone for the right when the winds of the whole world howl against them.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 18, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #267373

oldguy

Now was America founded of Christian principles or not? While both of you disagree whether American was founded on Christian principles, I will agree it was founded on those principles, and for over 200 years these were an asset.

I think you are parsing words to serve an agenda. I have not gone back and checked but I don’t believe I stated anywhere that America was founded on Christian principles. I believe it was founded with principles of morality, equality and civil freedoms for all in mind. My guess is that you are claiming these principles as exclusive to Christian ideologies. If so this is where we differ. I believe our founding fathers saw the need to promote these principles aside from the church. While the church for the most part advocates these principles they certainly do not have ownership rights to them. Are you implying that one is not capable of being properly principled outside of the church? I know that where we mostly differ is in our perceptions of what is or isn’t morally acceptable. We could argue all day over perceptions of such things and in the end we would still come to the same result. I, and I am sure Marysdude are good and moral people by our standards and the standards of most. We obviously would not meet your standards. But on the other hand I am sure we would find your standards to be over bearing and outdated to some degree. I will not hold this against you or any religious leader so long as those beliefs do not infringe on my rightful civil liberties as determined by the law of this land.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 4:31 PM
Comment #267374

LJ

John and Charles Wesley started a moral movement called a new method of living, which later took on the name of the “Methodist Church”, and of course the principles of christianity had been applied to that moral living.

I believe my Christain beliefs cause me to stand alone, when my political views do not. It is hard for the left to understand, the beliefs of a Christian are not something we do, it is part of our makeup. When we make decisions in life, those decisions are based upon our relationship with God. George Bush and Sarah Palin have stated so much at times and it only invites ridicule from the left, as if they were some kind of nut case.

Marysdude

I have never said America was a Christian nation, although I agreed with you that it was founded on Christian principles. We have no argument. In fact I went on to say America is a godless nation. It has not always been so, but it is today.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 4:34 PM
Comment #267377

Glenn
Did I say anythibng about the bones being disproved? NO!!!!! I stated were the dino’s killed in the flood or did a rogue asteroid hit the earth and kill all living things.

Posted by: KAP at October 18, 2008 4:41 PM
Comment #267378

RickIL

My first question is, what do you mean by “the church”? There are many organizations who call themselves a church. Which one are you talking about? When I talk of Christianity, I am not talking about an organization. I am talking about a person who has placed his beliefs and trust in Christ. As a Christian I accept God’s Word as my rule and guide. That same Word declares that no men are morally good, and that we all have the inherent nature to sin.

If, therefore, we all have a sin nature about us, then morality, equality, and civil freedom does come from God. Because we, as natural men, do not have the capacity to do anything other than evil. The founders of this country based their moral beliefs on this very thing and if this country was founded upon morality and fairness, then it did come from their beliefs in God. Therefore Marysdude was correct in saying “Christian men founded this country on their own values”. Now, does this make us a Christian nation, No. We are only what we are by the beliefs of each passing generation. And today we, as Americans, no longer hold to the same beliefs of our forefathers.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 4:51 PM
Comment #267380

Let me through out another thought. Did you know that the Bible spoke of the movement of the continents on shifting plates some 2000 years before Christ. Scientists just came to that conclusion in the 20th century. 4000 years after God told us in His Word.

Just a thought.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 4:58 PM
Comment #267384

Oldguy,

I’m a member of the American offspring of John and Charles’s “Methodist societies”.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 18, 2008 5:11 PM
Comment #267387

>I have never said America was a Christian nation, although I agreed with you that it was founded on Christian principles. We have no argument. In fact I went on to say America is a godless nation. It has not always been so, but it is today.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 04:34 PM

Old,

This discussion began from a post by a poster named, gail. gail did say this nation is a Christian nation. It was her point that I was addressing. Everything else came later, and perhaps I have mistaken your position, but since this is the first time I’ve seen you separate from the post by gail, you can probably understand my confusion.

I’m an Atheist, and am not ashamed of that. I am also a moral, half intelligent, productive family man. I would never in my lifetime try to recruit you to Atheism or tell you your Christianity is wrong in any way…except if you try to compel me to live by your Christian tenets. The Constitution is my guide, and the document to which I owe my allegiance, not the bible.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 5:51 PM
Comment #267389

oldguy

As a Christian I accept God’s Word as my rule and guide. That same Word declares that no men are morally good, and that we all have the inherent nature to sin.

In this instance I use the term church as a broad approach to all facets of Christianity. I recognize God’s word as writings which have been reshaped many times over the centuries to serve particular purposes pertaining to the needs of the time and the people who would use them to attain that purpose. I do not believe that all men are inherently evil. I believe that just as we have evolved from the oceans in form, so have we evolved in manners of morality essentially because morality is what is best for our existence as a life form.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 6:31 PM
Comment #267400

RickIL

” I do not believe that all men are inherently evil. I believe that just as we have evolved from the oceans in form, so have we evolved in manners of morality essentially because morality is what is best for our existence as a life form.”

So when do we evolve to the next level, where there is no hatred, envy, rape murder, wars, genocide, theft, or any other crime? Do you realize how rediculous this sounds. You say we have evolved to the moral state we are in today and yet as far as we can go back in the written history of mankind, we have not changed from the beginning.

This proves the point I made earlier concerning liberal theology. The goal of the liberal is to create a perfect world. The problem is, we are imperfect beings and incapable of creating good, without the help of God.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 8:00 PM
Comment #267407

oldguy

This proves the point I made earlier concerning liberal theology. The goal of the liberal is to create a perfect world. The problem is, we are imperfect beings and incapable of creating good, without the help of God.

Please oldguy no one is trying to create a perfect world. Just a better world. Is there something wrong in aspiring to a better world? There is no such thing as the perfect world and I doubt there ever will be. I never claimed we were perfect beings. Evolution is full of aberrations. The majority of people in this world are good. All people are born good, free of hate, prejudice and bias. These things are learned or else taught by those who for whatever reasons see no need to aspire to any particular morality. The will to survive is instinctual. When people feel threatened they react. It is in our genes. Just because we have evolved does not mean that those old instinctual ways are entirely gone from our gene pool. Just that they for the most part no longer play the dominant role in our behavioral tendencies.

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 9:20 PM
Comment #267408

Oldguy-
America may be Christian in some ways, but it also bears the legacy of Rome and Ancient Greece. The important thing to keep in mind, though, is that the Bill of Rights keeps that relationship strictly informal.

This has been a Godsend for American religion. You don’t have to take up a faith to stay on somebody’s good side, become a hypocrite in spirit to obey the law, to obey men.

I think the trouble with inserting Religion into the political sphere is that inevitably people mix up their personal desires and agendas with the religious ones. That’s the trouble with this quest to make America a Christian nation again. To put it simply, nobody has the wisdom to draw the line correctly.

It’s better to have a nation of free people able to make their own decisions, rather than count on authority to be Godly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 18, 2008 9:28 PM
Comment #267411

>we are imperfect beings and incapable of creating good, without the help of God.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 18, 2008 08:00 PM

Old,

Of course we can create good without your God…we have already done so. You still insist on referring to ‘good’ as if it is the sole province of your God.

Do you get a kick out of insulting those of us who are good, believe ourselves to be good, or do good deeds?

Of course you don’t get a kick out of it, because it never enters your mind that non-christians might not be bad people.

And that, my friend, is the best reason in the world to have a separation between the church and the state.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 18, 2008 9:56 PM
Comment #267438

Stephen

It’s better to have a nation of free people able to make their own decisions, rather than count on authority to be Godly.

Well said. Oldguy said yesterday that he lives by the word of God. I was thinking about that while walking my dog on this beautiful autumn morning. If we were to remove the word God and its associated threats, fears, biases and after life implications from the equation the bible could be a reasonably good guide to living a decent and moral life. That is with some serious restructuring to bring it up to date with modern times.

dude

Of course you don’t get a kick out of it, because it never enters your mind that non-christians might not be bad people.

And that, my friend, is the best reason in the world to have a separation between the church and the state.

Exactly right.

Posted by: RickIL at October 19, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #267453

SD

“I think the trouble with inserting Religion into the political sphere is that inevitably people mix up their personal desires and agendas with the religious ones. That’s the trouble with this quest to make America a Christian nation again. To put it simply, nobody has the wisdom to draw the line correctly.”

If I understand you correctly, it’s wrong for a Christian to allow his or her religious beliefs to interfere with political decisions. And yet is ok for an agnostic or an atheist to allow his or her beliefs to be part of the decision making process of politics. Is there something inherently wrong with this type of thinking? Is this fair, or does this again show the moral nature of mankind. You again prove my point that mankind is incapable of doing anything right without God.

And again, I do not make the claim that America is a Christian nation, in fact it is far from it.

You said: “If we were to remove the word God and its associated threats, fears, biases and after life implications from the equation the bible could be a reasonably good guide to living a decent and moral life. That is with some serious restructuring to bring it up to date with modern times.”

You show your own bias against Christians and your own fear of Christianity and the bible, by making such a statement. How would you respond if I said, “if we removed all atheist and agnostics and all they’re written records, life would be much easier for the Christian”.

RickIL

“Just because we have evolved does not mean that those old instinctual ways are entirely gone from our gene pool. Just that they for the most part no longer play the dominant role in our behavioral tendencies.”

I will ask again, if mankind is evolving toward a perfect state, why are we just as evil today as we were when man first began to record history? When do we become perfect? If the goal of evolution is to more toward perfection by discarding parts of our body (including genes) that hold us back, then why are these genes that are not supposed to play a dominant role, still controlling our behavioral tendencies?

Marysdude

As I said, the bible is the rule and guide for my life; you can place your faith in anything you want. It’s a free country. But, as I believe in the bible, I know what it says about mankind, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God”, or “there is none righteous, no not one”. There are many more verses that say the same thing. You misunderstand me, I am not saying a Christian is any better than a non-Christian; all mankind is in the same boat. We do not the ability to do good, aside from the influence of God.

The idea of separation of church and state is something you on the left love to bring up. The very idea of separation of church and state was based upon organized religions that controlled governments in Europe. The founders of this country did not want state sponsored religions. I’m sure we can agree on this. But a person becoming a Christian has nothing to do with organized religion. I stated earlier, you guys use the term “church” and I asked, which church? If I am a Christian and I do not belong to a denomination or church, how does my beliefs affect the separation of church and state. If I was a congressman or senator or even president, are you saying I cannot make decisions based upon my personal beliefs? Are any of you saying that your personal beliefs would not affect your decisions?

Posted by: Oldguy at October 19, 2008 2:10 PM
Comment #267458

From the BBC today on agreements between Christians. Remember Johnathan Swift and the war between two nations arguing about which end of an egg to crack open?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M12ks_Vjzrc

Posted by: ohrealy at October 19, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #267463

Old,

Once more into the breach…if you are elected to government office, you are there to represent all the people in your constituency, not just the ones who voted for you. And, your religious beliefs stand in the way of making decisions that benefit all your constituents.

That would be one example of why the separation is important…

If you are a preacher of the gospel in a church, and you indicate through you actions ar deeds that your parishioners should vote for one party or contender over the other, you have become a PAC, and no longer warrant tax-free status.

That might be another example…

I can keep going, but prefer not to, because if it has not become plain to you by now, it never will…and, that is the best reason yet for the separation

MY conntry is NOT a christian nation…period.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #267467

oreally,

Nice link…timely provided.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 19, 2008 3:49 PM
Comment #267528

RickIl,
“I do not believe that all men are inherently evil. I believe that just as we have evolved from the oceans in form, so have we evolved in manners of morality essentially because morality is what is best for our existence as a life form.”

Posted by: RickIL at October 18, 2008 06:31 PM

Three or four times in the last week I have seen comments from posters here, all liberal, stating that the reinstatement of the “Fairness Clause” in broadcast communications will be a good thing. The only reason given for this to be so is that it will limit conservative’s access to people who share their opinions. No one in the entire time I have been reading or contributing to WatchBlog has eve advocated reinstating a fairness clause because there is too much access to liberal ideas in mass communications, in spite of the fact that conservatives universally believe liberal opinions and ideas are many times better represented there.

If morality has anything to do with equity how is this asymmetry reflective of liberal morality?

In fact we evolve, whether as creatures or as bearers of competitive philosophies, to thrive. Conservatism believes in intellectual diversity and a morality of many opinions (Oldguy, for example, has never called for the elimination or curtailing of rights of access on the part of agnostics or atheists to the political process, or to free speech, nor even to the public square. Such is not the case for the agnostics and atheists regarding Christians.), while liberals are advocating for policies that will reduce conservative access to lines of communication.

What Oldguy is saying is that morality is a dicipline one imposes on one’s self in response to a perceived authority. In his case and mine that perceived authority is God. If he says no one is without sin he includes himself (and me). It is difficult for us to see many liberals exercising that sort of discipline on themselves.

How can the movement that does not believe their opponents have a fundamental right to hear from people of like mind be moral?

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Comment #267545

>How can the movement that does not believe their opponents have a fundamental right to hear from people of like mind be moral?
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:05 AM

Lee,

Mostly because what you hear from your chosen sources is, in itself, immoral. Much of what you listen to is hate filled rhetoric, while your imposition of a ‘liberal’ media is questionable (nearly every form of MSM is owned by conservative corporations or individual) at best, it at the very least is not immoral or hate filled.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 10:57 AM
Comment #267547

>What Oldguy is saying is that morality is a dicipline one imposes on one’s self in response to a perceived authority. In his case and mine that perceived authority is God. If he says no one is without sin he includes himself (and me). It is difficult for us to see many liberals exercising that sort of discipline on themselves.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:05 AM

Lee,

While Oldguy claims to not believe in that America need not be labeled a Christian nation, he defends poster, gail, who does that very thing. Oldguy, and you too, in your own way, would like to disenfranchise all those who advocate the separation of church and state.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 11:02 AM
Comment #267581

Marysdude:

Gail’s statement began as:

““The United States of America began as a Christian nation founded upon the principles of the Bible. I don’t believe that it is unreasonable of us to expect those principles to continue to be the basis by which we live.”

I stated, that I agreed with her that America was founded on Christian principles. I do not believe that is in dispute, because several on your side have stated the same thing. I absolutely agree with the founders concerning separation of church and state. The fear was to have another country that sponsored a state religion. I have repeatedly said America may have been founded on Christian principles, but today we are a Godless nation.

You repeatedly state, “MY country is NOT a christian nation…period.” I haven’t heard anyone argue this point with you.

“>How can the movement that does not believe their opponents have a fundamental right to hear from people of like mind be moral?
Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 20, 2008 10:05 AM
Lee,
Mostly because what you hear from your chosen sources is, in itself, immoral. Much of what you listen to is hate filled rhetoric, while your imposition of a ‘liberal’ media is questionable (nearly every form of MSM is owned by conservative corporations or individual) at best, it at the very least is not immoral or hate filled.
Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 10:57 AM”

How can you condemn our sources and at the same time quote some of the most left leaning blogs and media available? Is this part of the “Fairness Doctrine”, to shut up all opposition? The left is the group who wants to talk or discuss our way through problems. Evidently it is a one-way talk.

“While Oldguy claims to not believe in that America need not be labeled a Christian nation, he defends poster, gail, who does that very thing. Oldguy, and you too, in your own way, would like to disenfranchise all those who advocate the separation of church and state.”
That is no true; my only question is what does a person, who is a Christian and not part of a denomination, do with his or her moral beliefs when in public office? Just as the left’s personal beliefs become part of their agenda, so it is with the Christian’s morals. You keep speaking of separation of church and state, but the left has included religion in every decision they make. Religion is more than “Christianity”, religion is anything in which one places their faith and trust. As defined by Merriam-Webster, “4: a cause, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith.” The cause of the left is abortion and global warming. This is your religion and it affects every decision the dems make; from taxes, to energy independence, to nomination of judges. So who is the one violating separation of church and state?

Lee:

>What Oldguy is saying is that morality is a dicipline one imposes on one’s self in response to a perceived authority. In his case and mine that perceived authority is God. If he says no one is without sin he includes himself (and me). It is difficult for us to see many liberals exercising that sort of discipline on themselves.

That is exactly what I am saying.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 20, 2008 3:51 PM
Comment #267599

>The cause of the left is abortion and global warming. This is your religion“`

Old,

Yu were pretty effective at putting your point across until this…and it has to be the most insane statement ever presented here…I don’t have a deity, but if I did it would not and could not be abortion.

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 5:41 PM
Comment #267630

Marysdude

I gave you Webster’s definition of religion. Are you telling me that abortion and global warming are not the mantra of the left?

Abortion is the litmus test for all democrat politicians. Can you deny that? Name me one democrat in a leadership position who is against abortion. One of the reasons for the attacks on Sarah Palin is because she chose to have a Down syndrome baby instead of aborting it.

Secondly, global warming is the basis for most liberal legislation. Requirements for vehicles, drilling for oil, reasons for alternative fuels, power plants, logging lumber, and the list goes on and on. Not everyone believes man is responsible for global warming, in fact not all Americans believe there is global warming. That is not the issue. The issue is that the left allows these two things to dominate their decision making process in making legislation. These two things are “a cause, or system of beliefs held with ardor and faith”, to the left. Therefore by logic, these beliefs become the religion of the left. He definition of a religion does not require a “deity”, it simply requires a cause or beliefs held as the root of a belief.

I believe I have presented a fair argument.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 20, 2008 10:10 PM
Comment #267643

>I believe I have presented a fair argument.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 20, 2008 10:10 PM

Old,

You presented no argument at all. You made a stupid statement and now you stand by it as if it has meaning…I honestly thought you had something to contribute to this site, but obviously I was wrong.

Be at peace…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 20, 2008 11:21 PM
Comment #267820

oldguy,

I actually disagree with what you identify as the fundamental tenet of the Democratic Party. I hold that to be the use of entirely illogical wedge issues as a means of maintaining party allegiences founded in prejudice. Abortion and global warming are just two of these. Race is another.

Having said that, though, prejudice itself can be used in exactly the same way as superstitious religion can be, and always has been. The test of whether you have a superstitious religion yourself is to ask if you could reject the leadership of your pastor/priest/whatever if they violated the fundamental moral foundations of the faith.

I could, and have in the past, even lobbying for the removal of a senior pastor at the risk of what I had thought would be my career. I don’t think the ardent followers of the Democratic Party have that sort of courage, or that objective a faith.

Posted by: Lee Jamison at October 21, 2008 8:44 PM
Comment #267843

Joe Lieberman had the courage and look what happened to him.

The point I have been trying to make is an answer to the left’s constant call for “Separation of Church and State”. I believe the founding fathers had it correct, but their reasoning was based upon the persecution their fathers had endured in Europe. They didn’t want a country that supported or preferred one religion to another. The problem in Europe was not individual beliefs, it was of a particular denomination (a church) that wanted control and finacial support, such as Catholicism in Italy, France, Germany and Anglican in England. What I was attempting to do was show that you can have religious beliefs without belonging to a “church”. The abortion and global-warming issue has become a religion to many, on both sides. According to the left, if a politician, who is a Christian, allows his personal beliefs or morals to persuade him in legislation decisions, he is wrong. But if a politician, whose religious beliefs are abortion and global-warming, makes legislative decisions based upon his beliefs, it is ok. The problem is that many of these decisions made by politicians, affect our livelihoods and freedoms.

Not all Americans support abortion and not all scientists support the theory of global warming. By the left’s defintion, it a violation of separation of church and state when politicians, based upon their beliefs, make decisions in congress.

I also agree that these are wedge issues. This is the reason there can be no tolerance for giving any ground.

Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 11:23 PM
Comment #268152

>Joe Lieberman had the courage and look what happened to him.
Posted by: Oldguy at October 21, 2008 11:23 PM

Joe had the courage to do what?

What happened to him that he did not ask for?

Joe was a closet Republican holding a Democrat seat in the United States Senate. He did that until his views got in the way of his governance, and he had to switch to ‘Independent’, also a stretch…come election time he will run as the Republican he has always been…what is so courageous about that?

Posted by: Marysdude at October 24, 2008 5:36 AM
Comment #268405

Old,

By the way, it looks like ol’ Joe might be sniffin’ back around the Democrat Party again. He’s starting to talk nicy-nice about Barack, and maybe a hint of not-so-nice about Palin…???

That, of course, might surprise you, but it does not surprise me…you see, I’m kinda used to his turning circles…bein’ courageous, and all that…

Posted by: Marysdude at October 26, 2008 3:52 PM
Comment #268406

Old,

My bad…I forgot to add this link to #268405.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2008_10/015376.php

Posted by: Marysdude at October 26, 2008 3:55 PM
Post a comment