Third Party & Independents: Archives

I completely agree with you, V. Edward.
Hollow meaningless words, indeed.

“in some passages the speech was totally ignorant of the subtle nuances of American history and her continuing struggle to lift freedoms banner high within our own borders let alone those of nations still suffering under the slowly dissipating fog of European colonialism.”

The Neo-con’s never let actual history get in the way of their high-flown rhetoric. But this speech wasn’t for those of us who study history to try to understand its lessons, it was for those who are true believers in their twisted vision of America and our role within the World.

“something prevents me from wholly embracing this ceremony.”

Me too, but for me that something is the fact that we can no longer trust the results of our elections for many reasons - and that I strongly suspect the past election was once again stolen for him, just as it was in 2000.

“Or could it be that for the Bush Administration it is business as usual?”

Big Business as usual, I’d say.

Dubya:
“America’s vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one.”

Are they now? Well Dubya, you sure as hell certainly aren’t speaking for me here - not for what I feel America’s vital interests are, nor for my deepest beliefs.

“From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights,”

This, from the man who has done nothing but attack and abridge our Constitutional Rights.

“and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth.”

But as we all know, images can often be deceiving - as can political rhetoric.

“Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government,”

While they proclaim the imperative of selfish government.

V. Edward
“Freedom for all was not won without the death and rebirth of our nation, and the ugly stain of racism still clings to the fabric of American society like bloody reminder of how the noblest of intentions can be lost in the foul hearts of men who do fully believe in the lofty words from those now hallowed documents that formed this nation.”

I agree. And Jim Crow still lives among us wherever we find that black voters are being disenfranchised.

“How can we spread liberty to other shores when our own people continue to suffer under the yoke of majority rule?”

Great question. I for one, am stumped.

“When the President himself would call into question the very institution entrusted with the stewardship and proper interpretation of our laws.”

He has attacked our Constitution - for this reason alone, he should be impeached.

“Words alone cannot serve freedoms cause,”

I enjoyed reading your well written post - perhaps because your words do serve freedoms cause - unselectively.

“words need a leader with vision the carry them into battle.”

I agree. And with this leader, we can certainly never expect to see freedoms “MISSION ACCOMPLISHED”.

I understand that Bush used the word “freedom” 27 times in his speech, he used the word “peace” once.

Great post, Mr. Martin.

It is amazing that so much fuss has been made, is being made, at taxpayer expense, over a giggling, murdering monkey and his handlers.

I also find it extremely curious with Bush and his stated desire to “spread freedom” that he uses the B-52 bomber as his main tool to spread that “freedom”.

Excellent post, though it’s hard to begrudge Bush the $20 million DC had to spend on keeping him safe. He is, after all, the most hated and despised American president ever.

Here is an interesting look at the inauguration by numbers.
For all the out of pocket expense that had to be picked up by DC, this claims that only 9 percent of DC residents actually voted for him.

�still suffering under the slowly dissipating fog of European colonialism.�

The colonialism argument doesn�t hold much water anymore. Most of the former colonies have been independent for almost fifty years. Latin American countries got their independence in the 1820s. That�s longer than some of them were colonies.

Blaming things on colonialism is so 1960s. It is not supported by history. I don�t remember reading that the U.S. was still blaming its problems on British colonization fifty years after Yorktown. Singapore, Honk Kong and Malaysia were some of the most recently freed colonies and they are doing better than Ethiopia, which although brutalized by the Italians in the 1930s was never effectively colonized or Haiti, the second oldest independent country in the Western Hemisphere and not a particularly good advertisement for the concept of independence.

Many European countries were also parts of other people�s empires. Many European Balkan countries were occupied by the Turks for nearly 400 years. The biggest region for taking slaves during the Turkish conquest was not Africa, but the Balkans. Many thousands of European slaves were shipped to the markets in the Middle East. Poland was occupied by foreign powers for 123 years, then brutally oppressed by the Nazis, followed by 50 years of Soviet hegemony that lasted until 1989. Most of E. Europe has a similar history. The Irish would be quick to point out that they suffered from British colonialism until 1921. Now they have one of the best economies in the world.

The North/South or racist lens just doesn’t give a very accurate picture.

You guys crack me up! You are so lost in your “I Hate Bush” psychosis, you haved totally lost sight of what is going on in the world today. Try to open your minds a little … Bush was re-elected for who he is and what he has done. Which means you are in the minority of this country. Sorry …

“you haved totally lost sight of what is going on in the world today.”

Oh, haved we?

V. Edward,

I must say that you posses a very dramatic writing style.

Vitriolic hyperbole but dramatic none-the-less.

Slavery was a despicable institution that should never have been allowed to flourish on our soil. That being said, the horrors suffered by those slaves greatly advanced the lives of African Americans living here today. Had those men and women not been brought to America as slaves, their ancestors would still be living in places like Rwanda, Sudan, and the Congo where genocide among African peoples is rampant. Instead today�s ancestors of those slaves live in a nation where they have an opportunity to gain an education, work and support their families.

You are correct that racism is still staining the fabric of America and needs to be wiped out. However, most falsely point the racist finger at the white man alone. Black leaders like Louis Farrakhan, Stokely Carmichael, and John Wiley Price foment hatred and racism in the black community. Unfortunately racism is not a one-way street and knows no color. Until this is widely recognized, racism will continue mostly unabated.

As for gay marriage, John Adams at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 said, �We are a nation of laws, not of men�. Laws and the words they are made up of have meaning. In order for the legal system to avoid mass confusion words in laws must have very precise meaning. Otherwise laws could be twisted to mean most anything and the ability for justice to be administered would be jeopardized.

In 1996, then President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act. This act defines marriage for the purpose of law as �the union of one man and one woman�. Period, paragraph, end of story.

This in no way implies that gays cannot have some form of union, just that they cannot call it marriage.

The reason that an amendment to the Constitution is being considered is that unelected activist judges are in effect writing law (in direct contradiction to the powers provided them under the Constitution) when they proclaim that the legislature must write laws allowing gay marriage or when they force one state to recognize a same sex union performed in another state.

Guantanimo Bay hardly exists in the shadows. I travel to both Europe and Asia and can tell you that Guantanimo Bay is reported in the press there just as it is here. Those detained there are dangerous people who have committed violent acts against Americans or have information on others who would harm our forces. The left continually throws up the Geneva Convention in response to this issue. If they would bother to read the document they would see that prisoners of war are allowed to be detained indefinitely as long as the conflict continues.

As religious zealotry takes hold in our institutions

Would this be the same religious zealotry that guided our Founding Fathers during the infancy of this country? Look at the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson Memorial, Lincoln Memorial, Capitol and the Supreme Court buildings. In each and every instance you will find reference to God and the Founding Fathers commitment to the importance of God to the nation.

Should we sandblast these references to God off these buildings and take whiteout to the Declaration of Independence? �If you take God out of the equation, then mankind is not particularly unique and has no God-given rights, and you have destroyed the equation of what makes America what it is.� Rep. Todd Akin, MO

The left�s hatred for Bush is evident. You can see it clearly in the way that he is attacked personally. These attacks are covered by first referencing a policy or legislative difference but quickly sink to personal or character attacks. I have heard it said that when it comes to being a leader, if you are not making some people angry then you aren�t doing it right. Based on the vile hatred coming from the left, President Bush must be doing nearly everything right.

Kirk—

And let me see if I can keep the “Vitriolic hyperbole” out of my level headed response your short-sided comments. So what you are saying is that Black Americans should be thankful to the white man for dragging our ancestors from the bowls of depravity and barbarism that was and is Africa, into the shinning light of western civilization? Totaling ignoring the fact that it was white European greed that started the slave trade and perpetrated the rape of Africa, a rape that still bleeds the continent and her people, and are the root cause of the strife taking place there today? And I see you have conveniently forgotten that white men did not hand Blacks their freedom; we had to struggle, and bleed, and curse, and bleed some more before America lived up to her promise! Are you for real?

You obviously need to read the finer points of our Constitution, specify the 14th Amendment, Section 1. And as soon as I hear the term “activist judge” I shut down, and refuse to give any credence to the any argument following it because the person putting forth said argument holds a somewhat dim understanding of our judicial system.

Prove that “[T]hose detained there are dangerous people who have committed violent acts against Americans or have information on others who would harm our forces.” Wishing doesn’t make it so. And one of the long-standing principles of our system of jurisprudence is that of innocent until proven guilty. Does merely being in possession of information now sentence you to life in prison? How does this square with the principles of liberty and equality Bush so often quoted in his meaningless speech?

Reference to God is one thing, jamming your morals and principles down another’s throat is quite another. No one will deny the religious undertone one can detect in some this nation’s most cherished institutions. But the laws we following in this country spring from the Constitution and Common Law practices, not from the Bible and Canon Law. God notwithstanding, the fundamental rights we enjoy under man’s law come from man, and we as citizen of this nation are governed by them. The restrictions of Cannon Law are personal in nature and have no place in the public arena, period. And your personal religious beliefs have no place in public law.

If you or your do not wish to have an abortion don’t have one, but do not take away my right to have one because your religion tells you that it is evil. Your rights do not supersede mine in a truly free society. You have the freedom not to choose your course, while I have the freedom to choose mine.

And finally make no mistake, Bush is no leader, he is but a puppet, being control by those with greedy intent. And it is a shame when dissent is labeled hatred; for it is in that caldron that tyranny bubbles to the surface and freedom is cast away.

Actually, the U.S. Federal goverment did hand the slaves their freedom. There was never a successful slave revolt in the United States.

Slavery existed in every society since the beginning of human history. It is a great shame that it existed for during the two centuries of our American experience.

But we do need historical perspective. The U.S. outlawed slavery not because of the struggle of the slaves themselves, but after a disastrous civil war fought by the all Americans. Black soldiers participated bravely, but farm boys from places like rural New York, Wisconsin, Michigan or Pennsyvania did out most of the fighting and dying that ended slavery in North America. Few of them had ever owned a slave and many had never even seen a black man.

None of my own ancestors was in the U.S. during this period. They were living in physical conditions worse than slavery in Tsarist Russia. But my wife�s family has a more complete history in America. Her ancestor arrived from Norway in 1859 and bought a farm in western Wisconsin. He joined the 15th Wisconsin Scandinavian regiment in 1861. He could have stayed home and cared for his farm and family, but according to letters home, he wanted to help free the slaves. He fought for four years along the Mississippi and in Tennessee. While he was away, his farm fell to ruin and his wife died and his children had to go live with neighbors. When he got back, he rebuilt his life. This story is fairly common. History is more complicated than black and white.

Not all the heroes and victims are as clear as we would like. Census figures reveal that there were some black slave owners, especially in places like Louisiana, and Africans themselves sold most slaves taken from Africa. Slavery existed in Africa before the Europeans arrived and slavery continued to exist in Africa after it was outlawed in America and most European colonies. It is still going on in Sudan and Maurutania, among other places. Meanwhile, the only part my wife�s Norwegian ancestor had in slavery was to help end it. Most Americans whose ancestors arrived in the great migratations of the late 19th and early 20th Centuries had no part at all.

Let me end with Lincoln, where I think we can all agree. Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

Jack,

The history of slavery throughout human history is well documented, and I am well aware of the nuances concerning the trade as it existed in the America’s and in Africa. And I well appreciate the men of all stripes who fought and died in the Civil War, a war I hasten to point out that was only partly abut ending slavery. The other half of the equation had to do with economics, and the difference between the economies of the North and South.

But let us not delude ourselves into thinking that slavery in America ended in 1865 with the finish of the Civil War and the defeat of the south. Slavery didn’t really end until the last Jim Crow law was struck down in the mid-1970’s, and slavery’s influence on the American society is still being felt by Black American today. And I cannot speak to conditions in Russia in the 19th century any more then you can accurately speak to conditions of the African slaves here in America during that time period. Lets not elevate one over the other in terms of human degradation and suffering shall we?

And yes, Lincoln was eloquent in his speech and brave in his stand against the South, but history reminds us that he did not go into the Civil War intent on freeing the slaves, but saving the Union. It was only after the North started losing the War did Mr. Lincoln shift the war purpose to a nobler calling.

ter�ror�ist
n.
One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.
adj : characteristic of someone who employs terrorism (especially as a political weapon); “terrorist activity”; “terrorist state” n : a radical who employs terror as a political weapon; usually organizes with other terrorists in small cells; often uses religion as a cover for terrorist activities

Gee well dosn’t that sound familer. It’s sad to say but how can this war be fair when we are terrorizing them. And when is terrorism anything peaceful, and how in the hell are we going to spread peace when are diffiniton of peace is terorism. Oh yeah and siecne america has been america and up to now everyone has come here to be free of religous precution, so why must we condem those who are not christian. And I’ll damned if Jesus truly does believe homosexual marriage is wrong. Better yet damned those who uses God’s name for thier own personal gain. Just because people think that only hetrosexal marriage is ringt does not make it so. So little years ago slavery and racist hate crims were fine by socity does that mean it’s still ok… um no!. Please beileve that I’m Chritian Catholic but that does not give me the right to enfrnge my beliefs on anyone else. What a hypicarte would I be.

I expect you know the history of slavery, but many people do not so I often repeat it. Many people think Europeans brought slavery to Africa or that Europeans seized most slaves outright instead of buying them from Africans. They are also unaware that most slaves were taken by Arab traders and sold in the Middle East. And very few people are aware that in actual numbers the biggest slaving area was the Balkans during the Turkish conquest.

Without the issue of slavery, there would have been no civil war along the lines we saw. Slavery was not the only cause, but it was the prime cause. The environments, interests and economies of states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania were very similar. The only thing that split them apart was the issue of slavery.

Lincoln decided on the emancipation proclamation only after the battle of Antitem, when he was sure he wasn?t losing the war. He held to the emancipation when it would have been politically expedient to abandon it and almost lost the election of 1864 as a result. It was clear he believed in it.

The comparison between Tsarist serfs and American slaves is one commonly made because serfdom in Russia was abolished in 1863. As you point out, I was not born during that time, but I have read the history and seen the remains of serf villages in Europe and slave quarters in the U.S. I know that conditions tended to be better in places like Virginia and worse in place like Mississippi, but if you compare them globally, conditions were very similar, but American slaves usually got more to eat. Ironically that was because the slave master had more of an interest in keeping his property in working order. You are right about comparing human suffering, but one thing I have noticed that I think we can all agree on. For most of human history, most people in the world had really nasty lives.

Jack—

There can be little creditable argument that without slavery there would have been no Civil War. Indeed, one could make a cogent argument the seed for the Civil War were sown with the signing of the Constitution wherein the issue of slavery was shelved in order to form the Union. But like all issue involving human being, there is not Black and White answers to the causations of the Civil War; they are indeed many and varied, including the immorality of the practice of slavery.

I wonder if Mr. Lincoln would have freed the slaves it the Union Army would have made short work of its counter number? If the war had ended in say 1862, would slavery have ended then?

Lincoln recognized that a long and bloody war was necessary to give him the political and moral power to end the institution. If the war had ended with a Union victory in 1862, he probably would not have had that ability.

We have to remember the historical context again. Opposition to slavery was something very new. The institution had existed since the dawn of history and by 1862 real opposition was only about 100 years old and limited to areas of Western civilization. Northern states had only begun to outlaw slavery a generation and half before. The British outlawed slavery in 1833 in their empire and Spanish speaking Latin America a little before, but the entire Islamic world, China, Africa not yet colonized and the biggest Latin American country, Brazil still kept it.

It is hard to say what would have happened if the U.S. had not outlawed slavery. The institution certainly would have survived much longer worldwide.

European colonialism eliminated slavery in most of the world (one of the benefits), but areas not colonized would have had an easier time maintaining it if they could follow the U.S. example.

You probably know that Brazil outlawed slavery in 1888 (if I recall correctly) but they didn�t actually free the slaves. They just made slavery non-hereditary and the institution died out. That might have been the American solution, but without the emancipation it would have come much later all over the world.

V. Edward,

Please read the opening line of my paragraph. You will see that I too agree slavery was a despicable institution. Yet, you choose to ignore those comments in order to belittle my points.

So what you are saying is that Black Americans should be thankful to the white man for dragging our ancestors from the bowls of depravity and barbarism that was and is Africa

I did not say that Blacks should be thankful for being made slaves. What I said was that the horrors suffered by those slaves greatly advanced the lives of Blacks in America today. Do you not agree with that statement? Do you really think you would be better off living in Rwanda, Sudan, or the Congo where genocide among African peoples is rampant? I think not. I personally am glad that you are here and that we can disagree and debate issues such as these. I just wish everyone no matter where they live had the same rights.

You focus on my perceived slight of Blacks without commenting on my statements concerning the Black leaders who help to keep racism alive. As I said racism is a two way street, Blacks can be every bit as racist as Whites. In neither case is it acceptable or tolerable.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
There it is 14th Amendment Section 1. Where does it say that same sex marriages are legal? Again I refer to the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act signed by Bill Clinton which defines marriage as �the union of one man and one woman�. The law is very clear one man and one woman, no ifs ands or buts.
I will repeat, this in no way implies that gays cannot have some form of union, just that they cannot call it marriage. You see, words have meaning especially in a legal sense and those meanings must be maintained.
As far as your comment concerning Activist Judges, what would you call it when the Massachusetts Supreme Court directs the Massachusetts Legislature to write a law endorsing same sex marriage?
The courts have no right under the Constitution to make law or force the legislature to write a particular law. According to the US Courts website.
http://www.uscourts.gov/understanding_courts/8992.htm
Under the Constitution, these courts can be called upon to exercise only judicial powers and to perform only judicial work. Judicial powers and judicial work involve the application and interpretation of the law in the decision of real differences; that is, in the language of the Constitution, the decision of cases and controversies. The courts cannot be called upon to make laws, which is the function of the legislative branch, or be expected to enforce and execute laws, which is the function of the executive branch.
Writing of laws is reserved for the Legislature, enforcement for the Executive Branch and interpretation for the Judicial Branch. So, with their actions I would definitely say the Massachusetts Supreme Court were activist judges.

Does merely being in possession of information now sentence you to life in prison? How does this square with the principles of liberty and equality Bush so often quoted in his meaningless speech?

Reference to God is one thing, jamming your morals and principles down another�s throat is quite another. No one will deny the religious undertone one can detect in some this nation�s most cherished institutions. But the laws we following in this country spring from the Constitution and Common Law practices

This is the 1st Amendment concerning religion. Where is there a separation of Church and State? As long as Congress is not writing laws establishing a State Religion or decreeing you must practice a religion there is no separation. The Constitution also guarantees me the right to free exercise of my religion. So, if I want to recite �one nation under God� during the pledge or pray at school, neither the government nor court system has standing to deny me that right.

And it is a shame when dissent is labeled hatred

In posts from the left I have heard Bush referred to as stupid, an idiot, a moron, a simpleton, evil, a thief on and on. This is not dissent. Dissent is disagreeing with ideas and policies not personal attacks.

So, if I want to recite ?one nation under God? during the pledge or pray at school, neither the government nor court system has standing to deny me that right.

Umm… As far as I know, that phrase - added in the 50’s - is still part of the pledge. I’m not sure what you’re complaining about. Recite away, Kirk.

In posts from the left I have heard Bush referred to as stupid, an idiot, a moron, a simpleton, evil, a thief on and on.

Let’s see, President Bush is constantly saluting Satan with that hand gesture, it’s well known that he’s no Einstein, and he was arrested for burglery. But, really Kirk, I don’t see much of that kind of thing here.

Conservative wrote:

“You guys crack me up! You are so lost in your “I Hate Bush” psychosis, you haved totally lost sight of what is going on in the world today. Try to open your minds a little … Bush was re-elected for who he is and what he has done. Which means you are in the minority of this country. Sorry”

I am sorry it took me so long to get back to you!

Sorry indeed. How about:
“You are so lost in your “I Love Bush” psychosis, you haved totally lost sight of what is going on in the world today.”

Just because the majority are clueless morons and “voted” for the fool does not make it “right” or good for the country, let alone the world. If you would open your mind a little, you would see how incredibly idiotic it was to “re-elect” Bush for “who he is and what he has done.” Face it, Conservative, we have a majority of morons in this country, and that will be our downfall. Don’t get me wrong, if the majority want an evil, greedy puppet for President, that’s what we get. We’re a democracy, right?

Of one thing about some of us you are quite correct. Speaking for myself, I absolutely despise Bush, I hate him and his handlers. they are destroying the earth. How can you people love a pathological liar, a narcisistic napoleon, a giggling murdering monkey, so much? I can have compassion for an ignorant clown, but Bush ain’t even close to that.

American Pundit,

Let’s see, President Bush is constantly saluting Satan with that hand gesture, it’s well known that he’s no Einstein, and he was arrested for burglery.

First, the president is not saluting Satan with his hand gesture. What you are referring to is the “Hook-Em-Horns” symbol for the University of Texas. If Bush is saluting Satan so are 60,000 other people during every UT home football game.

Second, no one ever said he was an Einstein but by the same token I don’t believe that any president has had Einstein’s intelect.

Third, his arrest for burglary if I remember correctly was for stealing a Christmas Wreath as part of a college prank. I pray to God that no one holds the stupid things you and I did while in college against us nearly 40 years after the fact.

But, really Kirk, I don’t see much of that kind of thing here.

Really? Just check out Ezcobar�s post below your then.

I hate him and his handlers. they are destroying the earth. How can you people love a pathological liar, a narcisistic napoleon, a giggling murdering monkey, so much? I can have compassion for an ignorant clown, but Bush ain’t even close to that.

Between your comments and Escobar’s I think my point is made.

I pray to God that no one holds the stupid things you and I did while in college against us nearly 40 years after the fact.

Haha! I don’t know anyone who was arrested in college. I certainly don’t know anyone who was arrested three times and spent some time in jail. :)

BTW, Kirk, has President Bush said the gesture was the “hook ‘em horns”, or are you just assuming that? Despite the fake accent (he is from Connecticut, after all), he went to Harvard and Yale, not the University of Texas. And as a self-professed Christian, he knows what that symbol means just as well as you do.

But I’m sure it’s totally innocent, right? I mean, even though the Antichrist is expert at deceiving the faithful, no one is seriously suggesting anything bad about George W. Bush…

Kirk,

Black Leaders in the 1960’s were responding to the continued oppression of Black American by whites, period.

The 14th Amendment guarantees every American citizen equal protection under and Due Process of Law. Marriage as regulated by the many states is a Civil Institution not religious. The DOMA has yet to see its day before the Supreme Court, but my take on the document is that it will (regrettably) withstand Constitutional muster.

The President under our system of government is not all powerful, even in times of war! He cannot, and should not be allowed to be judge, jury and executor.

WE hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness –Declaration of Independence

Is the President God now? Or does the Declaration of Independence only apply to white males?

You have a right to exercise your religion, as does every American, but the state is forbidden from favoring one religion over another: The Separation of Church and State doctrine. I have no problem with you praying in school, just os long as you do not induce or coerce other into praying with you, and an official from the school does not lead the prayer, or set aside a time specifically for that purpose. If I have to respect your right to pray, you have to respect my right not to, especially in a public forum in which both the taxes of all Americans helps maintain.

And since when do you get to define what dissent is? Bush is by his own admission not the brightest bulb in the lamp; he admits that he is at best an average thinker. Why do you take umbrage with the truth? And since when is expressing an opinion, even a negative one hatred?

AP,

Haha! I don’t know anyone who was arrested in college. I certainly don’t know anyone who was arrested three times and spent some time in jail. :)

That is because the majority of us do not get caught. Yes, I did things while in college that I could have been arrested for in addition to knowing others who could have been arrested as well. Can you honestly say that you have never done anything that you could have been arrested for?

BTW, Kirk, has President Bush said the gesture was the “hook ‘em horns”, or are you just assuming that? Despite the fake accent (he is from Connecticut, after all), he went to Harvard and Yale, not the University of Texas. And as a self-professed Christian, he knows what that symbol means just as well as you do.

But I’m sure it’s totally innocent, right? I mean, even though the Antichrist is expert at deceiving the faithful, no one is seriously suggesting anything bad about George W. Bush…

This is totally asinine. You can not be serious.

2 John 1:7 Many deceivers have gone out into the world; they do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.

President Bush has confessed Christ on multiple occasions stating that Christ was the biggest influence on his life.

You know, I can�t believe that I am even responding to this.

V. Edward,

Black Leaders in the 1960�s were responding to the continued oppression of Black American by whites, period.

I am not talking about the 60�s I am talking about now. I will give you that Stokley Carmichael has not been heard from much lately but Louis Farrakhan and John Wiley Price and others spout their racist venom on a regular basis.

Marriage as regulated by the many states is a Civil Institution not religious.

I never said marriage was a religious institution. Even if there is no religious aspect to marriage, law has defined it as the union of one man and one woman. Period. Therefore, anything other than the union of one man and one woman can not be labeled a marriage by law. Very easy to understand.

The President under our system of government is not all powerful, even in times of war! He cannot, and should not be allowed to be judge, jury and executor.

Is the President God now? Or does the Declaration of Independence only apply to white males?

Once again, read the Geneva Convention. The administration is acting completely within the law. You may not like it or agree with the law but that does not change the fact that they are acting within the law.

I have no problem with you praying in school, just os long as you do not induce or coerce other into praying with you, and an official from the school does not lead the prayer, or set aside a time specifically for that purpose.

What if others want to join me in praying? What if the school official wants to pray with me as well? Some school districts
In this country have banned the Bible and religious symbolism on clothing and jewelry from school property. I defy you to find anything in the Constitution that states this is not only acceptable but the rule we must live by. If you want to use the 1st Amendment as your support, you need to read it again.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

Nothing in that statement says that the Bible or religious symbolism is not allowed in a school or public forum. It states only that the Congress can make no law establishing a religion. It also assures those who choose to the freedom to exercise their chosen religion.

And since when do you get to define what dissent is?

Webster�s defines dissent as to differ in opinion calling a person stupid, an idiot, a moron, a simpleton, evil, a thief, pathological liar, a narcisistic napoleon, a giggling murdering monkey is not differing in opinion. It is making a disparaging remark directed at a persons character not their opinion or policies.

You know, I can�t believe that I am even responding to this.

I was counting on it. :)

Apologies, Kirk. I was just yankin’ your chain. You sounded like the kind of person who takes that crap seriously. :)

BTW, you’re not really saying it’s OK to break the law, as long as you don’t get caught, are you?

AP,

BTW, you’re not really saying it’s OK to break the law, as long as you don’t get caught, are you?

Absolutely not. In fact, the things I did were rather childish and stupid. I hate the term �youthful indiscretions� because politicians of all stripes have used it to sweep way to many things under the rug. However, that is what I would call stealing a Christmas Wreath. This was likely not something that most people would be arrested for if the owner of the Wreath did not want to press charges.

And yes, if it were my wreath that was stolen I would likely be pissed but I do not think I would want someone to go to jail over it. The driving under the influence arrest was what concerned me. I think that Bush did handle this when it was exposed. Maybe not the way that we would have liked to see him do it. But, considering that he likely wanted to avoid the embarrassment and shame like most of us would his measured response was somewhat understandable.

Kirk,

Mr. Farrakhan has toned down his hateful rhetoric over the last decade or so, and in any case he speak for a very, very small number of Black Americans. And I have never heard of John Wiley Price. I am not saying that there are not Black Americans who loath whites; my point is you cannot systematically oppress a whole class of people for hundreds of years, stop gradually, and expect the animosity it generate to evaporate overnight.

The laws on marriage vary from state to state Kirk, and therein lies the problem, or the beauty of the system. The 14th Amendment (yes I am back on that again) calls for the equal treatment of all citizens before the law. Denying Gays the right to marry the adult of their choice without showing where said marriage would do harm to society is unconstitutional DOMA notwithstanding. It is unconstitutional because it denies Gays equal footing before the law with the heterosexual counterparts. Marriage is fundamental right under the U.S. Constitution; Re: Loving vs. Virginia.

If others want to pray with you fine, I do not care, and if a school official wants to pray with you, again fine. What I take exception to is the school mandating a time to be set aside for that prayer. I don’t even have a problem for a minute or two before class in the morning being set aside for a moment of silence in which you can pray silently to whatever higher power that guides you. But those who do not believe in a higher power should not be subjected to your prayers. Spirituality is a private matter that has no place in a public forum. The Supreme Court has ruled such, and they not me or you are the final arbiters of Constitutional doctrine. And one more thing: the Constitution is not a black letter law book; it is the framework by which laws are formulated.

Since the exercise of religion is free in this country, the government (all public institutions) must travel a road that respects all and favors none. It is far easier for a public school to remain neutral when it comes to religion then to show favoritism and invite unrest. Because this country is so diverse—and becoming more so yearly—in order for the free exercise of religion to remain such, the government must continue to take a neutral stance. Not one is advocating that you, or your neighbor cannot practice religious freedom within the confines of your home and church, and social gathering. My question is this, why do you insist on bring it into the public sphere where it might offend another? Not all Americans believe in God, I myself am on the edge, and I do not want to hear prayer in the public schools before a game etc. because I find it offensive. Keep it yourself.

And since when do disparaging remarks equal hatred?

V Edward,

you cannot systematically oppress a whole class of people for hundreds of years, stop gradually, and expect the animosity it generate to evaporate overnight.

I agree with you 100% on this statement. My point is that the animosity and rhetoric from both sides must cease if we are ever to get to that “colorblind society”. Unfortunately, you know as well as I do that there will always be knuckle-heads in all races who hate others for no appearant reason. We simply must get to the point that they are the vast minority and then not give them the attention that they so desperately want.

My question is this, why do you insist on bring it into the public sphere where it might offend another? Not all Americans believe in God, I myself am on the edge, and I do not want to hear prayer in the public schools before a game etc. because I find it offensive. Keep it yourself.

What if it offends me and others that there is no prayer before a game? You insisting on my silence in regards to prayer infringes on my rights just as much as my vocal prayers would infringe on yours.

One last thing to consider is that the Constitution does guarantee you the right to not be offended. I am sure that we are both offended on a regular basis without our Constitutional rights being violated.

If we’re going to do prayer before a game, I’d like a recitation of the thousand names of Vishnu and perhaps a reading from the Vedas. David, I suspect, might also like to hear some Buddhist scripture. And a nice taoist shrine and some incense burning would probably be appropriate, too. Oh, and of course we’ll be reading from the Koran.

Am I leaving anyone out? Oh, yeah. Pegu Medaw - always good to have on your side if you want to dominate your opponent. Any more?

AP, you got that right. And if after all of the denominational services, if there is still time, a few minutes of ballgame would be OK, too, but, religion is what we really attended for, so the ballgame is secondary.

Kirk,

I agree both sides have a responsibility to society to move in the direction of a colorless society, but more of that weight should rest on white shoulders. Black Americans did not pass the laws that institutionalized discrimination. And it wasn’t Black Americans who voted to offensive keep Civil War era language in the Mississippi Constitution this last election cycle; and it isn’t Black American who insist on keeping the stars and bars stitched into the Georgia state flag, despite the history of the cloth. And I doubt you will see the flag flying from too many home owned by Blacks, or hanging in the windows of too many cars owned by Black, or emblazed on too many hats and belt buckles worn by Blacks.

Since when is silence offensive? And how does silence infringe upon your right to exercise your religion freely? Does pray have to uttered allowed to be valid, to be heard by God?

No one is stopping you from saying a prayer before the game if you insist upon it, but say it under your breath. Your right to exercise your religion freely should not infringe upon mine not to exercise faith. Rights (all rights) come with responsibility and duty to not only yourself, but society in general.

And American Pundit makes a very good point. If prayer then what next. If you have a right to pray before a game then all religions have a similar right to some sort of invocation, even those who worship the devil and those who practice Wicca and other faiths some may find objectionable. And of course atheists and agnostics should have a turn at the microphone. Do you see the very slippery slope we are one when you bring religion into the public arena?

And you still did not answer my question: why do you insist on bring it into the public sphere?

You are right, the Constitution does not guarantee my right not to be offended, but in the exercise of my rights as a citizen of this nation I go out of my way to ensure that I do not offend others; you know, do onto others as you would have done to you.

Actually the beauty of free speech is that you can be offensive. We are sometimes too respectful these days. The only way to get at truth is to examine beliefs and arguments. When you do that, it will be offensive. People believe all sorts of stupid things. It is their right, but it is the duty of others to ridicule them mercilessly.

Religion is a good example. If you just believe in God, nobody can prove you wrong. We all have to accept the possibility. If, however, you believe that God will do specific things for you, then run the risk of being proved wrong. I don�t believe anyone had magical powers for example. God doesn�t do your bidding if you perform certain rituals. That is just stupid. I have been cursed by believers in voodoo and frequently by gypsies, although I am not sure what religion they are invoking. I have no respect for their beliefs and no fear of their curses and I won’t pretend that their erroneous believes are as good as mine.

It was always a mystery to me that these guys who have magical powers are so often poor and ignorant. You would think there would be some advantage to controlling occult forces.

Come to think of it, I did have more hair before the gypsies cursed me. Maybe they just aimed too high.

No one is stopping you from saying a prayer before the game if you insist upon it…

Good point, V. Edward, I think Jack is right too,

Actually the beauty of free speech is that you can be offensive.

I totally agree. Kirk, the beauty of America is that you can run out onto the court and shout out prayers at the top of your lungs, if you want. You can even do it in your skivvies, if you think that’s how it should be done.

Just understand they’re going to throw you out of the building. It won’t have anything to do with what you’re actually shouting (or not wearing). You’re just being disruptive.

And don’t be surprised if they give you a breathalyzer test, either. But whoop it up for Jesus in your underoos if you must. It’s a free country.

Hey, look at this. In addition to his Dad and “senior administration officials” saying his inauguration was a meaningless farce, GW himself just confirmed it.

So what was all the hubub about? It was just a meaningless farce. It’s not like the President of the United State’s words count for anything… anymore.

I am not advocating prayer before a gam, I was simply usign V. Edwards comments to play off of.

My question is this, why do you insist on bring it into the public sphere where it might offend another? Not all Americans believe in God, I myself am on the edge, and I do not want to hear prayer in the public schools before a game etc. because I find it offensive. Keep it yourself.

My point was, by insisting that there be no prayer or “keep it to yourself” is infringing on my rights to practice my religion freely. Personally I am very cognizant of the situation that I am in when I choose to pray so that I do not infringe on others.

Christians rights are infringed upon on a regular basis through thing like I mentioned where religious symbols are not even allowed on students clothing. But God forbid if administrators were to tell a student not to wear their Marylan Manson concert t-shirt to school.

Personally I am very cognizant of the situation that I am in when I choose to pray so that I do not infringe on others.

So you’re not running around in your underoos whoopin’ it up for Jesus? Then I’m not sure what your problem is.

BTW, you might be surprised to learn that many schools allow students to wear religious symbols, and many of them also ban the concert t-shirts. Are you saying you want both to be allowed? Studies have shown that a dress code reduces school violence and promotes better grades.