Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
349 Comments
GOOD MORNING WE BLOG!!
WHY DID THE CHICKEN CROSS THE ROAD?? JOIN IN…
BARACK OBAMA: The chicken crossed the road because it was time for a change! The chicken wanted change!
JOHN MC CAIN: My friends, that chicken crossed the road because he recognized the need to engage in cooperation and dialogue with all the chickens on the other side of the road…
SARAH PALIN: BECAUSE, PRAISE JESUS, I WAS GONNA SHOOT HIS SORRY LIBERAL BUTT OFF FOR BLOCKING MY VIEW OF RUSSIA !
HILLARY CLINTON: When I was First Lady, I personally helped that little chicken to cross the road. This experience makes me uniquely qualified to ensure right from Day One that every chicken in this country gets the chance it deserves to cross the road. But then, this really isn’t about me.
GEORGE W. BUSH: We don’t really care why the chicken crossed the road. We just want to know if the chicken is on our side of the road, or not. The chicken is either against us, or for us. There is no middle ground here.
DICK CHENEY: Where’s my gun?
COLIN POWELL: Now to the left of the screen, you can clearly see the satellite image of the chicken crossing the road.
BILL CLINTON: I did not cross the road with that chicken. What is your definition of crossing?
AL GORE: I invented the chicken.
JOHN KERRY: Although I voted to let the chicken cross the road, I am now against it! It was the wrong road to cross, and I was misled about the chicken’s intentions. I am not for it now, and will remain against it.
AL SHARPTON: Why are all the chickens white? We need some black chickens.
DR. PHIL: The problem we have here is that this chicken won’t realize that he must first deal with the problem on this side of the road before it goes after the problem on the other side of the road. What we need to do is help him realize how stupid he’s acting by not taking on his current problems before adding new problems.
OPRAH: Well, I understand that the chicken is having problems, which is why he wants to cross this road so bad. So instead of having the chicken learn from his mistakes and take falls, which is a part of life, I’m going to give this chicken a car so that he can just drive across the road and not live his life like the rest of the chickens.
ANDERSON COOPER, CNN: We have reason to believe there is a chicken, but we have not yet been allowed to have access to the other side of the road.
NANCY GRACE: That chicken crossed the road because he’s guilty! You can see it in his eyes and the way he walks.
PAT BUCHANAN: To steal the job of a decent, hardworking American.
MARTHA STEWART: No one called me to warn me which way that chicken was going. I had a standing order at the Farmers Market to sell my eggs when the price dropped to a certain level. No little bird gave me any insider information.
DR SEUSS: Did the chicken cross the road? Did he cross it with a toad? Yes, the chicken crossed the road, but why it crossed I’ve not been told.
ERNEST HEMINGWAY: To die in the rain, alone.
JERRY FALWELL: Because the chicken was gay! Can’t you people see the plain truth? That’s why they call it the other side. Yes, my friends, that chicken is gay. And if you eat that chicken, you will become gay, too. I say we boycott all chickens until we sort out this abomination that the liberal media whitewashes with seemingly harmless phrases like the other side. That chicken should not be crossing the road. It’s as plain and as simple as that.
GRANDPA: In my day we didn’t ask why the chicken crossed the road. Somebody told us the chicken crossed the road, and that was good enough.
BARBARA WALTERS: Isn’t that interesting? In a few moments, we will be listening to the chicken tell, for the first time, the heart warming story of how it experienced a serious case of molting, and went on to accomplish its lifelong dream of crossing the road.
ARISTOTLE: It is the nature of chickens to cross the road.
JOHN LENNON: Imagine all the world’s chickens crossing roads together, in peace.
BILL GATES: I have just released eChicken2008, which will not only cross roads, but will lay eggs, file your important documents, and balance your checkbook. Internet Explorer is an integral part of eChicken2008. This new platform is much more stable and will never crash.(or crack)
ALBERT EINSTEIN: Did the chicken really cross the road, or did the road move beneath the chicken?
COLONEL SANDERS: Did I miss one?
Hope you all have a GREAT Sunday!! I am off for three today. See ya all later!!
Well I notice that there is more signs that Iraq is moving toward an American style Democracy!
I was just checking out Al-Jazeera English and under the article about the agreement to stay in Iraq pass December. There were more comments from Iraq than before, they are using the net more I see.
There were two lines of thinking, one for us to leave as we have caused enough damage.
The other that we can not leave and should not until the United States pays “War reparations” for all the damage and deaths. The article said that one of the sticking points is that the Iraqis want our soldiers to be subject to Iraqis laws both off bases and ON the bases.
Another article talks about the Iraqis Government is passing a law where minorities like Christians are guarantee seats on local councils. The Government wants five and the Christians want ten seats. Meanwhile attacks on Christians are up. By Kurds whom are afraid that giving Christians as a minority too much power will undermine the Kurds desire to have they own Kurdish nation.
“Toto we are not in Kansas anymore!”, our strongest ally in Iraq is being responsible for attacks on Christians. And the Iraqis want war reparations from us for liberating them from Saddam Hussein.
Oh well another day in La-la land…..
Hey Libs! Is this your agenda?
A liberal manifesto
1a. Homosexual marriage nationwide.
1b. Remove “don’t-ask-don’t tell” in military.
1c. Equal Rights Amendment.
1d. Women in combat units
2. Abortion on demand nationwide (Freedom of Choice), government financing for indigent.
3. Energy independence
3a. Prohibitions against drilling for oil offshore, and in Alaska.
3b. Nuclear plants prohibited.
3c. Severe cap-and-trade restrictions on coal plants and oil refineries.
3d. Mandates on usage of ethanol, electrical appliances, automobile mileage, etc.
4. Socialized medicine.
5a. Religion confined to church property. (Don’t quibble on this, it’s the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church & State, and NPR position.)
5b. Legislation against “hate speech”.
5c. “Fairness doctrine”
6a. School children will be instructed to new sexual mores.
6b. Parental instruction contrary to accepted views is “child abuse”.
7. Make U.S. laws adhere to U.N. referendums.
8a. War on Terror conducted as criminal issues.
8b. Civil rights for all terrorist captives.
9.a Amnesty and citizenship paths for all illegal aliens.
9.b Remove restrictions on border crossings.
10. Withdraw military support from Israel.
11. Attempt to achieve world peace by negotiation.
12. Restrictions on firearm ownership.
13a. Tax increases on everyone making over $50,000/yr. (Yes, he lied.)
13b. Hidden taxes through corporate taxation.
14 Destroy Sarah Palin (and probably Bobby Jindal), since no other viable Republican is out there.
15 Severe reduction in military expenditures.
16 Reparations for slavery. However I suspect this is too hot to handle, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it came up.
http://online.worldmag.com/2008/11/08/whirled-views-118-3/
American
Posted November 8, 2008 at 5:49 pm | Permalink
Methane credits anyone?
This might solve the liberal oratorial flatulence that is causing extreme global warming trends.
DavidB
Posted November 8, 2008 at 5:57 pm | Permalink
the current plan is here:
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
But yeah, more or less your list is pretty good except for 3b, 3d, 4, 5a, 5b, 6a, 6b, 7, 8a, 9a, 9b, 10, 13a, 14, 16
American
Posted November 8, 2008 at 6:06 pm | Permalink
That is Obama’s plan, and since he does not have the corner on the market on all liberal ideas, how do you differ with his?
American
Posted November 8, 2008 at 6:10 pm | Permalink
DavidB,
Question on 11. Attempt to achieve world peace by negotiation:
At what point do you think we should initiate military action, if attacked, after negotiations failed?
American
Posted November 8, 2008 at 6:15 pm | Permalink
DavidB,
Please explain why you believe we should have # 15 Severe reduction in military expenditures.
American
Posted November 8, 2008 at 6:18 pm | Permalink
DavidB,
So you believe this is one of Obama’s agenda items? # 13a. Tax increases on everyone making over $50,000/yr. (Yes, he lied.)
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 7:19 am | Permalink
Hey Libs! Is this your agenda?
A liberal manifesto
1a. Homosexual marriage nationwide.
1b. Remove “don’t-ask-don’t tell” in military.
1c. Equal Rights Amendment.
1d. Women in combat units
yadda, yadda, yadda . . . .
=====================================================
. . . and so it begins. The right-wing of the broken Republican party starts with the Liberal bashing bs because they lost, have no plan whatsoever, and just want to follow their god and master, rush, in keeping the bipartisan crap flowing.
Way to reach across the aisle, bozo.
As Grand Commissar of People’s Republic of WE Blog (be sure to stop by my garage to get your Mao suit and goat), I feel it incumbent on me to share the
GAY AGENDA:
1) Tasteful interior decorating.
2) More fresh, not dried, herbs in cooking.
3) Judy Garland.
4) Creative Halloween costumes.
5) No wine in boxes.
6) Washibi in packets as a standard condiment at McDonald’s.
7) Replacing Mt. Rushmore with the faces of ABBA.
8) Forced memorization of at least ten Oscar Wilde quotes.
9) Mandating drag queen Pantomime Night at your local Legion Hall.
and
10) Justice.
Glad to help.
Change will be coming faster than we even hoped. Many of Bush’s decisions can apparently be overturned with a signature.
Obama Team Weighs What to Take On in First Months
“Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
jm….after months and months of your hatred, you expect others to “reach across the aisle”?
what a hypocrite you are.
Oh Jesus WEPT raptor!
After years and years of hatred, corruption and raids on the government treasury for largess to business, you expect non-republicans to reach across the aisle?
Woof. That’s the height of arrogance.
Wasnt it shrub who said “elections have consequenses”?
You are about to learn the meaning of consequenses.
Be afraid. Be VERY afraid. Like you need any encouragement to wet the bed…
One for the Ages:
“A nation tends to get the government it deserves, in the sense that pressure groups will eventually organize to make wrongful demands upon government, unless the nation’s “aristocracy of virtue and talent”—men with the ability to teach what expectations and demands are legitimate—are needed. When educators, philosophers, and men of letters fail to properly nourish the intellect, the conscience and the imagination of a significant segment of a society, they betray a sacred trust as teachers of mankind, and in the wake of their defection a secular religiousness becomes the popular faith. Leviathan is the god of this faith. Men serve Leviathan in the confident expectation that he will provide his votaries with ease, comfort, security, and prosperity. The modern world does indeed provide more of these things for more people than earlier periods, but it also exacts a toll in the form of perpetual warfare, social unrest, hardening of the arteries, softening of the brain, and a troubled spirit.
When we attempt to assess the modern malaise we are tempted to say: “An enemy hath done this thing.” But the truth of the matter is that we have done it to ourselves—the actively guilty, the passively guilty, the ignorant, the stupid, and all the innocent bystanders—we are all in this thing together. Every society has its characteristic pecking order, and ours is no exception.”
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1973&month=10
Care to expouse on the answers to the questions above pertaining to the questions I posed above?
Or do you only know how banter and bicker aimlessly about?
“DavidB
Posted November 9, 2008 at 8:17 am | Permalink
Change will be coming faster than we even hoped. Many of Bush’s decisions can apparently be overturned with a signature.
Obama Team Weighs What to Take On in First Months
“Transition advisers to President-elect Barack Obama have compiled a list of about 200 Bush administration actions and executive orders that could be swiftly undone to reverse White House policies on climate change, stem cell research, reproductive rights and other issues”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/09/us/politics/09promises.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin”
I expected no less from Obama.
But David, you have not answered my questions above.
Get over it American, we won. All your fear mongering is falling on deaf ears right now.
“Edmund Burke puts the matter plainly in a letter to a constituent in Bristol:
Believe me, it is a great truth, that there never was, for any long time, a corrupt representative of a virtuous people; or a mean, sluggish, careless people that ever had a good government of any form. If it be true in any degree, that the governors form the people, I am certain it is as true that the people in their turn impart their characters to their rulers. Such as you are, sooner or later, must parliament be.”
http://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=1973&month=10
Conservatism is yesterday’s flavor. But who knows what the new flavor will be?
Great quote, American…I guess it’s a good thing that the American people finally got Bush out of office and replaced him with someone who has a good moral character.
#
Raptor
Posted November 9, 2008 at 8:52 am | Permalink
jm….after months and months of your hatred, you expect others to “reach across the aisle”?
what a hypocrite you are.
======================================================
Make that years and years of pointing out the failed policies of the Bush administration. How’s your 401K doing? I was a Bush supporter prior to figuring out exactly what he and his cohorts were doing to this country.
Obama hasn’t taken office yet, and you are already slamming what you think are his policies, even though none have been put in place yet. Talk about hypocrites, I think you need to take a good long look in the mirror before you start with the hypocrite thing.
But that’s okay. Keep the negative crap up. Look what it got you in this election. Elephants are supposed to never forget. I have a feeling they have a problem learning as well.
Mary,
I am over it.
But, I am the loyal (to my country and to the President of the USA) opposition and monitor.
Care to answers my questions above and cogently explain why you supported Obama and the D’s if you can?
Or are you unable to answer?
Don’t forget to call Spirit One today to protest their disparaging sign about Obama…#303 0095, punch in Pastor Mike’s extention.
Question?:
Do any statements or blame by the left have nothing to do with Bush, or is he to blame for everything?
Note: He leaves office Jan 20, 2009. Move on!
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 9:05 am | Permalink
Care to expouse on the answers to the questions above pertaining to the questions I posed above?
Or do you only know how banter and bicker aimlessly about?
—
Back the nuttiness off by a factor of at least two, and you might find some takers.
If you’re interested in takers, that is.
By the way, it’s YOU who’s bantering and bickering aimlessly about by bringing your own problems here in the guise of these “questions.”
I have been looking over http://www.barackobama.com/issues/
and it is a treasure trove of information on the new approach that is coming to Washington.
Anyone truly interested in the issues will find these pages helpful.
No answers to my questions mean that you have no answers and are simply being led by the Piper.
Let the Rodents march on!
BlueJay sings…
Cons? don’t go away mad.
Cons? Just go away!
DavidB,
There is nothing new under the Sun.
Only recycled.
History repeats itself.
Hey BlueBird,
How are you!
When are you moving out of OzLand?
I like it here, but you don’t.
Cons will never go away!
Remember. The Pendulum swings.
No matter who would have won this election there are going to be factions who would not be willing to give the winner the chance to prove he wants to do what is best for the country as a whole. While I am no fan of either Mcain or Obama I’m going to give the new president a chance to prove he has the best intrests of the country at heart and is as good as his word.
Hey I’ll give him that chance.
Obama certainly wasn’t my choice, and McCain wasn’t my preference, and the Rs have come close to not having my support, because in alot of ways they are no different than the Ds.
Conservative thinking, however is here to stay!
And not all conservative thinking is beneficial to our country, mind you.
The gloating of the winners and the bitterness of the losers will do nothing except impede the country from moving forward from where we are now
Uh-Oh.
OMG!
heheheh.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAhAHA!
Did you guys know freeperville is dead? Not only was tnere no joy in Mudville, er Freeperville after the election, the damn temple of hate, er, website, disappeared!!!!!
WTF?
hehehehehheh.
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAAHHAHA!
Speculation is that the guy who owns freerepublic.com had a fourth quarter fundraising drive, then took the money and ran. Or that the Secret Service shut it down for all the threats being posted there regarding Obama. Or that it’s a cheap ass site and they are having “technical difficulities” at this time.
Heheheh. O. M. G. Imagine if this had happened at DU what the freepers would say?
So… I’ve been on the computer and intenet a lot less lately. Am I the only one who didnt know this? Did you all discuss this while I was gone?
Damn, this is so funny I think I peed a little.
It certainly explains why paulie hasnt been here for a while. He has nowhere to go for links, conspiracy theories, and secret 900 numbers. No one telling him what to post here. Or perhaps, he was working for and posting for freeperville?
Hehehheheheh. HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHHAHHAHHAHAHA.
Hell, that might explain the disappearance of a bunch of con nics around here. They are lost and wandering around looking for “leadership”.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Best news I’ve heard all week…
MoneyHawk… I just saw some Black Helicopters fly by carrying IKEA containers…
It has begun!
I share but am not yet awake enough to express the joy farmgrrl.
NO more Freeperville?
WHO will alert us as the first stones are laid to convert the White House into a pyramid?
HA!
“I just saw some Black Helicopters fly by carrying IKEA containers…”
That’s REALLY funny. And I read over at DU that president elect obama has banned all iceberg lettuce and instituted mandatory substitution of arugula.
They’re still working out the logistics for lattes. And distribution of Volvos to the faithful.
Except for gay people, of course. We’re back to being the bloody chicken. And I’m quite sure obama wont wiggle his pinky to help us.
KFG, is this the site you say is down?
http://www.freerepublic.com/tag/*/index
http://www.freerepublic.com/home.htm
Works fine, what is all the excitement about?
Oh, too funny. Apparantly they JUST came back up. Check the comments at the end of the thread. If any of you libs can stand to laugh until your stomach hurts, check out the WHOLE comment thread.
you freepers should probably stay away, or take two asprin and blog again in the morning…
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389×4418796#4421819
Damn, I should have known it was too good to be true, but the time it was down still explains why paulie’s been gone. Maybe now that it’s back up, the other con nics will reappear? I mean, since their “source” is back…
ksfarmgrrl,
I respect you as a living person, but you continue to show your are not respectable for other things.
Get a life, and grow up while you are at it.
Why not give us what you have good to give and not all the other garbage.
Hey american?
Kiss my fat, white, lesbian, farmer ass.
nitwit
I don’t think I have ever used it as a source, KFG.
In fact I don’t ever remember visiting the site until your post today. Thanks.
“Freebird1971
Posted November 9, 2008 at 10:17 am | Permalink
The gloating of the winners and the bitterness of the losers will do nothing except impede the country from moving forward from where we are now”
I agree. So where do you believe the country needs to be headed?
Obamanites riled up today?
BlueJay sings…
Goodbye Pauliecon
We knew you so well
You had no grace you pwned yourself
and now, away you crawl.
See what I mean. You prove it again. No way to discuss things intelligently.
Just name calling and cursing. How juvenile.
Been rioting in California lately?
You need two intelligent people to discuss something intelligently. Otherwise? It’s a monologue, and I dont need you to have one of those.
Phcuk you too.
There. That oughnt to make you happy.
Shouldnt you be in church?
BlueBird,
Why exactly did you quit your job again?
To monitor con websites?
Maybe there is hope for you!
What middle school do you attend? Great Bend?
jm..kind of early to be lying, isn’t it? I challenge you to show me where I said ONE WORD about slamming obama’s policies? Try again…
caught you in your own hypocrisy, and all you can do it lie about it. what a clown.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 10:47 am | Permalink
“Freebird1971
Posted November 9, 2008 at 10:17 am | Permalink
The gloating of the winners and the bitterness of the losers will do nothing except impede the country from moving forward from where we are now”
I agree. So where do you believe the country needs to be headed?
———————————————
In the other direction that we have been going the last 8 years. After Bush I’m starting to open to suggestions
Heeheehee! Jeez, woman! Yer feeling your oats!
But is is wonderful to feel that there will be someone in the Oval Office that better reflects the reality of today’s world and more progressive viewpoints.
And the boon this will be for American race relations! Perhaps many who feel disenfranchised will believe they are part of the essential fabric of society.
This truly is a happy time the world over… even if it just a honeymoon.
ksfarmgrrl
Posted November 9, 2008 at 10:45 am | Permalink
Hey american?
Kiss my fat, white, lesbian, farmer ass.
nitwit
———————————————–
Dont’hold it in. Tell him what you are really feeling!
Back later when con kindergarten is having their nap.
President Obama does not support same-sex marriage, supporting instead civi unions. He thinks the question is up to the states to decide. Judging from the CA Prop 8… did you see that 10,000 gays and supporters rallied against the adoption of Prop 8?
OHH!! I just typed “President Obama!” Ooops… But DAMN, it looks good in type!!
As recently as a few months ago, the idea of trying to bolster the troubled economy by pumping money into public works projects such as roads and bridges was dismissed as too slow — not the quick pick-me-up that was needed.
But today, economists and policymakers are beginning to change their minds.
Most experts still think infrastructure spending is a slower way to put money in consumers’ hands than simply mailing out government checks the way President Bush did over the summer. What’s changed is that the economic crisis now looks to be so deep and likely to last so long that a stimulus plan that pumps out benefits for months and years seems to fit the situation — with the added bonus of providing long-term benefits to the country.
http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-infrastructure9-2008nov09,0,2104157.story
Kind of scary technology-
Army Working on ‘Ghost’ Soldiers, Mind-Controlled Guns
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447964,00.html
I believe that those opposed to gay marriage are opposed to because they are so insecure in their own lives that the only satisfaction and empowerment they enjoy is feeling they are controlling other’s lives by dening them something
http://www.latimes.com/media/alternatethumbnails/story/2008-11/43263524-08201011.jpg
from: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-redriverside9-2008nov09,0,1024594.story
Since I will be secluded in the boondocks tomorrow without access to my computer I would like to wish a Happy 233rd Birthday to XXX and Nathan tomorrow.
We took the fouled anchor from the navy,
We took the rope from the army,
We took the eagle from the air force,
and on the seventh day, when God rest……
We took the world.
Semper Fi!
(And good-night Chesty Puller, whereever you are!)
Freebird1971,
1. Limited government – Reduce the size and scope of government
2. A democratic and free society
3. Open capitilism and a free market
4. Reduce spending drastically to end massive amount of debt.
5. Balance the budget
6. An end to pork barrel and book mark spending
7. Limited period of time for political campaigns
8. Limit drastically the amount of money for campaigning and lobbying
9. Enforce the rule of law
10. Encourage personal responsibility
11. Encourage giving to charitable causes that will help those in need
12. Get out the way
13. Encourage living in a way that best encourages healthy communities.
14. Pass a protect marriage (one man, one women) amendment to the US Consitution.
15. Stand up for true justice and morals in this nation.
16. Return to educating basic morals, civics and government in schools, without the revisionist history added.
Freebird1971
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:14 am | Permalink
I believe that those opposed to gay marriage are opposed to because they are so insecure in their own lives that the only satisfaction and empowerment they enjoy is feeling they are controlling other’s lives by dening them something
—————
Or maybe they believe it is just wrong or unnatural.
I could care less, it’s not my decision to make.
American still hasn’t explained his lie that “Obama attended Muslim school.”
Is service at Spirit One out already?
They have the same idea up on their church sign–”America has elected a MUSLIM president which will bring the wrath of God” Ex. 20:8
You know . . . the sign that is paid for by tax free money because they are “non-political.”
Or maybe they believe it is just wrong or unnatural.
I could care less, it’s not my decision to make.
————————————-
And it shouldn’t be the government’s
And it shouldn’t be the government’s
===========
The government made a decision and the people overruled it.
14. Pass a protect marriage (one man, one women) amendment to the US Consitution.
—————————————————-
Why?
Hey AmericanWay,
What department were the Marines in?
No disrespect. I have many Marine friends.
Semper Fidelis! Thanks for standing on the wall for us!
Davy Jones would be proud of ya!
Don’t worry about Spirit One. This will make the congregation embarrassed, because they know it is a lie. This is all part of the disintegration of the right wing as the are pulled back to the center, leaving the extremists to stew in their own juices.
How does one call for less government interference and also call for restrictions on political free speech and campaign contributions and spending in the same list?
I missed the story about riots in California. Reference, please? I love a good riot story…
Freebird1971
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:21 am | Permalink
14. Pass a protect marriage (one man, one women) amendment to the US Consitution.
—————————————————-
Why?
—
It’s about control. How do I know? Watch.
So how about this solution. We allow any man and woman couple who chooses to do so to marry. In this way marriage is held out ONLY to couples who meet the following criteria:
1. One human male and one human female, unrelated and who otherwise would be eligible for marraige today.
2. Approved in a church of their choosing.
All other human couplings are granted all the civil rights, including tax and estate rights, of married couples. However, they must agree to the following criteria:
1. They are not married, and there is no marriage certificate available for them. If they call their civil union marriage in a legal context, they’re wrong and liable.
So if you want to be married and you fit the criteria, you get a certificate, or whatever, from your church saying that you’re married.
All others are not married, do not get this certificate, but retain all the civil rights, tax and estate laws included, of marriage.
Deal?
The government made the decision in California!
The government is by, for and of the people……(my paraphrase)
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
And knowledgible citizens have corrected wrongs by this nation on it’s citizenship in the past, are doing so today and will in the future by voting and passing amendments to the US Contitution.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:37 am | Permalink
The government made the decision in California!
The government is by, for and of the people……(my paraphrase)
—
So the government of California is subject to change.
Does this mean you’d take my deal?
In this way marriage is held out ONLY to couples who meet the following criteria:
Unless they’re married in the Metropolitan Community Church or the Unitarian Church. Government has no business telling any church what to do (and, incidently, noone of these so-called marriage amendments forbid such churches from doing so, and that won’t happen, unless we want to completely get rid of religious freedom).
How about it folks? Let the churches handle sacraments. Governments do contracts. Deal?
Do you all have a permit to protest?
Is one required?
Just asking!
LOL! The government decides where to put STOP signs, too. Damn despots!
>>>>>>>>> Control over others
> Justice for all
Come on American, you’re tippin’ the scale!
Deal?
Scholar Finds Mayans’ Buried Highway Through Hell
TZIBICHEN CENOTE, Mexico (AP) — Legend says the afterlife for ancient Mayas was a terrifying obstacle course in which the dead had to traverse rivers of blood, and chambers full of sharp knives, bats and jaguars.
Now a Mexican archaeologist using long-forgotten testimony from the Spanish Inquisition says a series of caves he has explored may be the place where the Maya actually tried to depict this highway through hell.
WOW! http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-LA-Mexico-Mayan-Afterworld.html
To answer your question Pendant,
No.
I don’t believe there is any substantial difference between gay civil unions and gay marriage.
It’s all a smoke screen to drag this country down, away from any kind or moral compass, and good men and women will not stand for it.
American, would you be in favor of an amendment that says white people can only marry white people, and black people can only marry black people?
“DavidB
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:42 am | Permalink
LOL! The government decides where to put STOP signs, too. Damn despots!”
Do you stop?
THE CON LIE:
1. Limited government – Reduce the size and scope of government
THE CON REALITY: Doubled the size of the national debt to 10.5 TRILLION
THE CON LIE:
2. A democratic and free society
THE CON REALITY: Throwing people into prison indefinitaly without charges or trial.
Kidnapping people, torturing and murdering them, without trial or even charge.
Corralling protesters miles away from President Bush in Orwellian “free speech zones” surrounded by chain-link fences.
Throwing millions of (Democratic) voters off the rolls to insure CON wins. (Florida, 2000)
THE CON LIE:
3. Open capitialism and a free market
THE CON REALITY: Trillions for cronies of the Bush crew. See Jack Abramoff. Dick Cheney actually started a war while he was on the payroll of Halliburton Corp. who would benefit mightly from said war, as they have.
THE CON LIE:
4. Reduce spending drastically to end massive amount of debt.
THE CON REALITY: See item 1.
THE CON LIE:
5. Balance the budget
THE CON REALITY: See item 1.
THE CON LIE:
6. An end to pork barrel and book mark spending
THE CON REALITY: “Pork barrel” spending is any gov’t spending that CONs don’t like, like spending a million dollars saving polar bears. Spending 2 billion a month in Iraq is fine.
THE CON LIE:
7. Limited period of time for political campaigns
THE CON REALITY: They want to change the rules so they can win.
THE CON LIE:
8. Limit drastically the amount of money for campaigning and lobbying
THE CON REALITY: Especially after tens of millions of Americans voted with their wallets for Obama instead of McCON.
THE CON LIE:
9. Enforce the rule of law
THE CON REALITY: As long as that law is directed at CON political enemies. If it involves answering subpeonas on Dick Cheney or Todd Palin, or perjuring oneself like Scooter Libby, then not so much.
THE CON LIE:
10. Encourage personal responsibility
THE CON REALITY: Because that way we don’t have to deal with the huge problems of unwed pregnancies or Americans without health care.
THE CON LIE:
11. Encourage giving to charitable causes that will help those in need
THE CON REALITY: See item 10.
THE CON LIE:
12. Get out the way
THE CON REALITY: The de-regulation that led to the worst financial crisis since the last time we banks etc. were de-regulated, The Depression.
THE CON LIE:
13. Encourage living in a way that best encourages healthy communities.
THE CON REALITY: As long as by “healthy,” you don’t mean actual “health.” Environmental regulations that keep kids safe like getting industrial waste out of drinking water for instance are “getting in the way” and are opposed at every turn.
THE CON LIE:
14. Pass a protect marriage (one man, one women) amendment to the US Consitution.
THE CON REALITY: A massive non-issue that whips up the homophobia of the bigoted CON base. Most CONs at the top–like Dick Cheney and his lesbian daughter–don’t give a damn one way or the other, but they know well how the cretin-R’s demand their self-righteous hatred.
THE CON LIE:
15. Stand up for true justice and morals in this nation.
THE CON REALITY: See all of the above.
THE CON LIE:
16. Return to educating basic morals, civics and government in schools, without the revisionist history added.
THE CON REALITY: By “revisionist history,” the CONs mean “the truth.” By “basic morals,” they mean hating the people that CONs hate. By “civics and gov’t,” they mean maintaining the justifications for the rich and powerful to stay rich and powerful.
“Pedant
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:43 am | Permalink
>>>>>>>>> Control over others
> Justice for all
Come on American, you’re tippin’ the scale!
Deal?”
It depends on what you mean by “all”.
Life does and should have limitations, or do you believe in total freedom to do anything (hint: anarchy)?
“Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:46 am | Permalink
American, would you be in favor of an amendment that says white people can only marry white people, and black people can only marry black people?”
No.
We are all one race, one people.
Men only marrying women? Yes!
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
To answer your question Pendant,
No.
I don’t believe there is any substantial difference between gay civil unions and gay marriage.
It’s all a smoke screen to drag this country down, away from any kind or moral compass, and good men and women will not stand for it.
—
See Freebird?
They aren’t really interested in justice for all. They’ll say that phrase, “Justice for all,” because it’s in the pledge of allegiance and they’re all about pledges.
What they mean when they say “justice for all,” though is this: justice FOR THOSE WHO AGREE WITH ME.
The majority rules, that’s their motto. For them, if you’re in the minority then either shut the h@ll up or get out.
It’s just a way for them to control the behavior of others.
AmericanWay,
I do agree with you on many of your statements. The Rs that are in power, and countered by the Ds effect from their opposition , did not do so well.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
I don’t believe there is any substantial difference between gay civil unions and gay marriage.
—
I’m sure your church would be shocked to hear you admit this.
Can’t say I am, though.
Pendant,
What is Justice?
What is Freedom?
Does Justice restrict everything? No!
Does Freedom allow everything? No!
Who decides?
You? No!
Me? No!
How then, can you tell me, do we come to that conclusion?
By voting. Not entirely, but mostly.
Based upon what?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/uselection2008/sarahpalin/3405336/Sarah-Palin-blamed-by-the-US-Secret-Service-for-death-threats-against-Barack-Obama.html
Sarah Palin blamed by the US Secret Service over death threats against Barack Obama
Sarah Palin’s attacks on Barack Obama’s patriotism provoked a spike in death threats against the future president, Secret Service agents revealed during the final weeks of the campaign.
By Tim Shipman in Washington
The Republican vice presidential candidate attracted criticism for accusing Mr Obama of “palling around with terrorists”, citing his association with the sixties radical William Ayers.
The attacks provoked a near lynch mob atmosphere at her rallies, with supporters yelling “terrorist” and “kill him” until the McCain campaign ordered her to tone down the rhetoric.
But it has now emerged that her demagogic tone may have unintentionally encouraged white supremacists to go even further.
The Secret Service warned the Obama family in mid October that they had seen a dramatic increase in the number of threats against the Democratic candidate, coinciding with Mrs Palin’s attacks.
Michelle Obama, the future First Lady, was so upset that she turned to her friend and campaign adviser Valerie Jarrett and said: “Why would they try to make people hate us?”
The revelations, contained in a Newsweek history of the campaign, are likely to further damage Mrs Palin’s credentials as a future presidential candidate. She is already a frontrunner, with Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal, to take on Mr Obama in four years time.
Details of the spike in threats to Mr Obama come as a report last week by security and intelligence analysts Stratfor, warned that he is a high risk target for racist gunmen. It concluded: “Two plots to assassinate Obama were broken up during the campaign season, and several more remain under investigation. We would expect federal authorities to uncover many more plots to attack the president that have been hatched by white supremacist ideologues.”
Irate John McCain aides, who blame Mrs Palin for losing the election, claim Mrs Palin took it upon herself to question Mr Obama’s patriotism, before the line of attack had been cleared by Mr McCain.
People are responsible for their own actions!
#
Raptor
Posted November 9, 2008 at 10:58 am | Permalink
jm..kind of early to be lying, isn’t it? I challenge you to show me where I said ONE WORD about slamming obama’s policies? Try again…
caught you in your own hypocrisy, and all you can do it lie about it. what a clown.
========================================================
#
Raptor
Posted November 9, 2008 at 8:52 am | Permalink
jm….after months and months of your hatred, you expect others to “reach across the aisle”?
what a hypocrite you are.
========================================================
That’s not a full acceptance of what American posted? I don’t read your denying anything american posted, just slamming my response. You place yourself in the middle of posts between american and myself and you expect me not to respond? I really don’t give a healthy sh&& what you believe or don’t. The only clown part is your own hypocrisy.
“Pedant
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:55 am | Permalink
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
I don’t believe there is any substantial difference between gay civil unions and gay marriage.
—
I’m sure your church would be shocked to hear you admit this.
Can’t say I am, though.”
Why would my church be shocked to hear you admit this?
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:01 pm | Permalink
Pendant,
What is Justice?
What is Freedom?
Does Justice restrict everything? No!
Does Freedom allow everything? No!
Who decides?
You? No!
Me? No!
How then, can you tell me, do we come to that conclusion?
By voting. Not entirely, but mostly.
Based upon what?
—
I offered a fair deal, one fair to both sides.
You’re the one who turned it down, so obviously you’re feelin’ pretty comfortable with unfair deals.
What happen to all the wingnuts? Did they all get sucked up in the rapture…..
http://www.speroforum.com/wiki/default.aspx/SperoWiki/ChristianNationalism.html
Christian Nationalism
.
Summary
The Christian Nationalism movement is a byproduct of the Protestant Dominion Theology, which claims that in preparation for the second coming of Christ, godly men have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society.
The Christian Nationalism movement is a byproduct of the Protestant Dominion Theology, “which asserts that, in preparation for the second coming of Christ, godly men have the responsibility to take over every aspect of society.”
According to Michelle Goldberg in Kingdom Coming The Rise Of Christian Nationalism, “DominionTheology comes out of Christian Reconstructionism, a fundamentalist creed that was propagated by the late Rousas John Rushdoony (R.J. Rushdoony) and his son-in-law, Gary North. Born in New York City in 1916 to Armenian immigrants who had recently fled the genocide in Turkey, Rushdoony was educated at the University of California at Berkeley and spent over eight years as a Presbyterian missionary to Native Americans in Nevada.”
According to Goldberg, Rushdoony “was a prolific writer, churning out dense tomes advocating the abolition of public schools and social services and the replacement of civil law with biblical law. White-bearded and wizardly, Rushdoony had the look of an Old Testament patriarch and the harsh vision to match — he called for the death penalty for gay people, blasphemers, and unchaste women, among other sinners. Democracy, he wrote, is a heresy and “the great love of the failures and cowards of life.”
In turn, Goldberg said that “reconstructionism is a postmillennial theology, meaning its followers believe Jesus won’t return until after Christians establish a thousand year reign on earth. While other Christians wait for the messiah, Reconstructionists want to build the kingdom themselves.”
On the other hand, most American evangelicals are premillennialists.
“They believe (with some variations) that at the time of Christ’s return, Christians will be gathered up to heaven, missing the tribulations endured by unbelievers. In the past, this belief led to a certain apathy — why worry if the world is about to end and you’ll be safe from the carnage?” says Goldberg in her article.
No.
We are all one race, one people.
And yet you can’t grasp what a total contradiction that is. Amazing.
Well, American, you’re entitled to your sad, paranoid view of humanity. The preachers who agree with you are also so entitled.
But you’re not entitled to use government to discriminate on the basis of religious bigotry, sex, and sexual orientation. Not in America. And we (those who favor equality) will eventually win.
For years, women and African-Americans could not vote, and the “reasoning” about it somehow being “unnatural” was remarkably similar. The same was certainly said of mixed-race couples.
But, in Loving v. Virginia ,the Supreme Court said, no, the government can’t tell consenting adults they have to be the same race to enter this legal contract. A few years ago, Mildred Loving, the plantiff, said this:
I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard’s and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness, and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That’s what Loving, and loving, are all about.
http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/gaymarriageinformation/a/Loving.htm
The good news, American, is that no one will stop you from believing that gay people are “unnatural,” no one will try to force them into your churches, or to perform marriage ceremonies for them. That’s not the government’s business.
Neither is the sexual details of a spousal contract between two consenting adults.
http://www.telegragh.com?
Newsweek?
Methane credits anyone?
annie_moose,
No! Not! Never!
No state church.
Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
But you’re not entitled to use government to discriminate on the basis of religious bigotry, sex, and sexual orientation. Not in America. And we (those who favor equality) will eventually win.
—
Yes, we will. Probably sooner rather than later, too.
The basic fairness in my “deal” appeals to just about every American younger than 44 (roughly). And more and more Americans older than 44 will gradually see their own souls come back to life and realize the inherent justice here, too.
Give it two generations, tops. Probably sooner.
No! Not! Never!
No state church.
You say you’re opposed to a state church, but have no problem with churches using irrational religious doctrine to make public policy. Huh.
Reading the blog entries today, a question popped into my mind. Can liberals play defense?
Liberals are hard wired to rock the boat, to rail against he status quo. Now, they will be defending the establishment. They will have no one to rail against except their own. And they are never happy unless they are tearing something or someone down. You know, that low self-esteem problem. Should be interesting.
Time to change ends.
Rage,
I am not paranoid.
And, how, pray tell, is that a total contradiction?
I do not believe that you can equate race and gender rights as the justification for supposed special gay rights. Gays have the same fundamental rights as everyone does.
Most would be highly offended by that, as if they are equal and the same.
They are not.
speak of the devil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQ6DlTQ114
outlander
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:22 pm | Permalink
Time to change ends.
—
I think they have some time. From comments here, anyway, it’s obvious the other side has some issues to work through before they can post rationally enough to be taken seriously.
So far shedding the nuttiness is like shedding water off a duck’s back.
I think they have 18 months or so to learn how to identify, isolate, and ignore the nuttiness while defending any really threatening incoming. (which will come, to your point)
annie_moose
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:26 pm | Permalink
speak of the devil
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jkQ6DlTQ114
—
Freaky. Slap a turban on that guy and who does he look like?
Dead ringer for OBL.
“You know, that low self-esteem problem.”
You mean like needing to believe in some sort of “God” to justify our existence and tell us what to do?
American, imagine a boring domestic couple. They have been together for 20 years, but are still in love. They work a lot, occassionally go out but more often stay in and watch TV, or maybe play video games. They divide up the chores (though one of them tends to do the cooking more often). They have a house and mortgage. They get along with their neighbors. They lead pretty much mundane, Norman Rockwell normal lives. They occasionally volunteer at homeless shelters.
They also happen to be two women.
Now, some people will take issue with that. That’s reality. But what rational, non-religious reason exists for them being treated differently under the law?
Liberals are hard wired to rock the boat, to rail against he status quo.
There’s a reason for that.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2007/04/06/christian-nationalism-parallel-reality-parallel-institutions.htm
Christian Nationalism: Parallel Reality, Parallel Institutions
Friday April 6, 2007
Most casual observers of the Christian Right realize that there are a wide variety of organizations involved with advancing the movement’s goals. Not everyone puts all the pieces together, however, and recognizes the degree to which all of these organizations effectively create a parallel reality or even a parallel society within the broader American nation.
The March, 2007 issue of Freethought Today carries a speech from Michelle Goldberg delivered at the 29th annual convention of the Freedom From Religion Foundation:
Christian Nationalism has created a kind of parallel reality. While, say, the mainstream has the American Bar Association, Christian Nationalism has the Federalist Society. It has its version of the ACLU, and the Alliance Defence Fund and Liberty Legal. It has its own universities. It has its own medical institutions, such as the Medical Institute for Sexual Health — which exists to promote the idea that abstinence education is the best way to prevent teenage pregnancies and STDs, and which claims that condoms promote promiscuity. It has the Discovery Institute, which promotes intelligent design and masquerades as a legitimate scientific organization. …
All of this is very funny until you start seeing this parallel reality intruding on what we used to just call reality. It’s important to note that the people behind this movement are not stupid, and they know what they’re doing. They very much had an idea from the beginning of undermining the Enlightenment. What they’re opposed to is not just the teaching of evolution, not just attempts to keep the Ten Commandments out of courthouses. What they’re fundamentally opposed to is the idea that you can understand reality or make decisions about how to operate in a world without reference to divine revelation.
The Anatomy of Fascism
Michelle Goldberg is right to point out the importance of this phenomenon, but I wouldn’t use the term “parallel reality.” This term carries with it — to me, at least — the connotation that Christian Nationalists are trying to create an “alternate reality” in which the normal laws of nature aren’t accepted or don’t operate. To some extent this is arguably true because there are ways in which Christian Right organizations try to deny the genuine reality in favor of their ideology — their insistence on “abstinence only” sex education is a prime example of this.
“they are never happy unless they are tearing something or someone down.”
You mean like making laws against people’s lifestyle because their invisible “God” MAYBE suggests it?
“Pedant
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:15 pm | Permalink
Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
But you’re not entitled to use government to discriminate on the basis of religious bigotry, sex, and sexual orientation. Not in America. And we (those who favor equality) will eventually win.
—
Yes, we will. Probably sooner rather than later, too.
The basic fairness in my “deal” appeals to just about every American younger than 44 (roughly). And more and more Americans older than 44 will gradually see their own souls come back to life and realize the inherent justice here, too.
Give it two generations, tops. Probably sooner.”
How old are you?
When did you graduate from High School?
Where did you attend college?
What used to be wrong is now right.
What used to be bad is now good.
What used to abnormal is now normal.
Public schools and the liberal controlled education industry, including the universities, have indoctrinated many to believe in their agenda, without standards, without morals, without guidlines, and have distorted the real meaning of freedom, justice, mercy and personal responsibilities.
The CEOs greed and the unions greed are one and the same and the struggle will continue.
Is it any wonder of the state that we are in?
Government is the answer to everythong, but if you look at Social Security, and by the way, Chas, if you are still around, the FICA is a tax, even though it is the Federal Insurance Contribution Act, it is not optional, you have to pay.
Look at the state of it. Nothing but IOUs, and it has been this way for the last 35 years or so.
But government is the answer?
And more sanctioned government endowed freedoms is the answer?
“they are never happy unless they are tearing something or someone down.”
Since liberalism is actually in large degree about fairness and equality, I found this to be hilarious.
I see Outlander’s in a cranky mood. Oh well.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
And more sanctioned government endowed freedoms is the answer?
—
I’m 53, thanks. Old enough to have read the constitution more than once.
Since when in the USA did government sanction or endow freedom?
You bozos are the ones who want to RESTRICT freedom here, not me.
Get a grip.
Take a minute or two, “American,” and read a bit about the Constitutional Convention and the Bill of Rights.
Read about the viewpoints taken there.
When you’ve done that, get back to me on the source of freedom.
“Liberal-controlled institutions” = less merging of church and state.
I guess that is scary if you regard conservative dominionist theology as the only way to run this country. And all the children turn into Satanist leather weasels huffing meth!
At least, I gather that’s the fear.
The reality is that we live an increasingly diverse country. If we’re going to live together, we’re going to have to reach a moral consensus that doesn’t come, unquestioned, from some preacher’s Sunday sermon.
I know, it’s an unsettling concept for some, that there can and must be a public morality that depends on public consensus rather than by fiat of a temporary political majority.
But it’s what the Founders of this nation wanted.
American is this true?
What your fundamentally opposed to is the idea that you can understand reality or make decisions about how to operate in a world without reference to divine revelation.
“How about it folks? Let the churches handle sacraments. Governments do contracts. Deal?” [Rage]
Almost, Rage, but not quite… See, that is technically the way it already is. NO Church issues a marriage license. Marriage licenses(or contracts) are issued by the State (usually a County)… Churches are NOT required to solemnize a marriage… But they are usually involved in some way, shape, or form… for many folks…
In fact, many people are married, at a Courthouse, by a JUDGE….
The “Sacrament” is only the Church’s blessing on the Union…
ALSO, note please, that in order to dissolve the Union, it takes the LEGAL action of a Court…
So, actually, Rage, the Church already does the Sacrament…. and the State already DOES the contract…
Only problem is, SOME churches feel the arrogant need to impose their own religious beliefs upon the contract of marriage, said contract issued by the State…
Somewhere in there fits the First Amendment, and the NINTH Amendment… Check out that NINTH amendment pretty closely…
So, actually, Rage, the Church already does the Sacrament…. and the State already DOES the contract…
Of course. I never implied otherwise.
The other side wants some churches to control the terms of the civil contract. And, so far, unfortunately, they’re winning.
#
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:11 pm | Permalink
http://www.telegragh.com?
Newsweek?
Methane credits anyone?
=======================================================
Hey, I’m all for it!!!
Experts said the slow digestive system of Republicans makes them a key producer of methane, a potent greenhouse gas that gets far less public attention than carbon dioxide.
In a bid to understand the impact of the wind produced by Republicans on global warming, scientists collected gas from their stomachs in plastic tanks attached to their backs.
The Argentine researchers discovered methane from Republicans accounts for more than 30 per cent of the country’s total greenhouse emissions.
As one of the world’s biggest Republicans producers, Argentina, has more than 55 million Republicans grazing in its famed Pampas grasslands.
Guillermo Berra, a researcher at the National Institute of Agricultural Technology, said every Republican produces between 8000 to 1,000 litres of emissions every day.
Methane, which is also released from landfills, coal mines and leaking gas pipes, is 23 times more effective at trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide.
Scientists are now carrying out trials of new diets designed to improve Republicans digestion and hopefully reduce global warming. Silvia Valtorta, of the National Council of Scientific and Technical Investigations, said that by feeding Republicans clover and alfalfa instead of grain “you can reduce methane emissions by 25 percent”.
“And more sanctioned government endowed freedoms is the answer?” ["American"]
Ummmm…. you quoted an entire sectiion of the Declaration of Independence, and yet you post this looney, and idiotic statement??
…among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness… >>> Note that those unalienable “rights” are NOT the only ones… but they are AMONG the unalienable “rights”
Who pray tell, are YOU to come along, and want to REMOVE unalienable “RIGHTS” from people??? AND, not only that, to do it through GOVERNMENT (thats what a Constitutional amendment would do)….
I will still argue, BTW, that Soc. Sec. is NOT a tax, but an Insurance (and not ALL are required to pay into it — or did you not know that??)
I cant stand to argue against rampant Facism, and Religious Zealotry on a Sunday.
I have noticed that only the radical left wing of the liberal policy is in attendance today. What happened to the same among you?
The people spoke in CA. Get over it. The judges can overturn it again but something tells me they won’t. There are always two sides to every election or proposition. That what voters do – make the decision.
DavidB I am amused to see that your sources are all highlighted on Drudge – that right wing newscenter. Capn if I were like you and waited for the UK to bring me recycled news – which by the way is erronious – I would be considered out of touch with reality just as you are.
Carried over from 11/8/2008 thread.
First of all, Nathan, thanks for your reply. Even though I will be critical of it, you obviously put some thought into it and I appreciate it.
“You claim that my saying that Evolution is not an ‘irrefutable fact’ is merely my opinion.”
Actually, I was more specific than that. I was arguing against your claim that Maggotpunk’s statement was an expression of extremism.
“I think your correction of my statement helps here. Evolutionary Theory is indeed a culmination of many different theories which comprise Evolutionary Theory. You then go on to say that Evolutionary Theory will be ‘refined and adjusted’.”
I don’t know about many different theories, but yes, there are pretty substantially different theories about mechanisms and their relative importance. Pretty much everyone agrees that natural selection and reproductive success are important, but in response to improvements in understandings in genetics and embryology in particular, there are a number of competing hypotheses about the importance of mechanisms.
“This is exactly what I am talking about. What part of Evolutionary Theory is Maggotpunk claiming to be an ‘irrefutable fact?’”
I think I can answer this question. The part of “evolutionary theory”, the very part that drives creationist and ID political movements to oppose it, the part that is so well supported by multiple lines of evidence as to be beyond any sort of reasonable doubt (and I am understating the case here) is common ancestry. The evidence that we are close biological relatives of, and share common ancestors with, African apes is beyond overwhelming. Every line of inquiry that has been opened on common ancestry, from fossils to genetics (comparative and mechanisms) to blood proteins to anatomy to geography is consistent with common ancestry. There may be substantial changes in evolutionary theory, but those changes would be more along the lines of how evolution happens and happened, not whether it happened. And that’s a fact.
(snipped next paragraph, because the paragraph above is already a response to the argument it contained.
“Just as you claim that it is only my opinion, your claiming that it is reasonable to say that Evolution is an irrefutable fact is just your opinion as well.”
Perhaps, but it is the opinion overwhelmingly supported by evidence. Yours is not.
“Obviously you do not pay much attention to these discussions at all. Many of my discussions with CapnAmerica are not dealing with my trying to argue against Evolution at all. They are about arguing with CapnAmerica on his notion that my belief in Creation is a rejection of ’science’ while his belief’s are not.”
I disagree. I do pay attention to the discussions. For example, what you attempted to claim in your discussion with Capn America was that Capn’s belief in God logically contradicts his belief in science. It is not a logical contradiction (and many of my fellow non-theists and atheists disagree with me) unless one posits that god logically entails certain features. Some, indeed many, theologies entail these features, but not all.
“That is the focus of many of my discussions with CapnAmerica and why you see me arguing more from the faith side than making a case against Evolution.”
Quick comment, I have seen many discussions involving you and evolution. I have participated in some of them. I am not going “just” on your latest discussion with the Capn.
“No where did I confuse methodlogical naturalism with metaphysical naturalism as you claim. You might have had a point on my arguing incorrectly, but to say that I am confused about the two? That is where you start making false attacks on me.”
Another quick comment. You have, in your posts, a consistent tendancy to take offense at what others say to you. You come across as thin skinned. Nathan, I responded to what you wrote, and what you wrote did appear to confuse methodological and metaphysical naturalism. If you have them straight, fine, but in my very strong opinion the content of your post did not clearly communicate that you had them straight. My response does not therefore constitute a “false attack on you.”
“Your argument that somehow one day God can be tested so I am wrong is rather a moot point.”
OK.
“Of course, when God does come to judge us and Christ returns to take the believers to heaven, we will obviously know and be able to ’scientifically’ observe this happening.”
To be honest, I think the likelihood of that happening is the same as Thor fighting the Midgard Serpent somewhere over Norway, but I take your point. Either way, such an event could be observed.
“However, right now, as a Christian, believing in God is faith. There is no substantial scientific evidence nor will there be to ’scientifially’ prove the existence of God until the point where “science” is pointless as we will be in heaven. (Again, my arguments dealing with God are directly in reference to the Christian God and not “god” in general.)”
Fair enough, but my arguments do and will not confine themselves to your version of the Christian God, and if someone holds a viewpoint that logically contradicts your belief in a Christian God, it does not necessarily logically contradict their belief in a Christian God, or another kind of god.
(snipped) “So my point to CapnAmerica is where does he reconcile God in that time line?”
If one simply assumes that God created the universe and put it in place with natural laws, then once can reconcile God with science. That was in fact a common viewpoint among intellectuals who assumed Christianity in Europe during the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries.
“And when you answer that question of where God is a part of things, the question is does science accept that answer and of course that is a no.”
And if one insists that the answer as to where “God” is a part of things is in an area where metholdological naturalism works, then you get in trouble. If one insists that God has to have created the species pretty much as they are, then one has to willingly ignore the overwhelming evidence for common ancestry. However, one can assume the existence of God and assume that methodological naturalism works for all of the observable universe as long one doesn’t resort to a Goddidit explanation for something that can be explained through observed or inferred natural processes, without fear of logical contradiction. It is known in non-theist circles somewhat derisively as the “god in the gaps” theory, but it is a way to avoid logical contradiction even if such a belief does not reflect reality.
“The problem is that you are jumping into the middle of an argument which is not about Evolution as much as it is about God fitting into the equation as a Christian.”
Probably not.
“Then you sit here claiming that I do not argue against Evolution without using the supernatural or other religious arguments.”
Like I said, I go back to more than your conversation with the Capn. I have seen you say that you can do it, but I haven’t seen any evidence of it other than arguments from personal incredulity. And I think that your argument with the Capn does betray your reasonings for arguing against evolution (they are not because you really think the evidence is against it, but because they contradict your beliefs). And I am not being unfair to say this.
“Most of the arguments I am a part of on this blog involve someone calling me names or making fun of me for my belief in Creation.”
You know what, something I have observed in your posting behavior that when someone posts a logical argument against you, versus when someone posts something snarky against you, you often seem to choose to post in response to the snarky person. However, there is some irony in my saying this to you when you did make the choice
“I then argue against that, not neccisarily Evolution. And many times I have said that if you want to argue Evolution, fine, lets argue Evolution. But that is not what people want to do and that is not where most of the discussions go.”
Understood. However, I honestly think that is often your choice. Discussions that touch on your faith seem to escalate. I know you honestly believe that it is usually the other party that first escalates the discussion, but watching from the outside, I really think you are mistaken. You seem, no offense, to be quick to take offense when your beliefs are brought up (and yes, the last sentence is an attempt at a little humor). And quite frankly, your oft stated beliefs ARE often relevant to the discussion.
“So, once again, I say that you have been paying very little attention at all.”
Actually, I believe that I have.
“I can indeed argue against Evolution on a seperate basis from my religious beliefs.”
Really? I honestly have yet to see it. And you have had some opportunites (such as those all to rare occurances when Tara graces us with her presence on this board, or even in response to Maggotpunk’s statement-calling a statement “extremist” is not really an argument, it is an accusation).
Chas who would those who don’t have to pay into it be?
“I will still argue, BTW, that Soc. Sec. is NOT a tax, but an Insurance (and not ALL are required to pay into it — or did you not know that??)”
okobserver
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:03 pm | Permalink
The judges can overturn it again but something tells me they won’t. There are always two sides to every election or proposition.
—
“How about it folks? Let the churches handle sacraments. Governments do contracts. Deal?” [Rage]
—
Deal?
I have noticed that only the radical left wing of the liberal policy is in attendance today. What happened to the same among you?
The Rapture
“How about it folks? Let the churches handle sacraments. Governments do contracts. Deal?” [Rage]
—
Deal?
Well? {crickets chirping}
Annie I don’t know. To my knowledge the radicals among us have never had a private meet-up. If they did I wasn’t invited.l
Pedant I have said that what the gays were after could all be handled legally. This wasn’t what they want was what I was told.
Pedant I have said that what the gays were after could all be handled legally. This wasn’t what they want was what I was told.
Obviously, you were told wrong.
Deal?
The evidence that we are close biological relatives of, and share common ancestors with, African apes is beyond overwhelming. Every line of inquiry that has been opened on common ancestry, from fossils to genetics (comparative and mechanisms) to blood proteins to anatomy to geography is consistent with common ancestry. There may be substantial changes in evolutionary theory, but those changes would be more along the lines of how evolution happens and happened, not whether it happened. And that’s a fact.
————–
Rather, that’s a leap. If you believe in evolution the evidence may fit. The evidence also fits a common designer.
okobserver… Are you questioning me on the FACT that some are not required to pay into Social Security?? Or are you just sniping for the hell of it?? LOL
Outta here for now… outta coffee, that great elixir of awakedom… LoL
“Pedant
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:45 pm | Permalink
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 12:40 pm | Permalink
And more sanctioned government endowed freedoms is the answer?
—
I’m 53, thanks. Old enough to have read the constitution more than once.
Since when in the USA did government sanction or endow freedom?
You bozos are the ones who want to RESTRICT freedom here, not me.
Get a grip.”
The government endowed you with freedom as in the Declaration od Independence “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”,
Buuuuuut………. we as a nation are trying to include gay rights as part of that!
Gays ought tyo keep it to themselves and quit trying to “normalize” their behavior.
You want to be gay?
Keep it to yourself.
You want to live together outside of man and woman marriage?
Keep it to yourself.
But don’t try to normalize it.
It is bad for society amd bad for our country!
Are there natural consequences for that. Yes!
But —- being gay IS an unalienable RIGHT, dimwit!!
You want to live together outside of man and woman marriage?
Keep it to yourself.
But don’t try to normalize it.
Translation: I do not want to acknowledge the existence of these people. If they want to exist, they have to stay out of my sight, and quit insisting on having the same rights as normal people.
“Hey! Get away from there! That’s a ’straight’ drinking fountain! The ‘gay’ drinking fountain is over there!”
LOL!! Yes, hide. hide. Pretend to be something you’re not! Great advice!
Run Chass run. I asked a very simple question. Who is not required to pay FICA taxes?
Either the guy has no gay friends, Or, more likely, his prejudice is is so obvious, they hide themselves from him.
It is well known that if you mistrust a “group” but become friends or associates with someone in that group, the barriers break down.
Of course, it could be that some are latent homosexuals and openly gay people stir up the uncomfortable feelings……….
Rage, David and Chas have you ever heard of NAMBLA? Does everyone have the right to do and be what they want to do or be?
Exemption for certain full-time students
A special case in FICA regulations includes exemptions for student workers. Students enrolled at least half-time in a university and working part-time for the same university are exempted from FICA payroll taxes, so long as their relationship with the university is primarily an educational one
Not with children.. silly goose.
Railroad workers (I think) and:
An individual can be exempt from FICA tax withholding if he or she is:
a nonresident alien,
present in the U.S. under an F-1, J-1, or M-1 category visa, and
performing services in accordance with the primary purpose of the visa’s issuance (i.e., the primary holder of the visa, the “-1″ visaholder.)
Rage, David and Chas have you ever heard of NAMBLA? Does everyone have the right to do and be what they want to do or be?
{Big eye roll}. Not again.
Okie, can you skip this part, and just go straight to the beastiality?
Idiot.
David my favorite neighbors are lesbians raising a seven year old son. They know I am a Christian and I know they are lesbians. It just simply isn’t an issue.
As often as we get together this subject just simply doesn’t come up. I will tell you though that the one that works has made provision for their son and her partner in the event something should happen to her. This is just wise and prudent. We discussed this once and for an entirely different reason than being allowed to marry. It was because we lost the male half of a live together neighbor who were common law and they hadn’t file the papers with the state. Their legal situation was a mess.
We all resolved that day to make sure our own affairs were in order. She and her partner are tenants in common as owners of their house. Handled legally just about everything is possible.
2 to 1 gays have become straight and repented from their gay lifestyle.
ksfarmgrrl – there is hope for you!
Homosexuality is a sin.
Aldultery is a sin.
Sex outside of marriage is a sin.
New York Democratic Governor?
New Jersey Republican Governor?
Detroit Democratic Mayor? Wasn’t allowed to come to the D Convention?
This ring any bells?
Suffer unto the children. Put them first and keep your legs crossed.
Maybe we need to have males castrated if they don’t stick around to raise their children.(joking)
The truth hurts sometimes and some will reject it, but that is their choice.
http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/07/29/extreme-home-makeover-home-goes-into-foreclosure/
No good deed goes unpunished. People donated time and material. They built the largest home on Extreme Makeover to date. What do the proud charity takers do? Take out a $450,000 loan against it – using it as collateral. The home is now in foreclosure.
How do people who cannot afford to keep up their own home intend to pay back a $450,000 debt? Will the taxpayers now be forced to bail them out yet again?
“Does everyone have the right to do and be what they want to do or be?”
NO ONE makes that argument. This is known as a Straw Man debate tactic.
mxyzptlk
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
Railroad workers (I think) and:
An individual can be exempt from FICA tax withholding if he or she is:
a nonresident alien,
—————
I knew if Chas has to run ’someone’ else would show up to take over for him.
So railroad workers have their own pension and are not covered under FICA. Non resident aliens also are not covered under FICA or Social Security. Alsolutely worthless information.
Someone who is not required for SS and is exempt from FICA tax. Still waiting.
‘Obama Positioned to Quickly Reverse Bush Actions
Stem Cell, Climate Rules Among Targets of President-Elect’s Team’
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/08/AR2008110801856.html
Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:41 pm | Permalink
Rage, David and Chas have you ever heard of NAMBLA? Does everyone have the right to do and be what they want to do or be?
{Big eye roll}. Not again.
Okie, can you skip this part, and just go straight to the beastiality?
Idiot.
————————-
The members of NAMBLA think they should have the same rights as everyone else. They think children should be allowed to ‘marry’. The difference in this and beastiality is that we are talking about people who dont see what they do as wrong.
Couldn’t address the question huh?
I know several gay people. Do I like it? No. Do I respect them? Yes!
Do they need to let everybody know they are gay? No.
I believe there are more that I don’t know about.
Am I paranoid? No!
Does it concern me? Yes! I am concerned for their well being, both here in this world and for eternity.
I asked Chas a question and mxyzptlk answered it. That is all of the proof I need.
It is really a good idea to let straight men and women marry, and have sexual relations?
If we allow that, what’s to stop donkeys from marrying infants?
/sarcasm off
Someone who is not required(sic) for SS and is exempt from FICA tax. Still waiting.
Double idiot.
Who brought up child abuse? I am opposed to it. What a silly question to ask.
okobserver
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:53 pm | Permalink
I asked Chas a question and mxyzptlk answered it. That is all of the proof I need.
Triple idiot and retardo to boot!
My dear retarded grandma
STFU!!!
Do I respect them? Yes!
No you don’t. If you had any respect for them, you would allow them to have the same contractual rights as straight couples. Instead, you believe they should be second-class citizens.
You don’t have to agree with them, or anything they do, you know.
I don’t like gun nuts or retarded grandmas but I think they should have the same rights as anyone else.
I don’t like gun nuts or retarded grandmas but I think they should have the same rights as anyone else.
I don’t know, mxyzptik, if we allow that, won’t that lead to a flood of geriatric armed robberies?
/sarcasm off
“annie_moose
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:46 pm | Permalink
http://conservativepolitics.today.com/2008/07/29/extreme-home-makeover-home-goes-into-foreclosure/
No good deed goes unpunished. People donated time and material. They built the largest home on Extreme Makeover to date. What do the proud charity takers do? Take out a $450,000 loan against it – using it as collateral. The home is now in foreclosure.
How do people who cannot afford to keep up their own home intend to pay back a $450,000 debt? Will the taxpayers now be forced to bail them out yet again?”
Part of the reason for the credit crisis we are in today so that everybody can be guaranteed the “American Dream”, and we will most likely, as taxpayers, be paying it off.
LOL, no, the bank will take and sell the house!
Sorry If I stepped on some toes. I will repeat my original argument from the other day. You all are advocating that gays/lesbians be allowed to marry. I said civil unions would be fine with me. I also said when we make this change who will the next group be that wants their ‘equal’ rights? Nobody wanted to answer that one.
Chas don’t even try to pull that crap on me. I know who you are and so do others on the board. You can change your name but not your personalty and it always come shining through to identify you.
Chas, sugar, das, ::, square peg, Northern Neighbor, SFReader and now mxyzptlk.
The left has no room to talk about other multiple nics as long as chass keeps up his nonsense.
“Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
Do I respect them? Yes!
No you don’t. If you had any respect for them, you would allow them to have the same contractual rights as straight couples. Instead, you believe they should be second-class citizens.
You don’t have to agree with them, or anything they do, you know.”
So, in like manner, in the same vein that is, you are saying that I should agree that, those who choose not to repent, should receive forgiveness from God regardless of their life, and receive their heavenly citizenship, without acknowledging and believing in the name of Jesus?
It’s not all about my agreement with them.
I respect the life that has been given them.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
The government endowed you with freedom as in the Declaration od Independence “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”,
—
I see you’re still confused.
Where do our rights come from again?
Yes, and if you let blacks vote, next it will be women wanting to vote, then 18 year olds…. Best to not open the floodgates…
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:23 pm | Permalink
Buuuuuut………. we as a nation are trying to include gay rights as part of that!
Gays ought tyo keep it to themselves and quit trying to “normalize” their behavior.
You want to be gay?
Keep it to yourself.
You want to live together outside of man and woman marriage?
Keep it to yourself.
But don’t try to normalize it.
It is bad for society amd bad for our country!
Are there natural consequences for that. Yes!
—
I’m talking about reserving marriage for churchgoers. Marriage would be sanctified by religion because the government would get out of the sanctifying business.
Government would instead grant civil unions, and every American who’s in a lawful civil union would enjoy exactly the same tax and estate rights. Gay, straight, Martian-Americans, etc.
Your side will completely and utterly control marriage. It will be completely up to your discretion to bestow it on anybody you choose. You would have COMPLETE control over marriage, it would be yours, and yours alone, to dispense as you see fit.
This is the future, do you doubt this? What are you afraid of?
outlander posted November 9, 2008 at 7:56 am
We should live responsibly and take care of the world that God gave us. But not based on AGW alarmist’s fear mongering.
———————–
outlander, is increasing Earth’s greenhouse gases to levels higher than during the last 800,000 years living “responsibly”.
Would God approve of what humans have done to Earth’s atmosphere?
outlander’s “AGW alarmists” are the best climate scientists worldwide.
outlander’s anti-alarmists are people like himself, who ignore the climate science. And falsely claim that the current warming is not AGW, because climate changes occurred in the past.
DavidB
Posted November 9, 2008 at 2:16 pm | Permalink
Yes, and if you let blacks vote, next it will be women wanting to vote, then 18 year olds…. Best to not open the floodgates…
———–
DavidB now who is changinhg the subject?
“What are you afraid of?”
ANS: Losing control over the behavior of others.
Agnatha,
I do believe that Maggotpunks expression is extreme. I have been in many debates on Evolution with many
different people. Maggotpunk is the first person I have seen to make the claim that Evolution is an
“irrefutable fact”
Is that something you would expect to hear a teacher or scientists say? I don’t believe so. I don’t
believe that it is something a reasonable person teaching or studying Evolution would say. I think that it
is exactly the type of thing someone would say in these types of discussions on a blog.
You think it is reasonable to make such a claim, I do not. Big surprise there.
citing Common ancestry is not proof of anything. As okobserver pointed out, we could just as easily argue
that the similarities between living organisms could be from a common designer. Nothing specific has been
brought up besides your comparing us to African Apes. So what? That doesn’t prove anything other than we
are similar. The rest is assumptions and speculation as to why.
And that is not a “fact” that Evolution happened at all.
There is evidence of Evolution, yes, however you have yet to show how that evidence leads to being able to
make such a statement as Evolution being an “irrefutable fact.”
In my argument with CapnAmerica I DID NOT make the claim that CapnAmerica’s belief in God logically
contradicts his belief in science.
It is CapnAmerica and others like Maggotpunk who keep talking about “science” as a whole and that I am the
one who contradicts “science” and reject it.
My argument focuses soley on whatever particular theory in science at the point where CapnAmerica does
believe in God is where he rejects science just as he and others accuse me of doing.
I do not reject “science” and I don’t believe CapnAmerica is doing that either.
You might not be going off of my latest discussion with CapnAmerica either in making your claim that I never
can argue Evolution without bringing up my faith. However, all of your examples for my doing this come from
conversations with CapnAmerica where the topic was never about arguing against Evolution.
I do not take offense with what others say as much as I simply will not allow others to post lies about me.
Do you take offense with me for saying that Maggotpunk was extreme and are you thin skinned? I do not make
that argument because I simple see this as a conversation. Yet for some reason you feel the need to
characterize me as thin skinned. I could just as easily do the same for you. That doesn’t add anything to
the conversation though.
Indeed, whenever you choose to focus on my motivations (as my being confused) instead of the argument, you
are indeed attacking the poster. Perhaps I should have stuck with calling it an ad hominem rather than
saying you were attacking me.
The simple fact is that you could just have easily argued against what I said without ever having to say I
was confused. Claiming that I am confused is/was an ad hominem.
My only point in bringing up that I am arguing about God only in regards to the Christian God was to point
out that it appears as if many of your arguments are dealing with ‘god’ in general as mine are not. This
goes back to my discussion being between two Christians, CapnAmerica and I. Then you come along and start
jumping in the middle of the argument between two Christians on the Christian God and start arguing from the
point of a ‘god’ with me.
I was merely trying to clarify that my arguments are from that perspective.
The point is not about reconciling God with Science. I do that. The point is that scientifically speaking, God is not the answer. Sure, CapnAmerica could claim that God created the universe and put it in place with natural laws. However, you will never hear that in science class. You will never hear science accept that as an answer. That is my point.
Science will continue to claim that everything came about naturally. As soon as CapnAmerica claims that God created everything throgh natural laws that is not a scientific explanation, it is a supernatural one with no proof, one that science does not accept as the answer.
Agnatha, if you are going to go back to another conversation as proof that I do not ever argue against Evolution without using my faith then you will have to find that conversation. Because, as I have claimed, I have been in very few conversations where someone would want to argue soley about Evolution with me without bringing up creation or my beliefs.
I do agree with you in some regard though. I do and will focus on the comments on my beliefs first in many discussions. There is no point in moving forward in having a discussion with someone when they are making false attacks on my beliefs in the same argument where you claim they might be saying something logical.
Many times though, I have tried to seperate the arguments at a later point with no success.
If we are having a discussion on Evolution and Evolution only, my beliefs have nearly nothing to do with the discussion. Even in the regard that they might, that is not the way they are brought up by others. Nearly all of the times my beliefs are brought up they are by people like Maggotpunk who use them to dismiss anything I say by saying I am a Creationist.
They are the ones who choose not to focus on my comments or the validity of my arguments. Instead they say I am a Creationist and ignore what I say. Thus the depths of many of the conversations around here.
Even in my discussions with Tara, it is hard to seperate the two. It has been a long time since we had a discussion but they often mixed both Creation and Evolution and once again I would try to seperate the two with no success.
I have yet to see any real discussion on Evolution here either. That is not proof that I am unable to have one without bringing up my faith though.
Phony wedge issue.
Same sex marriage is not even supported by the President Elect… so I doubt it will be an issue except on a state-by-state basis.
What bugs me is the claim that same gender marriages cause harm in some way, and I have seen no good evidence that is true. Generally speaking, if something causes no harm, regulations should be proposed with great reluctance.
Marriage is a Sacrament of the Catholic Church so technically all marriages OUTSIDE the Catholic faith are an abomination.
That said, in order to get the aforementioned government and civil benefits of “marriage” people would have to obtain a government civil union. The State should no longer recognize a “sacrament” any more than it accepts “prayer” as currency.
Pedant writes, “This is the future, do you doubt this? What are you afraid of?”
Pedant as much as you would like to think differently you just refuse to listen to what anyone but you says.
SS is limping along now and probably won’t last forever because some over zealous politicians couldn’t keep their hands out of the lockbox. Now you are advocating opening this fund up to an entirely new class of people. An unfunded liability that no one knows the scope of. After all that is what this is all about isn’t it.
Legally gays/lesbians have the same rights that every other man and woman have except for that …one.
Pendant,
And that is exactly what is wanted.
Same benefits, tax or otherwise, and to be fully accepted into society as normal people, as seen by employers, to gain all of those benefits, by the insurance companies, and gain all of those benefits, and be completely “equal” to heterosexuals (men and women) who are married.
Here is the real issue for hetrosexuals, which has not been brought up here today:
Too many heterosexuals have bought in to the acceptance of live in non-married heterosexuals. They accept that that is OK.
This acceptance has led us to where we are today.
Homosexuals only need to point to heterosexuals’ abuse of what is right and wrong, and including the high divorce rates of heterosexual marriages, they point and say, why can’t we have those same freedoms?
Those perceived freedoms are not freedoms at all, but slavery to sin, which results unto temporal and eternal judgement!
don’t mess with grandma
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7bjQRSL4s&feature=related
Chass that is your typical logic. Illogic. A license has to be issued. The ceremony that takes place doesn’t make it a union the license does.
Catholic church – that is a rich one. I think you missed one of your logic classes. Maybe you should audit a class.
I should agree that, those who choose not to repent, should receive forgiveness from God regardless of their life, and receive their heavenly citizenship, without acknowledging and believing in the name of Jesus?
I don’t know about your theology, but I thought such judgments were reserved for God. Didn’t Jesus say, “Judge not, lest ye be judged?”
But you obviously know better than the son of God.
Those perceived freedoms are not freedoms at all, but slavery to sin, which results unto temporal and eternal judgement!
That’s just what I told Regular before he went blind. He sinned anyway and now he’s gone….poof!
Now grandma wants to lie and sin and sleep with satan…I pity the old fool.
LOL! Right-wing media feeds its post-election anger:
The hate and fear mongers sling their first post-election dirt:
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-onthemedia9-2008nov09,0,800478.story
“This is an Obama recession. Might turn into a depression.”
In a time when the nation calls out for cool leadership and rational discussion, Limbaugh stirs the caldron, a tendency he proved in a particularly grotesque way last week when he accused Obama’s party of plotting a government takeover of 401(k) retirement plans.
“They’re going to take your 401(k), put it in the Social Security trust fund, whatever the hell that is,” Limbaugh woofed. “Trust fund, my rear end.”
A slight problem with Limbaugh’s report: Obama and the Democrats have proposed no such thing.
Okie, how can you can you support civil unions, yet oppose them when there’s equality for all?
Answer: you oppose equality. Back of the bus, homos!
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
Pendant,
And that is exactly what is wanted.
—
They want the same rights as you and I have, not one thing more.
How is this unjust?
Chass you really shouldn’t talk that way about your grandma. She can’t be all that bad – of course she is your grandma so I don’t know.
Here is then the next phase, and we have already begun to see it in the country.
What happens when gays decide they want to get divorced? It has already happened.
There are few laws on the books to allow this to happen, or procedures on how to accomplish it, or how to go about it in seperating the estates or property settlements.
Now we are to accomodate them further, by increasing the burden on the bureaucracy?
God help us. We have certainly lost our way!
okobserver
Posted November 9, 2008 at 2:33 pm | Permalink
Legally gays/lesbians have the same rights that every other man and woman have except for that …one.
—
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot for a sec. Suppose some new religion was invented, something completely different from Christianity (some neo-pagan religion, for example). Suppose further that it swept the USA, and its adherents were suddenly talking about constitutional amendments that would outlaw expression of Christian faith publicly, under penalty of imprisonment.
In this case the majority could just say that Christians “have the same rights that every other man and woman have except for that …one.”
Do you honestly not see the injustice in your acceptance of the status quo here?
Take it in context Rage – this is what I posted:American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 2:12 pm | Permalink
“Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:56 pm | Permalink
Do I respect them? Yes!
No you don’t. If you had any respect for them, you would allow them to have the same contractual rights as straight couples. Instead, you believe they should be second-class citizens.
You don’t have to agree with them, or anything they do, you know.”
So, in like manner, in the same vein that is, you are saying that I should agree that, those who choose not to repent, should receive forgiveness from God regardless of their life, and receive their heavenly citizenship, without acknowledging and believing in the name of Jesus?
It’s not all about my agreement with them.
I respect the life that has been given them.
Many major corporations already extend benefits to same-gender life partners as a way of keeping valued employees who are those awful “sinners.”
There is a list somewhere of hundreds of real, concrete benefits enjoyed by married couples that are denied to those whose life partner is of the same gender. It sounds like second-class citizenship to me, on the face of it.
Let the Gods do to transgressors as they see fit in Their Kingdom. This is America. Land of the Free and Home of the Brave.
Now we are to accomodate them further, by increasing the burden on the bureaucracy?
You act as if “gay” divorces will somehow be a greater “burden” on the system than “straight” divorces.
In which case, obviously, the underlying problem would be overpopulation (too many people), something that gay couples would have less of a hand in creating.
American soldiers may soon stop killing innocent women and children:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/11/09/afghan.civilians/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
In my opinion, any efforts to amend the US Constitution, or any state constitution for that matter, in such a way that takes away or diminishes rights of some Americans, by virtue of their sexual orientation, are wrong.
Not only are they wrong, they are the very definition of anti-American behavior. It’s just wrong.
And yes: that means you, if the shoe fits.
News from the Votemaster
Obama Picks Up Another Electoral Vote
Nebraska is one of the two states (along with Maine) that awards one electoral vote for each congressional district carried plus two for the statewide winner. It now appears that Obama won NE-02 (Omaha) and picks up another electoral vote. This is the first time in history that either state has split its EVs.
Nebraska Republicans have reacted to this development with dismay and intend to introduce legislation in 2009 to go to a winner-take-all system like 48 other states. Although technically the (unicameral) legislature is nonpartisan, de facto, the Republicans control it and also the governor’s mansion, so they will probably succeed.
http://electoral-vote.com/index.html
That is why it is important for us to retain our Christian Heritage and have leaders in all the political parties that are believing Christians, as they are what is needed and required for this America to continue to exist in it’s current form.
If we do not, we will not continue to exist, as a Christian nation.
Wow, I missed this.
Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR) has conceded, so Jeff Merkley (D) will be the new senator from Oregon.
Thanks, Linda!
3 more Senate races to go.
Congress mulls major 401(k) changes (The Obama Retirement Ripoff of 2009)
Investment News ^ | 100708 | Sara Hansard
Posted on Friday, October 10, 2008 1:25:48 AM by Fred
A wide range of sweeping changes to the 401(k) system were proposed Tuesday at a hearing on how the market crisis has devastated retirement savings plans.
Chief among them was eliminating $80 billion in tax savings for higher-income people enrolled in 401(k) retirement savings plans.
This was suggested by the chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor.
“With respect to the 401(k), it appears to be a plan that is not really well-devised for the changes in the market,” Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., said.
“We’ve invested $80 billion into subsidizing this activity,” he said, referring to tax breaks allowed for 401(k) contributions and savings.
With savings rates going down, “what do we have to start to think about in Congress of whether or not we want to continue and invest that $80 billion for a policy that is not generating what we … say it should?” Mr. Miller said.
Congress should let workers trade their 401(k) assets for guaranteed retirement accounts made up of government bonds, suggested Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor at The New School for Social Research in New York.
When workers collected Social Security, the guaranteed retirement account would pay an inflation-adjusted annuity under her plan.
“The way the government now encourages 401(k) plans is to spend $80 billion in tax breaks,” which goes to the highest-income earners, Ms. Ghilarducci said.
That simply results in transferring money from taxed savings accounts to untaxed accounts, she said.
“If we implement automatic [individual retirement accounts] or if we expand the 401(k) system, all we’re doing is adding to this inefficiency,” Ms. Ghilarducci said.
Rep. Robert Andrews, D-N.J., raised the issue of which investment advisers are allowed to offer workers investment advice.
The Department of Labor is considering “loopholes” that would allow advisers to offer “conflicted investment advice if the advisers work for subsidiaries of financial services companies that sell the investments,” he said.
With American workers facing $2 trillion in losses from retirement plans over the past year and Democrats expected to gain seats in the House and the Senate, actions being contemplated by the committee are an important harbinger of what could come out of Congress next year.
———————–
This is what congress is looking at for our 401ks. Read it and weep. They are after your money. Once it goes into an annuity then forget about passing it along to your survivors. You worked for it. You saved it. You invested it. And now the government wants it.
Time will tell but the plan is there.
If we do not, we will not continue to exist, as a Christian nation.
Sigh. . .read some history. America has always been a majority-Christian nation, but it has never been a “Christian nation,” despite the relentless attempts of some politicians to turn it into one.
That’s not what the Founders of this nation agreed upon, or wanted.
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
hen in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.
http://www.ushistory.org/Declaration/document/index.htm
I see American knows how to cut and paste.
Now try actually reading the damn thing.
GRANNY STILL CANT READ!!! I JUST GOT BACK, YOU OLD STUPID BATTLE AXE….
Chas
Posted November 9, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Permalink
Outta here for now… outta coffee, that great elixir of awakedom… LoL
============================================
Then you come along with your STUPIDITY >>>>
okobserver
Posted November 9, 2008 at 2:09 pm | Permalink
Sorry If I stepped on some toes. I will repeat my original argument from the other day. You all are advocating that gays/lesbians be allowed to marry. I said civil unions would be fine with me. I also said when we make this change who will the next group be that wants their ‘equal’ rights? Nobody wanted to answer that one.
Chas don’t even try to pull that crap on me. I know who you are and so do others on the board. You can change your name but not your personalty and it always come shining through to identify you.
Chas, sugar, das, ::, square peg, Northern Neighbor, SFReader and now mxyzptlk.
The left has no room to talk about other multiple nics as long as chass keeps up his nonsense.
==========================================
Now, dammit… WILL YOU PLEASE LEARN TO READ???? YOU EMBARRASS YOUR SELF….
Maybe if you can act with some degree of civility, I MIGHT answer your FICA question… However, what I already posted regarding FICA requirements is a FACT…
Answer: Check out Form 4631 IRS documents…
WASHINGTON – President-elect Obama plans to use his executive powers to make an immediate impact when he takes office, perhaps reversing Bush administration policies on stem cell research and domestic drilling for oil and natural gas.
John Podesta, Obama’s transition chief, said Sunday Obama is reviewing President Bush’s executive orders on those issues and others as he works to undo policies enacted during eight years of Republican rule. He said the president can use such orders to move quickly on his own.
“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” Podesta said. “I think that he feels like he has a real mandate for change. We need to get off the course that the Bush administration has set.”
*******************************************
I fully expect those who howled with displeasure when President Bush used his executive privilege to howl with the same displeasure when President Obama does the same.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Yeah right.
“Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 3:03 pm | Permalink
If we do not, we will not continue to exist, as a Christian nation.
Sigh. . .read some history. America has always been a majority-Christian nation, but it has never been a “Christian nation,” despite the relentless attempts of some politicians to turn it into one.
That’s not what the Founders of this nation agreed upon, or wanted.”
How well do you know your history?:
The Founding Fathers on Jesus, Christianity and the Bible
David Barton – 05/2008
A Few Declarations of Founding Fathers and Early Statesmen on Jesus, Christianity, and the Bible
(This list is by no means exhaustive; many other Founders could be included, and even with those who appear below, additional quotes could have been used.)
John Adams
SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE; JUDGE; DIPLOMAT; ONE OF TWO SIGNERS OF THE BILL OF RIGHTS; SECOND PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the general principles of Christianity. I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.1
The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost. There can be no salvation without it. All without it is rebellion and perdition, or in more orthodox words damnation.2
Without religion, this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company: I mean hell.3
The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.4
Suppose a nation in some distant region should take the Bible for their only law book and every member should regulate his conduct by the precepts there exhibited. . . . What a Eutopia – what a Paradise would this region be!5
I have examined all religions, and the result is that the Bible is the best book in the world.6
John Quincy Adams
SIXTH PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES; DIPLOMAT; SECRETARY OF STATE; U. S. SENATOR; U. S. REPRESENTATIVE; “OLD MAN ELOQUENT”; “HELL-HOUND OF ABOLITION”
My hopes of a future life are all founded upon the Gospel of Christ and I cannot cavil or quibble away [evade or object to]. . . . the whole tenor of His conduct by which He sometimes positively asserted and at others countenances [permits] His disciples in asserting that He was God.7
The hope of a Christian is inseparable from his faith. Whoever believes in the Divine inspiration of the Holy Scriptures must hope that the religion of Jesus shall prevail throughout the earth. Never since the foundation of the world have the prospects of mankind been more encouraging to that hope than they appear to be at the present time. And may the associated distribution of the Bible proceed and prosper till the Lord shall have made “bare His holy arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth shall see the salvation of our God” [Isaiah 52:10].8
In the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior. The Declaration of Independence laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity.9
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=8755
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 2:57 pm | Permalink
That is why it is important for us to retain our Christian Heritage and have leaders in all the political parties that are believing Christians, as they are what is needed and required for this America to continue to exist in it’s current form.
If we do not, we will not continue to exist, as a Christian nation.
—
uh huh
Yall are going to have to work hard, and I do mean HARD, to minimize the damage done to “Christianity” when the change comes then.
Given your attitude, and your utter unwillingness to compromise, it probably ain’t going to be pretty for your side.
I know, isn’t it awful?
For years now polygamists have been treated like second class citizens.
Neither the government nor comapnies will recognize their many partners.
It is a travesty. One that must be corrected in this great nation of ours!
Are you with me liberals?
and to be fair, those who thought it perfectly okay for PResident Bush, should think it perfectly okay for President Obama. uh huh ,sure.
***************************************
In either case, those who were howling or agreeing with the President, were only agreeing or disagreeing about the particular item being defined. While they may couch it in terms of the principle, that’s just smoke to cover up their disagreement or agreement with the particular policy.
Nathaniel
Posted November 9, 2008 at 3:11 pm | Permalink
I know, isn’t it awful?
For years now polygamists have been treated like second class citizens.
Neither the government nor comapnies will recognize their many partners.
It is a travesty. One that must be corrected in this great nation of ours!
Are you with me liberals?
—
Yes.
Does anybody on this BLOG not pay FICA or not consider it a TAX?
Do you have a choice to pay it?
Pedant I see that you really aren’t looking at anything I have posted. Not one of the arguments I have posted had anything to do with my Christian faith.
The left has cried for 8 years about the ‘No Child Left Behind’ program. The school districts said it was an unfunded mandate the government imposed without regard to the amount of money it would cost the districts.
I am holding forth the same argument about allowing gay/lesbian unions into the SS system. It would be a drain on an already defunct system. I know before you tell me that ‘they pay into the system’ too. If they both have a work history then it is a moot point. One or the other is the custodial parent of any children involved and the child would be eligible for SS survivor benefits under that parent. The surviving spouse just wouldn’t be covered. That is the only difference.
How many years was the ‘marriage penalty’ applied to those of us who were married. Bush took that off and Obama plans to not renew it in 2010. Then it will be more beneficial to file as two singles. There are benefits on both sides of this argument.
I see many years of political wrangling if this is passed and much confusion and challenging the new law by other special interest groups. You say they just won’t have the right but who are you to say only gays/lesbians should get this right. I just don’t agree with you on this one. Sorry.
David Barton – 05/2008
Yes, I’m familiar with Barton. He’s a dishonest and deceptive historical revisionist.
Try reading some of the original founders’ ideas in proper context (say, their writings, at the libraries), and familiarize yourself with what was actually debated, and what was decided.
I don’t seriously expect you to do that–you have people telling you what to think. But you might try thinking for yourself. It’s an eye-opener.
It’s a well-defined deal, okob.
Government gets out of the sanctifying business, and only sanctified civil unions can be considered marriages.
All unrelated or otherwise qualified Americans are allowed to enter into civil unions of their own choosing.
Yall can try to stretch it all out of shape and change it into something it ain’t but then you and I aren’t talking about the same deal.
I fully expect those who howled with displeasure when President Bush used his executive privilege to howl with the same displeasure when President Obama does the same.
Do you honestly expect Obama to abuse the executive order in the same way Bush did? Hell, the man made Reagan look timid!
Get a grip.
I do NOT pay into Soc. Sec., nor am I REQUIRED to do so… I chose to opt out… and it is NOT a tax by statute… And that, too, is a FACT…
Can anybody tell me what the balance of SS is today, now, since Chas is such a defender of it?
What a good example of failed government in action (inaction).
And you want more government? Yeah, right.
Let me give you a hint: I Owe Yous – NADA, NIL, ZILCH, CERO, ZEROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO…………….So Sorry, but we were loaned out for all the other entitlements that everybody put their trust in and aren’t getting…….Oh boy.
Thanks FDR.
Chas,
So Chas, how did you opt out??????????
Chas,
Why should I believe you?
You are wrong on schools not taxing us, and you are wrong on this.
The majority of wage-earners are required by law to pay FICA. No choice.
American — dyou LIE much, or is that your low IQ at work… you want to show ANYWHERE that I defend Soc. Sec.??? Idiot!!!
hey, btw, you married to granny???? LOL
We did not ‘howl’ because Bush used his power. We howled at what he used it for… There are research projects that may cure my neighbors disease when the government allows them the resources to do essential research again.
We will see who howls now…
The history of the founding of this Nation, the Founding Fathers and religion, is pretty interesting and more complex than those waving a cheap xerox copy of the Declaration of Independence may believe.
Is that Nazarene Rabbi mentioned once in the founding documents?
“American” –
I found your theme song:
http://www.claytoncounts.com/neato/Ed%20Sanders%20-%20The%20Illiad.mp3
Complete with credo.
I never said anything about schools taxing us… but, they DONT… the County does!!
Good Lord, you just cant invent stupid… It shows up all by itself… and its Name is AMERICAN!!! Damn!!! Get a brain!!
Privacy Impact Assessment – Minister Waiver (MIN WAIV)
Purpose of the System
The Minister Waiver (MIN WAIV) application improves the response time and processing of Minister Waiver forms. The database contains taxpayer data transcribed from Form 4361(Application for Exemption From Self-Employment Tax for Use by Ministers, Members of Religious Orders and Christian Science Practitioners) and Form 4029 (Application for Exemption From Social Security and Medicare Taxes and Waiver of Benefits). Please see attached forms. The goal is to ensure that the Ministers filing the forms meet the criteria developed by the IRS. The application takes a paper process and automates it into a research tool for approved and denied Minister Waivers. It provides an audit trail for all correspondence and status of taxpayer eligibility. This is a Tier 2 Legacy System. This PIA was previously submitted and approved December 10, 2002.
———————–
Well Chas if indeed you did opt out and you can do that if you qualify – this means you have another retirement plan that will pay you – then you can opt out. But this means you will not be eligible for SS benefits or medicare. Something you conveniently left out.
This is the same as the railroad workers and used to be the same for the postal workers. They entered into the SS system several years ago.
I wish the name-calling would stop. It is poisonous.
Chas
Posted November 9, 2008 at 3:28 pm | Permalink
American — dyou LIE much, or is that your low IQ at work… you want to show ANYWHERE that I defend Soc. Sec.??? Idiot!!!
hey, btw, you married to granny???? LOL
—————-
How sad Chass that you don’t even know who your own grandmother is married to. If you were my grandson I wouldn’t give you any private information either though.
Pedant nothing in government is a ‘well defined deal’. It might seem that way for you now but I can assure you there are special interest groups waiting in the wings for their chance to claim an exception.
We would have no legal right to deny them if we have opened the gates for one group.
DavidB I couldn’t agree with you more. You would think adults could carry on a civilized conversation without rolling in the mud.
I’ll do my part.
Treaty of Tripoly —-
ARTICLE 11
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/bar1796t.asp
In addition, not GOD, JESUS, CHRIST, BIBLE, EASTER, CHRISTMAS, nor anything else specifically CHRISTIAN… appears in the Constitution of the United States. NOWHERE!!
So much for your cherry picked out-of-context quotes, that have been debunked more times, than I am old in years!!! Geez….
Will the Lunatic Asylum ever open again??? We got some ripe and ready candidates!!
okobserver
Posted November 9, 2008 at 3:35 pm | Permalink
Pedant nothing in government is a ‘well defined deal’.
—
Not true.
Nothing in government is perfect: that’s true.
If that’s what you meant, we agree.
“AMERICAN” = Certified TROLL… Worthless TROLL at that!!
Re: “American”
DNFTCT
Pedant I will agree with you on that. Having worked with tax law for years I know the shenanigans people pull to keep from following the law.
DavidB I guess Chas doesn’t agree with you. I’ll still do my part though.
The founders were pretty smart thinkers and very plain writers. Look how well the word choices hold up even today.
If they wanted to decree this a Christian Nation, they could have easily said so. They chose not to. Anyone want to venture as to why the founders of a Christian Nation would leave “Christ” out of the founding documents?
Beuhler? Anyone? Anyone?
Besides, we’re all Muslim now! WHAHAH!!!!!!
Yea, sure, right, Granny!!! ROFLMAO!!! All you ever do is put people down who disagree with you…. And as many times as you have been TOLD…. you keep adding more and more stupid crazy nics to me, that you have been TOLD repeatedly are NOT ME!!!
Maybe when you can be coherent, and actually READ before you flame — THEN I might take you seriously…. Till then, you are just a bad JOKE in search of a stupid audience!!
so be it….
Democrats (liberals Mostly)(Are they from Liberal?)
Do
Not
Formulate
The
Constitutional
Truth
No denying that this country was founded upon Christian principles as attested by http://www.wallbuilders.com
Check it out!
Perfect?
No!
Better than everything else?
Without a doubt! Nobody can deny that!
Democrats (Liberals mostly, and some Rs) are trying to change that!
BTW, Grnny… somebody explained Mr. Letterhead yesterday… but either you missed it, or ignored it, OR…. you didnt READ it!! LOL
“Creator” is in the Declaration, though, would you agree DavidB?
“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind.” – Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
Every man “ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience.” – George Washington (Letter to the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789)
“Question with boldness even the existence of a god.” – Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)
“When a Religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its Professors are obliged to call for help of the Civil Power, it is a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.” – Benjamin Franklin (from a letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780;)
I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of… Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all.”- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)
More cherry-picked gems at: http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/dispatch/fathers_quote2.htm
David I think the reason the pilgrims came over was because of religions persecution. They want to establish a country with ‘freedom OF religion’ and knew better than most that this couldn’t be accomplished if one church such as the church of England had the final say.
Therefore eventhough the majority of them were of the Christian faith and this fact is interwoven into many of the early documents they hesitated to call us a Christian nation.
They did however refer to our Creator numerous times and refer to our rights as coming from our creator. So technically no, we weren’t established as a Christian nation but the influence of the Christians among our founding fathers was very strong.
Soooo American…. SHOW all of us where you can find any Christian Principles expounded upon in ANY part of the COTUS???
You CANT!! Because it is NOT THERE!!! NOWHERE!!! READ the Article 11 from the Barbary Treaties (Treaty of Tripoli) as linked upthread…. Why take MY word for it… I only posted what is a well known, historically documented F A C T!!!
Get over it…. Stop trying to re-write history to suit your damned unAmerican Bull S*it!!!
David Barton.
[FE]There is a credible historical source.[/FE]
American, Barton is a discredited hack. And that’s the truth.
Chass you need to go back to the store for more coffee. I fear you are coming down off that caffine high you were on.
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/BartonFalsifiesAmericanHistory.html
Granny, NONE of those references to the personal faith of any of those early colonists, show up in the LAW OF THIS LAND…
Agreed???
The Declaration of Independence is NOT the Law of the Land…
FINALLY you come out and admit to what I have ALWAYS SAID, that you have called me names for numerous times!!! Hoooray!!!
There is nothing wrong with giving thanks to your Creator for the great nation that we have to live in, and make great for all those coming here legally!!!
So, you hang in there sunshine!!!
“Get over it…. Stop trying to re-write history to suit your damned unAmerican Bull S*it!!!’
Jeez, calm down.
Here’s some background on “American’s” source for his “…this nation was founded on Christian principles” claptrap –
http://tinyurl.com/59rk8e
“Rage
Posted November 9, 2008 at 3:16 pm | Permalink
David Barton – 05/2008
Yes, I’m familiar with Barton. He’s a dishonest and deceptive historical revisionist.
Try reading some of the original founders’ ideas in proper context (say, their writings, at the libraries), and familiarize yourself with what was actually debated, and what was decided.
I don’t seriously expect you to do that–you have people telling you what to think. But you might try thinking for yourself. It’s an eye-opener.”
He lists all of his references. He doesn’t hide the truth from anyone. Have you checked it out?
“Agnatha
Posted November 9, 2008 at 3:57 pm | Permalink
David Barton.
[FE]There is a credible historical source.[/FE]
American, Barton is a discredited hack. And that’s the truth.”
It what way has he been discredited?
Chass you keep writing to someone named Grannie. Have you lost you way little boy? Wish I could help but your grandmother must have had a good reason to hide from you. It could be because of your prevarications or something equally as sinister.
Sorry that you have a problem with adult conversations but I can’t solve all of your problems. Maybe someone you know will do that.
One thing I have noticed is that all of the names I have accused you of being – well those nics go away and you start telling me how wrong I am. Do you just wait in the wings to come in at the appropriate moment. You crafty old thing you. How old is your ‘granny’ anyway. She must be as old as Methuselah. No wonder she doesn’t know you anymore.
Without studying the way these matters were discussed 250 years ago, it would be wrong to assume they meant “Creator” to mean what we perceive it to be today, as a personification of a supernatural entity.
This is rather clear I think:
“I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.” -Thomas Jefferson
heehee:
April 11, 1820, Jefferson wrote that: “Priests…dread the advance of science as witches do the approach of daylight and scowl on the fatal harbinger announcing the subversions of the duperies on which they live.”
Agnatha,
By the way, please show me where the US Constitutiom mentions the seperation of church and state.
FYI: The Establishment of religion clause is not the same thing.
MY granny died a number of years ago…. at the very ripe old age of 101…. She is buried next to my Grandpap in Pittsburgh, PA… Granny died December 7, 1990. And, btw, her name was Mathilda… she came here as a young woman, from Vienna, where she served in a wealthy household, from the time she was young, and had been an orphan… She would not like the way you are attempting to poke fun at her on this Blog….
But Jefferson also wrote:
“The doctrines of Jesus are simple, and tend all to the happiness of man.”
“The practice of morality being necessary for the well being of society, He [God] has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We all agree in the obligation of the moral principles of Jesus and nowhere will they be found delivered in greater purity than in His discourses.”
“I am a Christian in the only sense in which He wished anyone to be: sincerely attached to His doctrines in preference to all others.”
“I am a real Christian – that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus Christ.”
There is an extensive look at the use of “Creator” in the declaration at:
http://candst.tripod.com/doitj.htm
A writer on atheism covers it here: http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstatemyths/a/doi.htm
“Finally, the Declaration of Independence also makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, not from any gods.”
OKOB — with regard to all of those other nics, GET OVER IT!!! I dont know them!!!
Why dont you get over your grossly exaggerated paranoia!!! This is my ONLY nic!!
Is there something about that concept that your pea brain just cant grasp, or what???
GET OVER IT!!!
BTW…. I AM LEAVING NOW…. GONE!! OUT OF HERE…. AS IN NOT ONLINE…. LIVE WITH IT!!!
HEre it is:
“Second, what little is mentioned in the Declaration of Independence is only barely compatible with Christianity, the religion most people have in mind when making the above argument. The Declaration refers to “Nature’s God,” “Creator,” and “Divine Providence.” These are all terms used in the sort of deism which was common among many of those responsible for the American Revolution as well as the philosophers upon whom they relied for support.”
AGNATHA — Sorry for my earlier outburst… And THANKS MUCH for that link upthread…. I have come to the conclusion that people will do just as Jefferson said, and believe any old damned thing they want…
That doesnt bother me, UNTIL they start trying to make the whole NATION buy the garbage…. And that is what I sense is going on in MANY groups….
Thanks again for your earlier link!!
“Agnatha,
“By the way, please show me where the US Constitutiom mentions the seperation of church and state.”
Oh goody, the bullsh*t semantic game. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion, and prohibing the free excercise thereof. That prohibition is on the law making arm of the federal government, and the 14th Amendment applies that prohibition to subordinate levels of government as well. The “separation of church and state” in fact describes the intended actual result of applying the First Amendment.
“FYI: The Establishment of religion clause is not the same thing.”
Yes, it is, and saying it is not is simply you being stubborn.
Chas I am not calling a stranger granny. You sir are doing that. Please refrain from it in the future out of respect for your grandmother who sounds like she was a fine woman.
American,
Are you saying that separation of church and state is wrong?
Regardless of it’s constitutional source(s), do you think that church and the American state should not be separate?
Agnatha
Posted November 9, 2008 at 4:24 pm | Permalink
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from making any law respecting the establishment of religion, and prohibing the free excercise thereof. That prohibition is on the law making arm of the federal government, and the 14th Amendment applies that prohibition to subordinate levels of government as well. The “separation of church and state” in fact describes the intended actual result of applying the First Amendment.
—
I agree.
Also, I believe the 6th Amendment precludes the establishment of a Test Act.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
DavidB I think there is a firm line between church and state and that it should stay that way.
“Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasars and unto God that which is Gods.”
It does bother me when political rallies are held in churches and this seems to happen most often in black churches, no offense intended, and the right is lambasted when some idiot puts up a sign saying Obama is a muslum.
The separation is there, it should stay there, my religion is not the reason I am against same sex marriage and I really hate that I have to defend that position everytime this discussion is held.
Do you think the people that voted in prop 8 did it because of their religious convictions?
American, evidently you did not read the link I posted, but it is just one source of many on David Barton. Here are some more. Even some Christian Right activists have been distancing themselves from him as some of his favorite quotes turned out to be fabricated (particularly the infamous Madison 10 Commandments quote):
http://candst.tripod.com/boston1.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Barton
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/founding.htm#MYTHING
http://pol.moveon.org/shepstickers/?id=15088-11138007-G4KnDwx&t=5
Get Your Free Obama Sticker
These commemorative stickers mark Barack Obama’s historic victory and were designed by groundbreaking artist Shepard Fairey—the same artist who designed the world-famous, iconic “Hope” poster for Obama.
You can get one sticker for free.
“Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) (so well known he needs no introduction), said: “I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe.” March 9, 1790, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, p. 250.”
This comes from a well sourced article showing the influence of the Christian faith upon this country. It is a good read. I still feel the founding fathers left out any established religion because of the reason I stated earlier. But we can’t deny the influence of the Christian faith on men from Christopher Columbus forward.
http://www.gilbertindependentbaptist.org/NoJava/Articles/creation/wise_and_learned_men_who_believe.htm
okobserver
Posted November 9, 2008 at 4:38 pm | Permalink
“Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790) (so well known he needs no introduction), said: “I believe in one God, the Creator of the Universe.” March 9, 1790, in a letter to Ezra Stiles, p. 250.”
This comes from a well sourced article showing the influence of the Christian faith upon this country.
—
Maybe so, but I will point out that your conclusion certainly does not follow from your quote.
According to your quote, he said God the Creator, not God the father of Christ.
There are a lot of people around the world who see a distinction. Plenty of Americans, too,
Thanks David even though I didn’t vote for Obama he is my prez and I only want good things for him. This is a piece of history and eventhough I know I have given my name to moveon.org I ordered one.
And sorry upfront that I didn’t go to your link.
It has “baptist” and “creation” in the same path, and I consider that a sign.
American about Barton:
“He lists all of his references. He doesn’t hide the truth from anyone. Have you checked it out?”
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You check someone out by looking at other sources.
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq1.htm
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/misq2.htm
Barton not only misquoted Madison, he deliberately fabricated quotes.
Pedant of course that is true. One of those reason the founding fathers didn’t establish a religion. What I was pointing out is that God the creator was recognized and later when articles were dated they were dated ‘in the year of our Lord’ and we all know how years are dated and whose life and death established this date. AD – BC
I am saying that the US Constitution doesn’t:
(1) Have a statement in it (literal text) about the seperation of church and state.
(2) Equate the Establishment of religion as a “seperation of church and state” statement or meaning, but prevents the government from establishing a state church.
“Bill of Rights
Article the third [Amendment I]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to
assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of
grievances.”
This is what is referred to as the seperation of church and state:
http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65
I personally believe, as others do, that unless godly men are leaders, this country will fail, and also believe that the Founding Fathers believed that only godly men were meant to lead the USA.
Pedant I am being very open minded today and I would encourage you to do the same. The quotes are sourced. That makes them as accurate as any others presented here today. For heavens sake I just gave my email address to moveon.org!
Gotta run, I think I am growing to this chair.
Ok.
But just because I frequently put “2008″ at the end of dates I may write should not be construed as evidence of my own beliefs.
Could be that Franklin found himself in a similar dilemma.
Read also page 292-293 of the attached document:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jrSgJGp-B64C&pg=PR66&lpg=PR66&dq=Thomas+Jefferson+on+June+28,+1813&source=bl&ots=JLQBzQQLzx&sig=_6tVdccXQgWtkak8W1AlMkQxh_A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA292,M1
Uh, Chas,
The schools tax us, not the county. There are about 9 or 10 school districts in Sedgwick Co, all with separate budgets and taxing authority.
Property taxes are collected by the county, but the mill levy is determined by the districts.
If you display that sticker on your front door, you will be allowed to keep one gun and you won’t have to wear the Chairman Mao suit on Sunday. WHahahah!!!!!
http://www.christianethicstoday.com/Issue/003/Wallbuilders%20or%20Mythbuilders%20By%20Nicholas%20P%20Miller_003_17_.htm
I actually signed up for this sticker last week.
Moveon.org organized a TON of work for Obama here in Hampton Roads, VA. I helped some, and now they have my email addy as well.
And my address!
DavidB
Posted November 9, 2008 at 4:48 pm | Permalink
If you display that sticker on your front door, you will be allowed to keep one gun and you won’t have to wear the Chairman Mao suit on Sunday. WHahahah!!!!!
—
Story I got was that for me, displaying the sticker means dashiki’s are optional on Sundays!
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 4:46 pm | Permalink
—
That’s cool.
Yes or no on separation of church and the American state?
Chas,
Who taxes us for the schools? See above please. HLP is correct.
If you don’t have to pay FICA, who are you paying?
Most who opt out are paying into another system, or it is being paid by, guess what, taxpayers…..
KPERs is one.
From my last link, since American has continued to try to promulgate Bartonian bullsh*t here:
“In his book The Myth of Separation, David Barton repeats the New Right mantra that the phrase ’separation of church and state’ does not appear in the U.S. Constitution or the Bill of Rights, a fact he uses to try to discredit Supreme Court cases that draw on that metaphor.
“Of course, constitutional principles such as the ’separation of powers’ and ‘a system of checks and balances’ do not appear by name in either document either, yet all legal scholars would agree that these concepts are part and parcel of the Constitution. In writing that ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,’ the Founders believed these words contained the idea of ’separation of church and state.’ Thomas Jefferson used the ‘wall of separation’ imagery to describe the meaning of the First Amendment religion clauses. He is joined by James Madison, drafter of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, who passed Jefferson’s religious freedom statute in Virginia, and whose ‘Memorial and Remonstrance’ explicated the reasons for the wall. Older than the Framers, but with influence on the nation’s ideals of religious freedom—Roger Williams, Baptist preacher and founder of Rhode Island, actually originated the ‘wall of separation’ metaphor.”
And there you have it, the term separation describes what the First Amendment does, and the primary author (Madison) made it clear that was what he meant. American, meanwhile, simply goes back to Barton’s Wallbuilders website to reiterate his nonsense as if no one has exposed Barton’s not only lack of scholarship, but outright dishonesty (fabricating a quote by combining material from section 1 and section 15 of a document is no accident).
Peddle your nonsense somewhere else, American, you have been exposed here.
There is NO seperation of church and state in the US Constitution.
Unless, of course, you can show me otherwise?
The Founding Fathers knew they didn’t want one, because of Great Britain.
I’ll take that as a “no,” then. If you’re not convinced the the 1st, 6th, 9th, and 14th amendments to the US Constitution, then I don’t think you’re interested in what the constitution says anyway.
I am relieved to discover that in fact I am not the radical in Open today.
Iy you can show me, please do. I am willing to look at it.
1st, 6th, 9th, 14th amendments.
As I said.
Now that the election is over, be prepare for climate changes rules from the dems,greenies, and libs, which will cost us billions. This will happen soon after the Messiah is inaugurated.
Students of history know that England required compulsory church attendance in the Church of England under Elizabeth I and James I.
They also passed a law when Queen Anne died making it illegal for a Roman Catholic to hold the throne.
That’s exactly what the United States didn’t want.
But idiots like American and his pals at Spirit One church want to bring back: gov’t support for personal religion.
Pendant,
Here is:
Article VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
I will let you supply 14.
What does that have to do with the seperation of church and state?
“There is NO seperation of church and state in the US Constitution.”
Saying the same bullsh*t over and over again doesn’t make it true.
“Unless, of course, you can show me otherwise?”
And argument from personal incredulity does not change historical reality.
“The Founding Fathers knew they didn’t want one, because of Great Britain.”
There were also experiences within the colonies and the Enlightenment that reinforced the desire to make it clear that goverment could not establish or restrict religion or religious belief.
Pendant talks about the amendments, let’s go back to the original constitution. Article VI, Section 3:
“The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
But only “godly men” should hold office? Riiiight.
Barton is a real, down to his toes Reconstructionist, and he is willing to lie to defend his beliefs.
“CapnAmerica
Posted November 9, 2008 at 5:06 pm | Permalink
Students of history know that England required compulsory church attendance in the Church of England under Elizabeth I and James I.
They also passed a law when Queen Anne died making it illegal for a Roman Catholic to hold the throne.
That’s exactly what the United States didn’t want.
But idiots like American and his pals at Spirit One church want to bring back: gov’t support for personal religion.”
I am calling you on that one Capn.
I do not want to force my religion on anyone.
I believe what John Adams said:
http://books.google.com/books?id=jrSgJGp-B64C&pg=PR66&lpg=PR66&dq=Thomas+Jefferson+on+June+28,+1813&source=bl&ots=JLQBzQQLzx&sig=_6tVdccXQgWtkak8W1AlMkQxh_A&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PPA292,M1
And no test was given to be a leader, due to the different Christian believers there were. But they all shared what Adams spoke about above.
Yes, Article VI, not Amendment 6.
I apologize.
This is only one reason that I am not a constitutional scholar.
The first 12 Amendments of the US Constitution:
Amendments to the Constitution
Article I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Article II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Article III
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
Article IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Article V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Article VI
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Article VII
In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
Article VIII
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Article IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Article X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Article XI
The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.
Article XII
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;–The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;–The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
So you weren’t really talking about the Amendments to the Constition were you?
Capn,
Your que.
The [14th] amendment introduces the concept of incorporation of all relevant federal rights against the states. While it has not been fully implemented, the doctrine of incorporation has been used to ensure, through the Due Process Clause and Privileges and Immunities Clause, the application of most of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights to the states.
The incorporation of the First Amendment establishment clause in the landmark case of Everson v. Board of Education has impacted the subsequent interpretation of the separation of church and state in regard to the state governments.[26] Although upholding the state law in that case, which provided for public busing to private religious schools, the Supreme Court held that the First Amendment establishment clause was fully applicable to the state governments. A more recent case involving the application of this principle against the states was Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (1994).
—wikipedia
So the 14th guarantees the application of the 1st Amendment’s Establishment Clause to the states, according to the SCOTUS.
Again, I am no constitutional scholar, but I don’t see how, if the 1st, 9th, and 14th Amendments, as well as Article VI, are parts of the constitution, that the state could control religion OR that religion could control the state.
Capn,
You as a Marine (Hoorah!) are defending the US Constitution!
Better know what you are defending!
I never said that it should!
Only that we as Americans will only survive, in and of this great country of ours as it is today, if Godly men, on their own accord, as the Founding Fathers did, chose to be leaders, and were elected to public office.
No mandate for them to be of any church.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 5:42 pm | Permalink
Only that we as Americans will only survive, in and of this great country of ours as it is today, if Godly men, on their own accord, as the Founding Fathers did, chose to be leaders, and were elected to public office.
—
No, that is not the only way we as Americans will survive. America is far more resilient than you give her credit for.
The day that gay Americans are guaranteed testate rights and allowed to file Federal Income Tax forms as “Married Filing Jointly” is coming.
Probably within my lifetime, given American demography and the views of young Americans. Older Americans may provide a brake for an election or two, but they too shall pass.
It’s a national disgrace, imo, that these freedoms aren’t here now. For a country that guarantees freedom for all, we’re clueless when it comes to real freedom. Many of us aren’t interested in real freedom, not for all Americans anyway. Too many of us fear real freedom, unfortunately.
For those like American, who’s only interested in the freedom granted Americans expressly by the government, when that day comes then a gut check will be in order. They’ll have to decide if they really believe in freedom for all, or not.
American
Posted November 9, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Permalink
Chas,
Who taxes us for the schools? See above please. HLP is correct.
If you don’t have to pay FICA, who are you paying?
Most who opt out are paying into another system, or it is being paid by, guess what, taxpayers…..
KPERs is one.
==========================================
Well, of course, you would be DEAD WRONG!! Hank too!!
And MY pension fund is NOT paid by taxpayer dollars…. So, go stick it where the sun dont shine!!!
You plainly know nothing of what you spew about… and, in this case, Neither does HLP(Hank)!!!
Oh, yea, those who get KPERS retirement DO pay into Soc. Sec. They are STATE employees!!!
Uh oh, fallout from the slattery ad campaign clear out east.
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Councilman-Arrested-for-Peeing-on-Crowd.html
Oh the humanity!
(He was a Democrat, so the story will not get legs.)
bjb — apparently it already has legs, since you post a link to NBC… LOL
Pedant, it’s pretty simple.
“Freedom for me, for not for thee.”
“Freedom for me, for not for thee.”
Unfortunately true.
Or as the Stones put it, “under my thumb.”
Thomas Jefferson:
“Some have made the love of God the foundation of morality. This, too, is but a branch of our moral duties, which generally divided into duties to God and duties to man. If we did a good act merly from the love of Godand a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the atheist? It is idle to say, as some do, that no such Being exists. We have the same evidence of the fact as of most of those we act on, to wit their own affirmations, and their reasonings in support of them. I have observed, indeed, gernally that while in Protestant countries the defections from the Platonic Christianity is to Deism, in Catholic countries they are to Atheism. Diderot, D’Alembert, D’Holach, Condorcet, are known to have been among the virtuous of men. Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=2D0gAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA592&lpg=PA592&dq=Jefferson++%22morality+of+the+atheist%22&source=web&ots=gow7KWMBmw&sig=ZrtImGZsyUHNDXXUcGgvuoLdMRk&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result
My point, it must be emphasized, is not that atheists are somehow better or more moral or better dancers than Christians (or anyone else!), or even than some Christians are better than others.
It’s merely this simple point: the notion of America being founded as as “Christian nation” is simply a lie. America is a nation where one is free to worship as you wish, or not. That was the idea from the beginning.
That, and the notion that morality comes only from religion is as ridiculous as Jefferson thought it to be. The history of slavery alone tells us that the preacher is not always correct.
P.S> In case you couldn’t tell, that was a hasty hand-transcript, as extracting the text would have taken considerably more effort.
MH — thanks for the Fugs track!
(A little before m’time–had to google it!).
CapnAmerica: No Roman Catholic (that is to say only a Protestant) can be Prime Minister of Great Britian. Blair might have converted (his wife is Catholic, as are his kids) during his term as PM, but would have had to resign and I understand he is now in the process of converting. The Brits have just changed their consitution to allow the first born to be monarch, regardless of sex in the past females were allowed to reign only if there were no male siblings. Disralie, was a Jew who coverted to Anglicanism, the only non-Protestant born PM I know of since Henry V111. In the UK the Monarch is head of State and the Church, there is no seperation.
Rage you are right to a point. But the similarity of the laws of our land and the ten commandments isn’t accidental. My point has always been that to be a Christian or not is a choice. I choose to be one and won’t put you down if you choose not to be.
We have to have a live and let live attitude towards this. I know you don’t believe me but my objection to same sex marriage is not an outgrowth of my faith. Rather it is an outgrowth of my days as an accountant and my years in the insurance business.
I just read a book called ‘The Shack’. It describes what I want my relationship with my Lord to be. It also shows what my attitude is towards others and their morality or lack of it. I don’t sit in judgement on them. Not my job.
That said have a good evening. I can’t get on the computer anymore tonight.
it is an outgrowth of my days as an accountant and my years in the insurance business.
I see. So you view a class of people as too expensive to be given their full rights as human beings.
Thanks. That’s a hell of a lot better.
Rage you purposefully twisted that and I think you know it. It isn’t the dollars it is the ramifications that come after making one class special, then another wants the same treatment, then another and where do we draw the line. Do we vote on who deserves special treatment. No wait that is what we did. The people spoke and they decided for whatever personal reasons they might have that they didn’t want to do it.
“Rage you are right to a point. But the similarity of the laws of our land and the ten commandments isn’t accidental.” — the wefu
Where in the ten commandments is the establishment clause and the provision for an electoral college?
“special treatment”
It has been demonstrated, over and over, to you, that there is no “special treatment” being requested, or would exist under what’s being asked. Yet you persist with that bizarre misrepresentation.
Whatever.
P.S. And how exactly is the Ten Commandments relevant? You can save that one for a later day (believe me, I’ll remember!).
65,431,955 non-working liberals searching for a handout? HAW, HAW, HAW.
Yeah, it is pretty funny, Beber.
There are hardly any similarities between the 10 Commandments and the Constitution.
Commandment 1 — You shall have no other god before me.
In America no religion gets dibs.
Commandment 2 — No graven images.
There’s even a Bureau of Engraving; they design coins and printing plates for currency.
Commandment 3 — Keep the Sabbath holy.
24-hour pharmacies and grocery stores; NFL football…
Commandment 4 — Don’t take God’s name in vain
Freedom of Speech
Commandment 5 — Honor your parents
So far, a teenager sassing his Mom doesn’t result in a prison sentence.
Commandment 6 — Don’t murder.
(Yeah, like no one ever came up with that idea before Moses)
Commandment 7 — Don’t steal.
(Another “duh” there, Mo.
Commandment 8 — Don’t lie.
Like, f’rinstance, how the Constitution is based on the 10 Commandments.
Commandment 9 — Don’t covet.
Sound like the death knell of capitalism.
Commandment 10 –
Uhm…
I’m always missing one from these lists. Doc, Sneezy, Happy, Grumpy, Sneezy, Dopey, and Bashful. (Okay, not then.) Donder Blitzen Comet Cupid, Dasher, Dancer, Prancer….and Bashful. Lake Ontario, Lake Michigan, Lake Erie, Lake Superior and…. Lake Vixen.
Anyway, with the exception of murder and robbery, secular law and the 10 Commandments have virtually nothing in common.
Oh, Yeah!
The 10th Commandment (probably out of order).
Adultery! My favorite!
It’s not illegal unless you pay for it, bugger kids, or force it on an unwilling victim.
I should have remembered that one early.
Maybe I was Bashful.
Bwahahahahahahaaaaa!
Talker, you certainly have the gift of total BS.
Republicans should lose more often just so we get a diatribe like that every time!
I feel like shouting ‘bravo’!
Lets look through history and see how democrats have moved the country forward, while cons kept it sadly repressive and regressive.
It shouldn’t even be a social experiment anymore…the facts are irrefutable. Dems lead better, our country prospers more under democratic ideals.
Thank you Monkeyhawk! You make a bunch of sense while being highly entertaining! ;-)
Here’s more about another Obama website that disapeared:
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5600
“The public record is our only proof,” says former Naval Intelligence Officer Marion Valentine.
“In 1963, while serving in Navy Intelligence (1958-1967), I read the FBI file on Frank Marshall Davis. He had outlined the Communist plan to take over America from within, by installing educators at all levels of our educational system, gaining control of the media, getting Liberal judges appointed, recruiting, training and backing people to be elected to public office.
“I have researched every piece of legislation I can find that the Liberal Democrats have passed since the early sixties, and if you will research for yourself, you will find that they have been slowly moving this country toward Socialism.
“When Obama announced he was running for President as an unknown with only one major speech at the DNC (that the DNC and MSM made so much fuss over), he aroused my old intel suspicions. So I started researching.
“I have not found any evidence to convince me he is a Muslim, bur I did find his radical associations were unusual. I found Frank Marshall Davis, who had fled from Chicago to Hawaii when Obama was 12 years old, was Obama’s mentor from then till Davis died in 1987.
“Davis put Obama in touch with the Socialist Party in Chicago (called the New Party) which Ayers is also a member of, (emphasis added) therefore the first “Planned” contact with Ayers. The New Party helped launch and finance Obama’s political career. Obama…selected, trained, groomed and scripted to become the “puppet” leader of the United Socialist States of America.
“Since I am in the 4th and final stage of congestive heart failure and will be lucky to live long enough to see the next president take office, why should this election matter to me? Why does Obama’s statement, that he wants a National Civilian Security Force” as strong and as well funded as our military (conjuring up images of the old-style USSR police state) matter to me?
“It’s simple…I love America,” says Valentine.
The public record states clearly on Obama’s commitment to Socialism.
Even though no major mainstream media outlet has ever reported it, “Web archives confirm Barack Obama was a member of Chicago’s Socialist “New Party” in 1996.” (politicallydrunk.blogspot.com, Oct. 8, 2008).
New Party = Socialist Party
Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last Spring and face off against Republican opponents on election day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate) and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).
http://web.archive.org/web/20010306031216/www.newparty.org/up9610.html
Danny Davis.
Who?
Danny Davis from the above post about the 3 New Party (Socialists)in IL.
Guess who is going to take Obama’s place as Senator in IL?
Danny Davis.
CONGRESSMAN DANNY K. DAVIS RESPONDS TO MEDIA INQUIRES REGARDING HIS INTEREST IN SERVING OUT THE TERM OF BARACK OBAMA SHOULD HE WIN THE PRESIDENCY
http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/11/congressman_danny_k_davis_coul.php
More info on DANNY DAVIS, the Socialist. (Democratic Socialists of America)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_K._Davis
Davis was a member of the Chicago City Council from 1979 to 1990, where he represented Chicago’s 29th Ward. He was then elected to the Cook County Board of Commissioners, serving from 1990 to 1996 before entering the House.[citation needed] He is a member of the Congressional Black Caucus,[1] Progressive Caucus, and Democratic Socialists of America.[2][3]
Danny Davis endorsed by Democratic Socialists of America.
What a Fitting Replacement for Obama!
http://www.dsausa.org/dl/Summer_2006.pdf
DSA has also endorsed DSAer and Congressmember Danny Davis in his bid for re-election
in Chicago.
Danny Davis, U.S. House of Representatives, 7th District
Danny Davis is a member of the Progressive Caucus, an old friend of DSA and a member of the New Party. If that’s not enough, you can call (773) 638 – 1998 for more information.
Contributions may be sent to Davis for Congress, 3333 W. Arthington, Ste 130, Chicago, IL 60624.
http://www.chicagodsa.org/ngarchive/ng60.html#anchor566934
MH, wouldn’t having a Ten Commandment monument in a courthouse, like the one that caused such a fuss in Alabama and other places be a graven image
Wow, Jim. Do you, by any chance, know Max Grobnik?
“5a. Religion confined to church property. (Don’t quibble on this, it’s the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church & State, and NPR position.)”
Then explain all the Christmas music on NPR during the season. And all the wonderful Christmas specials in PBS. BTW – the Christmas music is religious music; not “Grandma got run over by a reindeer”
Hey, even the LA Times noticed how Obama kept deleting info from his web site.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/07/obama-surge.html
Obama website’s opposition to successful surge gets deleted
A funny thing happened over on the Barack Obama campaign website in the last few days.
The parts that stressed his opposition to the 2007 troop surge and his statement that more troops would make no difference in a civil war have somehow disappeared.
I do not want to force my religion on anyone.
But you don’t want gays/lesbians to marry because of your religious beliefs.
Pendant,
“The day that gay Americans are guaranteed testate rights and allowed to file Federal Income Tax forms as “Married Filing Jointly” is coming.”
Can you please explain what “testate rights” are from you post which I copied above?
Note: to Thomas Jefferson:
The 10 Commandments were written in around 1400 BC, long before any that he quoted in the link you supplied.
Also, the Bible has had a profound effect on America and it’s laws as the below link explains:
http://bibleresources.bible.com/aamerica.php
“American”,
The 18th century Enlightenment movement that produced the United States was a reaction to people like you. Sorry, it’s true.
More Obama Website Hiding, er I mean Editing.
Here are some other changes to the Obama Web site:
http://www.slate.com/id/2200517/
Which nic USED to be you “JimJohnson”?
Were you “Regular” or “Boxlock?
Speaking of mixing Government with Religion, did God get Obama elected?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jckHBXEsdwMCU88AHdLU-7CrHHCAD94BN33G0
Churches across America reflect on Obama election
By ALLEN G. BREED – 4 hours ago
RALEIGH, N.C. (AP) — Jubilation, pride and relief permeated pews and pulpits at predominantly black churches across the country on the first Sunday after Barack Obama’s election, with congregrants blowing horns, waving American flags and raising their hands to the heavens.
“God has vindicated the black folk,”
Oh, and this now proves that the last great racial barrier has been overcome in America.
No more barriers. We can now eliminate Affirmative Action, and return to hiring those who are most qualified for the job, and accepting only the most qualified students into colleges.
No need to handicap the game anymore.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jckHBXEsdwMCU88AHdLU-7CrHHCAD94BN33G0
At Los Angeles’ oldest black church, ushers circulated through the aisles with boxes of tissues as men and women, young and old, wept openly and unabashedly at the fall of the nation’s last great racial barrier.
4 or 8 years of Obama attacks.
That’ll keep me busy 24/7 writing!
Wow, that’s called job security.
I can’t wait to see all the Hope and Change!
Well you’re already crazy and irrelevant there Jimbo.
Nowhere but up for ya to go from there I guess.
If that’s true BJ, then you must have an exceedingly boring life, spending time replying to a crazy irrelevant person.
I think we will see more of this con nic switching as reality sets in and the right melts down.
BlueJay sings…
Lovin’ every minute of it!
Libs never nic switch?
IOKIYAAL
First order of business?
Fairness doctrine baby.
Heh
Bill baby, bill.
Sign Barack sign!
Shouldn’t you be using the nick JimJones?
More fitting.
There is no real difference between the Socialist Party and the Democratic Party anymore.
No big news story then about a Socialist replacing Obama the Socialist in the US Senate.
Yes the Fairness Doctrine should be first! And after the 1st Amendment is tackled and shackled, then the 2nd Amendment will be next!
Nobody but Libs will be left to speak anywhere! Heaven on Earth!
I am so inspired and filled with optimism at the hope the future now brings.
Everynight before I go to sleep, I read this. Obama inspires me oh so much!
“I should like to help everyone if possible; Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, black men, white, red, and yellow. We all want to help one another. Human beings are like that. We want to live by each others’ happiness, not by each other’s misery. We don’t want to hate and despise one another. In this world there is room for everyone. And the good earth is rich and can provide for everyone. The way of life can be free and beautiful, but we have lost the way.
Greed has poisoned men’s souls; has barricaded the world with hate; we live in misery and bloodshed. We have developed speed, but we have shut ourselves in. Industry that gives abundance has left us in want. Our knowledge as made us cynical; our cleverness, hard and unkind. We think too much and feel too little. More than wealth we need humanity. More than cleverness, we need kindness and gentleness. Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost. Modern communications and technology have brought us closer together. The very nature of these inventions cries out for the goodness in man; cries out for universal brotherhood; for the unity of us all.
Even now my voice is reaching millions throughout the world, millions of despairing men, women, and little children, victims of a system that makes men torture and imprison innocent people. To those who can hear me, I say “Do not despair.” The misery that is now upon us is but the passing of greed, the bitterness of men who fear the way of human progress. The hate of men will pass, and dictators die, and the power they took from the people will return to the people. And so long as men die, liberty will never perish.
Soldiers! Don’t fight for slavery! Fight for liberty! In the seventeenth chapter of St. Luke, it’s written “the kingdom of God is within man”, not one man nor a group of men, but in all men! In you! You, the people, have the power, the power to create prosperity, the power to create happiness! You, the people, have the power to make this life free and beautiful, to make this life a wonderful adventure. Then in the name of democracy, let us use that power.
Let us all unite. Let us fight for a new world, a decent world that will give men and women a chance to work, that will give youth a future and old age a security. By the promise of these things, brutes have risen to power. But they lie! They do not fulfill their promise. They never will! Evil rulers free themselves but they enslave the people! Now let us fight to fulfill that promise! Let us fight to free the world! To do away with national barriers! To do away with greed, with hate and intolerance! Let us fight for a world of reason, a world where science and progress will lead to all men’s happiness.
Citizens of the world, in the name of democracy, let us all unite!
People can you hear me? Wherever you are, look up! The clouds are lifting! The sun is breaking through! We are coming out of the darkness into the light! We are coming into a new world; a kind new world, where men and women will rise above their hate, their greed, and brutality. Look up! The soul of mankind has been given wings and at last he is beginning to fly. He is flying into the rainbow. Into the light of hope! Into the future! The glorious future! That belongs to you, to me, and to all of us. Look up, everyone! Look up!”
Goodnite everyone, and have sweet dreams of Hope.
Each day going forward will be even more glorious then the last!
BlueJay sings…
“Hank’s for the memories
The better party won.
Hey you still have your gun!
Get about to figure out
Your really messed up son.
Best wishes, from J R.
JimJohnson = JamesMcCluer
Another perfectly good day on the Blog messed up by an invasion of Trolls, and a new breed of “sock puppets” fresh from the smelly socks drawer!! Just what we need!!
/sarcasm off
good night; good luck; god bless —-
whatever you conceive god to be!!
blessings ALL
blessings on our so-called FREE America!!
so mote it be!!
GASP CHAS!
Your Perfect Day was completely messed up by a sock puppet?
Somebody moved Chas’ cheese!
Somebody had a different opinion then Chas!
Chas thought this was HIS blog!
(And what a stupid phony blessing that is at 4:27 am. Must have been posted after Chas got back from the bar.)
What a miniscule world Chas must live in, to have his happiness for every day dependent upon a blog.