So will it be Billary in 2008?

[Matthew Currie]

Glenn, I don't know why you should seem so proud of not having read the Federalist papers. It doesn't make you more or less of a patriot, but being better informed couldn't hurt.

I don't think the problem here is specifically one of abortion or gay marriage or whatever, but a very deep and very troubling issue of whether it's appropriate for the majority religion to set government policy and legislation. It isn't a matter of what's good, moral, right or righteous. The very definition of "faith" implies that you KNOW you're right, and often enough it's probably true. But there's a reason why the founding fathers, despite being far more in accord on religious values than we're used to today, took such pains to keep government secular.

 

[Glenn B]

What? I stated I have not read it, in responce to his statement about being a patriot. I am neither proud nor ashamed that I have never read it (that I remember anyhow). I may read it some day, but it has absolutely no bearing on my being a patriot or not.

Glenn, I don't know why you should seem so proud of not having read the Federalist papers. It doesn't make you more or less of a patriot, but being better informed couldn't hurt.

I don't think the problem here is specifically one of abortion or gay marriage or whatever, but a very deep and very troubling issue of whether it's appropriate for the majority religion to set government policy and legislation. It isn't a matter of what's good, moral, right or righteous. The very definition of "faith" implies that you KNOW you're right, and often enough it's probably true. But there's a reason why the founding fathers, despite being far more in accord on religious values than we're used to today, took such pains to keep government secular.

 

[CW]

No one voted and made it illeagal to be a homosexual. Those states that amended their constitutions clarified the meaning of marriage between a man and a women. I don't belive in government intervention in personal lives, but I don't see this as a huge issue. There are still civil unions. This election was a step in the right direction (no pun intended), in my opinion. I am a conservative not a Republican, I am not a bigget just because I am a white christian, and I have read the Federalists Papers and I know what our founding fathers had in mind when they set up this country and it is not what we currently have. The government has powers and influrnce now that it was never attended to have and many of the founding fathers feared political parties because they devide the country and take voices away from a large number of people. I would stop attacking the conservatives on the board it accomplishes nothing, if you really care about your party get involved. Write letters to your representatives, vote every chance you get and be logical in your arguements. I may not agree with you but I won't insult you and I will pray for John Edwards wife and her battle with cancer.

 

[steve01XJ]

What? I stated I have not read it, in responce to his statement about being a patriot. I am neither proud nor ashamed that I have never read it (that I remember anyhow). I may read it some day, but it has absolutely no bearing on my being a patriot or not.

Why even read something that might lead you to question your own beliefs? You might change your mind. MC is right when he says it is deeper than the individual issues. There is a great potential for the religious Christian right in this country to make policy based upon their religious values. And that goes much deeper than whether or not Bush or Kerry can speak properly.

When James Madison wrote Federalist #10, he spoke of the grave danger of granting too much authority to popular majorities, because of the potential it would have to fully quash the voice and rights of those factions or minority groups which have equal rights under the constitution.

"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."

"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

VERY WISE WORDS.

 

[Glenn B]

I actually enjoy to read, when I have the luxury to have the time to do so. However, my beliefs are my beliefs. If they change or not is up to me.

If you fear these changes you speak of, you can take action. Start now, keep in contact with your Senators. It is not all up to one man, last I checked a few things still have to be passed in the Senate and the House? That will not be easy for the Dems, as the Repubs now have 55? However, (and my memory is foggy on this) it takes 60 to pass? If I were deeply concerned about things, that is where I would look to focus.

I am also proactive in my own way. Specifically with the Republicans Business Advisory Council. That is what I chose to get involved in.
Glenn

Why even read something that might lead you to question your own beliefs? You might change your mind. MC is right when he says it is deeper than the individual issues. There is a great potential for the religious Christian right in this country to make policy based upon their religious values. And that goes much deeper than whether or not Bush or Kerry can speak properly.

When James Madison wrote Federalist #10, he spoke of the grave danger of granting too much authority to popular majorities, because of the potential it would have to fully quash the voice and rights of those factions or minority groups which have equal rights under the constitution.

"When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed."

"A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

VERY WISE WORDS.

 

[Darky]

Steve, I want to know where you get this whole bigotted thing. What makes you say

...the Republican dreams of an America that is only white, evangelical Christian, with men at work and women at home where they belong...

I guess I meet two of those requirements, almost. I am a Christian, but in my actions I am far from being evengelical. I never get up the courage to talk to people about my faith or theirs. I am also a man who works. But, I'm not white. My father is black, my mother is white, and on my father's side there is a trace of Cherokee Indian. IIRC, its almost enough (or maybe is) to apply for scholarships and such based on that heritage. My wife doesn't work right now, but its not because I told her she shouldn't. She just had a baby and wants to be home with the child until she starts school. If my wife were to decide to enter our baby in pre-school when she was old enough and then get a job, I would encourage her. I guess if I were to think like you, I could say that since you're a Democrat, you would lose respect for your wife if she didn't work. I mean come on women fought for years to get the rights they ahve now, how can she just let that go by sitting at home taking care of the kids. And you're probably black, maybe mexican because all us Republicans are white, and since you're colored you don't count. Hell, let's bring back the 3/5's rule right? I don't have a problem with democrats. But its people like you who **** me off. You say we call you elitists but don't deny it when you call us bigots. Well here it is: I am not bigotted. You are, however, an elitist piece of....anyways...your kind of thought process, taken to an extreme is what brought about people like Hitler. You think you're better than people like me, and its us republicans who are the root of all the world's problems. Sound familiar? And btw, the only post in recent memory that you've made in which you've made any sense was when you quoted James Madison.

 

[steve01XJ]

You think you're better than people like me, and its us republicans who are the root of all the world's problems. Sound familiar? And btw, the only post in recent memory that you've made in which you've made any sense was when you quoted James Madison.[/QUOTE]

This is where you miss my point. I don't think I am better than anyone. As a matter of fact, my whole point is that none of us is better than anyone else. But the republicans are dividing America based upon religion and values - denying people's rights to live their lives in the way they see fit - creating a society of exclusion. One where homosexuals cannot marry or share the same rights as others - one where stem cell research will be prohibited - one where dissenting voices or differeing tastes in humor will be banned from the libraries and the airwaves.

I feel that Democrats generally accept the principles of inclusion, whereby alternative lifestyles and differing values should not only be tolerated, but accepted. It is the diversity of this nation which gives it much of its strength. The freedom to pursue your religion and happiness in the way you see fit is at the cornerstone of our consititution. In my world, evangelical Christians are welcome to practice abstinence, pro-life agendas, to choose not to read, watch or listen to anything that offends them, to home school their kids, to refuse treatments derived from stem cell research, to move away from communities intolerant of homosexuals. If feeling this way makes me elitist, then I will proudly wear the label.

The question to me is which side does W most likely believe in? It is fundamentally un-American not to be an inclusive society.

 

[Urban Redneck]

I feel that Democrats generally accept the principles of inclusion, whereby alternative lifestyles and differing values should not only be tolerated, but accepted.

So, this is why they send Jesse Jackson running all over the place? The party of inclusion...that's pretty damn funny. IIRC, it is the Dems that are always crying, starting the race card, the homosexual card, the NAMBLA card. Why should I tolerate a party that is willing to kill an innocent child but let a murderer go? Here is an answer to your bigot question. I'm not a bigot, I hate everyone...equally. You mention not being able to tell a joke without offending anyone...the Dems started the PC craze. The one thing that EVERYONE needs to learn is that, while you may have the right to give your views, Moore, Franken or for that matter, Hannity and Limbaugh. Everyone else has the right not to listen to your view. I don't care if you protest the war, but if you get your ass kicked by the cops because you swing on them...don't cry to me about it. You can live any lifestyle you choose, don't throw it in my face. I don't care if you are gay, tell me once, fine, you're gay. Tell me more than one time, then I'm going to tell you that I'm hetro everytime I see you. The MAJORITY of people in the country spoke about gay marriage, not Bush. Get over it. Hetro people are the majority of America. I wouldn't call Dems the party of inclusion, rather the party of Misfit Toys... :gag:

 

[Steelerfan]

Arnold in '08!!

Arnold can't be president he wasn't born in the U.S.

 

[Urban Redneck]

Arnold can't be president he wasn't born in the U.S.

Here we go again....REPOST!

Hasta

 

[red91]

So, using your logic, we can assume that all Democraps are Commies? Or lazy welfare check collectors? Or fat lying movie makers? You should team up with Z22, with the two of you, you could solve the worlds problems...or something.

I never thought I'd see the day when you were right 4 times in a row.

I now have hope in a brighter future for all....

 

[Darky]

I don't think I am better than anyone

Your other posts would suggest otherwise...particularly this one:

No, this election just demonstrated that we will have to dumb down the Democratic message about 100 IQ points below that of the Clintons for the masses to comprehend it. Basically gotta find a way to advocate bigotry and guns.

Calling everyone who doesn't vote your way too dumb to see the wisdom of your views doesn't sound like you see everyone as equal.

If the majority of voters in the country are intolerant bigots, and we really think that being an intolerant bigot is something not only to aspire to, but to codify in the law through the legislature and court appointments, I think it will be safe to say that the Republican dreams of an America that is only white, evangelical Christian, with men at work and women at home where they belong will come true and set this nation's true principles back fifty years.

And I guess right here you're not calling everyone who takes a stand for what they believe to be right that is different than you (which would appear to be a large chunk of America based on the 11 states that just banned gay marriage and the re-election of Bush) a bigot? Agree with you and we can be enlightened, disagree and we're ignorant bigots.

Why even read something that might lead you to question your own beliefs?

You're so good you read everything whether it follows your belief or not whereas Glenn, I might is a much more respected person around here than you, is blissfully ignorant and happy to stay that way. BTW check out this site. You'll find some posts by a guy named Justin. that's me. I frequent that site even though I don't agree. I think its good to hear from all sides. If you agree, check out this site.

But the republicans are dividing America based upon religion and values - denying people's rights to live their lives in the way they see fit - creating a society of exclusion. One where homosexuals cannot marry or share the same rights as others - one where stem cell research will be prohibited - one where dissenting voices or differeing tastes in humor will be banned from the libraries and the airwaves. But the republicans are dividing America based upon religion and values - denying people's rights to live their lives in the way they see fit - creating a society of exclusion. One where homosexuals cannot marry or share the same rights as others - one where stem cell research will be prohibited - one where dissenting voices or differeing tastes in humor will be banned from the libraries and the airwaves.

How is stem cell research infringing on anyone's rights? Stem cell research is all well and good, kinda, but it'd only be a matter of time before some scientist would start working on cloning a human using the knowledge they gained or something. It could also cause an increase in the number of aborted fetuses and the harvesting of fetuses which is just plain wrong. I know those are fairly extreme examples, but its just kind of an idea of what might happen. As has already been noted by someone else, its you Dems who keep bringing up the race issue. Its you who keeps trying to blame our problems on Christians while saying that Muslims can do no wrong, unless they're those evil fundamentalist terrorist guys. I don't think Muslims are bad either, but I also don't think they're any better, or any worse than us Christians. Its not a matter us vs them, they have lived and worshipped happily and freely here for years. Now security's a little tighter and there's more attention paid to them. Is it fair? Not really, I think it sucks, but I can also see the purpose behind it. A radical fundamentalist Muslim looks just like an average peace-loving Muslim. So in order to differentiate, they gotta ask a few questions and such. I think a major problem with your party is the doom and gloom you try to accuse Republicans of. "Oh this country's going to hell, the end is near, did I just hear an iceberg melt a little more? Damn those republicans its all their fault...etc"

 

[Urban Redneck]

I never thought I'd see the day when you were right 4 times in a row.

I now have hope in a brighter future for all....

The sun shines up a dogs ass every now and then....

 

[red91]

I now KNOW we have enough hot air in here to float our :: hot air baloon.

Beezil can give 30 minute rides in it as he shoots at things from the basket.

 

[Darky]

dead squirrels everywhere...as he drops M80s on them marked Death From Above

Beezil can give 30 minute rides in it as he shoots at things from the basket.

 

[Matthew Currie]

I don't think it's a matter of who is bigoted, or who is good or bad, or who is right and righteous, but whether the religious beliefs of the current majority should be indelibly incorporated into the laws and the constitution of the government. Many people believe they should, because they so firmly believe that they are right, and because the beliefs they are pushing are so widely held. Many do not, not because those beliefs are wrong, but because the tilt toward theocracy is dangerous and divisive, and because if history is anything to go by, it's pretty sure eventually to bite us in the butt.

Just as a thought exercise, imagine that we do succeed in desecularizing the government, making the values of the current Christian consensus the basis for legislation on marriage, abortion, the content of literature and other media, and the teaching of science. These are all issues that are current, and contested, and if you agree only with the first two, think again now, because the rest is coming. Now fast forward a few years, when current minorites, more prolific than today's white, evangelical Christian Protestant majority, have taken the lead. Are you sure you're really ready for the laws they would like to impose? Can you even guess what they'll be? Even if you're sure it will never happen, you need to think about whether your attitude toward religion in government would remain the same if the majority religion were Islam, or Wicca, or Scientology.

When we overthrew the Taliban, it was to us, and to most of the world, a war against terror and oppression and tyranny. Remember, though, that to them, it was a war against their religious beliefs. What they did they did with the utter, complete assurance of faith that they were doing the right and holy thing. That's an extreme example, of course, so don't get your panties in a twist thinking I'm calling anybody here Taliban. But my point is that even if the Taliban were totally, completely, provably correct in their religious beliefs, they were still guilty of terror, oppression and tyranny. Sometimes it is not enough to be right!

 

[red91]

The sun shines up a dogs ass every now and then....

leave XJGUY and Z22_Z33 out of this.

 

[Darky]

Matthew: I see where you're going with this, but at the same time I disagree on those issues necessarily being strictly religious. I believe life starts long before birth, not because of my religious beliefs but because I value life. Having my first kid just reinforced that. While she was still only 3-4 months old in the womb, she would brush against my wife's stomach only to immediately poke that same spot again when I touched it. If I poked her in there she would almost immediately poke back in the same spot. Now to those who believe in abortion, 3-4 months is still well within a reasonable timeframe to kill that child, but my daughter was responsive to external stimuli even then. I oppose abortion completely in the issues of rape and incest and especially with the girls who get pregnant and don't want a baby yet. That last one comes back to personal responsibility. Should've used protection or been abstinate if you don't want a kid yet. Rape and incest, those aren't necessarily the woman's fault (definitely not rape) but its the not the kid's fault either. Bring the baby to term and then give him/her up for adoption. I had a friend in high school who had sex, got pregnant and gave the baby up for adoption. She made one couple who couldn't conceive very happy. She got to pick the family and everything. I struggle over the issue of a mother's life being in danger. I don't want to condemn her to death, but don't want to kill the baby either. As a Christian I'd say God will take care of it and whatever happens will be for the best, but the wordly side (yes, that side never dies it is only shut up) says but what if she dies?? I can't make a stand on that since I don't really have a clear stand to take...I don't want to see the government turned into a religious run excercise, but at the same time I think the nation could benefit from a little bit of morality and a clear definition of right and wrong. I forgot the name of the philosophy but it basically says that there are no absolutes. What's right for me might be wrong for you. Who are we to call anyone's ideas wrong? By that philosophy, Hitler didn't do anything wrong. That is where I fear too many people are trying to take this country, to a belief that there is no such thing as right or wrong.

 

[steve01XJ]

Inlcusion and science - Democrats
Exclusion and religion - Republicans

Fairly simple choice. Our nation was made up of groups of people who were kicked out of their country for being dissenters, and I thought we valued the fact that we let those people live their lives here.

Nowhere do I advocate taking away the rights of Republicans to do what they want to do.

Nowhere did I say Muslims do no wrong - yes, they should be scrutinzed right now, but not without the benefit of due process - especially if they are American citizens. Funny how for all for the tough talk about this issue, Bush will admit record numbers of them on work visas for tech jobs to work for an average 20% less salary, but won't train his own people who are out of work to fill these jobs.

Take my remarks about bigotry any way you want to. I contend that if you voted for Bush, you have enabled a bigot's agenda, and I will stand by that as a fact. What that made you by voting for Bush I will let you decide.

As for whether or not I think I am better than those who voted for Bush, I do not think I am better, just more enlightened and better educated.

That's OK, in the end I will be right. We will see higher interest rates, higher inflation, expensive oil, stagnant job growth, a continued widening of the rich/poor gap, and a whacked social agenda which after the next four years will wake enough people up to make a change. I also predict that after eight years of Bush, whoever the next Democratic president is will somehow be blamed for it all, and being unable to fix it fast enough.

 

[red91]

That's OK, in the end I will be right. We will see higher interest rates, higher inflation, expensive oil, stagnant job growth, a continued widening of the rich/poor gap, and a whacked social agenda which after the next four years will wake enough people up to make a change. After eight years of Clinton, President Bush will somehow be blamed for it all, and be unable to fix it fast enough.

This post has been altered to reflect my views, like it or not.

Damn skippy. Except he's doing his best to fix it not blame other people.

P.S. Robert Redford said he'd move to Ireland if Bush was elected. I'm waiting for him to take his sorry ass outta here...