# Republicans who could win the White House in 2012



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

If tasked with coming up with a list of viable republican candidates for 2012, how would you go about it? What factors would you consider? Who would be on your shortlist?

Also, what, if anything, do you think the GOP needs to do to reposition/reinvent the Republican Party?


----------



## Chase Hamilton (Jan 15, 2007)

Yeah--let's start talking about the 2012 election _right now_.

Isn't it enough that we have *nine *threads, many of which I'm sure contain almost-identical posts from the same members, on The Interchange already?

--Chase


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Bobby Jindal, current Governor of Louisiana.

Not too early to think about what we need to do to start to straighten things out and for the Republican party to begin to plan. 

Young, dynamic, energetic. Extremely impressive resume.

Vice President-elect Biden might even be moved to deem him "articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy" for a minority. 

"He was elected Governor of Louisiana on October 20, 2007, with 54 percent of the vote in the primary, winning 60 of 64 parishes."


----------



## chatsworth osborne jr. (Feb 2, 2008)

*I'd really prefer other parties replaced this tarnished brand*



Kingsfield said:


> Also, what, if anything, do you think the GOP needs to do to reposition/reinvent the Republican Party?


Apologize for Bush's war in Iraq. Become isolationist. Stop appealing to the fears of naive bumpkins.

If the GOP wishes to remain the ******* blockhead party: Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, Vince McMahon

If they wish to be intelligent and rational: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Chats, I actually find myself agreeing with the substance of your post, although you might work a bit on the tone. 

You are probably right about what you are saying.


----------



## Spence (Feb 28, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If they wish to be intelligent and rational: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes


Keyes??? Are you serious?

-spence


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> Apologize for Bush's war in Iraq. Become isolationist. Stop appealing to the fears of naive bumpkins.
> 
> If the GOP wishes to remain the ******* blockhead party: Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, Vince McMahon
> 
> If they wish to be intelligent and rational: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes


I would cut Keyes though and replace him with Romney.

The religious right needs to be cut off and the UChicago and Cato conservative intellectuals need to be reinstated.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Bobby Jindal, current Governor of Louisiana.
> 
> Not too early to think about what we need to do to start to straighten things out and for the Republican party to begin to plan.
> 
> ...


Jindal's great except for that 'intelligent design' position.

I believe in God, but religion should not be in our science classrooms. Conservatism is supposed to be about defending our constitution - not removing it as we see fit.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

I'm not a one issue voter.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Palin's going under the bus:











Did Rove just say that "Victory has one father and defeat has many?"


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what should be taught in schools.


----------



## jamgood (Feb 8, 2006)

Muzzle Hank Deux


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I don't know about future republican candidates. I do know one future republican. Joe Lieberman went from Gore's VP candidate to Cheney lapdog to independant caucusing his former party to supporting McCain.
The guy's a republican transvestite and needs to come out of the closet and complete the operation the brise obviously fouled up.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> The Constitution says absolutely nothing about what should be taught in schools.


Separation of church and state.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Kav said:


> I don't know about future republican candidates. I do know one future republican. Joe Lieberman went from Gore's VP candidate to Cheney lapdog to independant caucusing his former party to supporting McCain.
> The guy's a republican transvestite and needs to come out of the closet and complete the operation the brise obviously fouled up.


But the Democrats still count him on their side for caucusing purposes.

To the OP:

I'll go with Jindal.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Separation of church and state.


The separation of church and state was created to protect the church from the state, not vice versa.

Also, creationism doesn't have to be specific to one religion.

Interestingly enough, the Theory of Evolution is bad science and requires faith, as Darwin did not use the scientific method.

My response, however, does not endorse creationism.


----------



## Peak and Pine (Sep 12, 2007)

Relayer said:


> I'm not a one issue voter.


Yes you are. It's called _me first_. You're a Republican, remember?​


----------



## James Bond (Dec 5, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Interestingly enough, the Theory of Evolution is bad science and requires faith, as Darwin did not use the scientific method.


Yes, because all work on the theory stopped with Darwin.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Jovan said:


> Separation of church and state.


Yeah, sorry, I'm just looking at the Constitution here. I don't see "separation of church and state" anywhere in it.

I do however see it in Supreme Court decisions from the late 1940s onward...


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

The first amendment upholds separation of church and state. Or is that just too hard to fathom? Intelligent design has no place in public schools and you know it.

Next thing you'll tell me is that the United States were founded by Christians.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yeah, sorry, I'm just looking at the Constitution here. I don't see "separation of church and state" anywhere in it.
> 
> I do however see it in Supreme Court decisions from the late 1940s onward...


Well, you know, there are a lot of things in the Constitution that are now magically there - like the right to privacy.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

I don't think what's taught in schools is the business of the united states supreme court, or any court for that matter. I also don't think it's your business what's taught in schools on the other side of your town, much less the other side of the country.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> Well, you know, there are a lot of things in the Constitution that are now magically there - like the right to privacy.


Yes. Have you been watching "Lost"? The Constitution is like the magic box--if five judges want something, it magically appears within!


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> I don't think what's taught in schools is the business of the united states supreme court, or any court for that matter. I also don't think it's your business what's taught in schools on the other side of your town, much less the other side of the country.


So let's let everyone else get a poor/religiously biased education so long as our children are doing okay? :crazy: I apologise if I'm actually concerned about others' well being.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jovan said:


> The first amendment upholds separation of church and state. Or is that just too hard to fathom? Intelligent design has no place in public schools and you know it.
> 
> Next thing you'll tell me is that the United States were founded by Christians.


I didn't say it did.

However, why should Darwinism be taught? It is simply a theory as well, a theory not based on science. I believe in natural selection, but that doesn't mean that I believe Darwin was a good scientist or Darwinism is good science.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

James Bond said:


> Yes, because all work on the theory stopped with Darwin.


What he said.

Apologies for getting this way off topic -- back to the future Republican nominees.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jovan said:


> So let's let everyone else get a poor/religiously biased education so long as our children are doing okay? :crazy: I apologise if I'm actually concerned about others' well being.


Why does being taught the theory of Creationism automatically make it a poor education?

So one who believes in creationism but understands quantum mechanics is poorly educated?

So someone who has a Nobel Prize in economics but believes God put us all here is somehow less intelligent?


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Why does being taught the theory of Creationism automatically make it a poor education?
> 
> So one who believes in creationism but understands quantum mechanics is poorly educated?
> 
> So someone who has a Nobel Prize in economics but believes God put us all here is somehow less intelligent?


I did not say it made one's education poor. I said I'm concerned when people are being fed poor OR (hence the slash) religiously-biased education. One should choose whether or not to believe creationism -- not have it taught to them in school.

If you're paying for a private school that's fine. Just keep creationism out of public education.

If you want to continue this conversation in PM, please do so. Otherwise let's get this thread back on track.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Jovan said:


> The first amendment upholds separation of church and state. Or is that just too hard to fathom? Intelligent design has no place in public schools and you know it.
> 
> Next thing you'll tell me is that the United States were founded by Christians.





Jovan said:


> So let's let everyone else get a poor/religiously biased education so long as our children are doing okay? :crazy: I apologise if I'm actually concerned about others' well being.


Honestly, you're no constitutional scholar. The first amendment actually says that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I suppose I could elaborate on what "Congress" means, or what an "establishment" of religion is, but it'd be pointless. Suffice to say that no one imagined the first amendment had any implications for public schooling until the 1940s.

And let's be honest here. You're not "concerned for others' wellbeing." You're trying to impose your beliefs on others, through coercive government education and illegitimate, creative "interpretation" of written law. And ironically you claim to be for education, but with all due respect, do not evidence anything but a shallow, partisan appreciation of the facts and issues pertinent.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

So waitaminute here. You're saying I'm imposing my beliefs on people when you want to teach creationism in public schools? Pot calling the kettle black right here.

This is more fun than watching football.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jovan said:


> I did not say it made one's education poor. I said I'm concerned when people are being fed poor OR (hence the slash) religiously-biased education. One should choose whether or not to believe creationism -- not have it taught to them in school.
> 
> If you're paying for a private school that's fine. Just keep creationism out of public education.
> 
> If you want to continue this conversation in PM, please do so. Otherwise let's get this thread back on track.


Perhaps people should learn about evolution on their own time too.

The funny thing is, I don't even see why this is an issue, I just like playing the devil's advocate here.

As I said, I don't believe in evolution or creationism.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yes, because, as I said, you don't appear to understand the structure of American public schools any more than you understand the Constitution.

Suffice to say, the schools are supposed to decide for themselves what they teach, instead of Washington politicians or overreaching judges.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

So it's okay if public schools teach creationism? But not Darwinism -- that would be us IMPOSING OUR BELIEFS ON PEOPLE -- even though you just said _they_ should decide what they teach.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Jovan said:


> So it's okay if public schools teach creationism? But not Darwinism -- that would be us IMPOSING OUR BELIEFS ON PEOPLE -- even though you just said _they_ should decide what they teach.


I wonder if you're just being dense. I honestly can't see how you don't understand what I am saying. How about a hypothetical. You have two towns-- town A and town B. They're a hundred miles apart, in different states and indeed in different countries.

Town A's mayor and city council pass a law saying that town B shall teach evolution and only evolution in its schools. Do you see the problem here?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> If they wish to be intelligent and rational: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes





Spence said:


> Keyes??? Are you serious?
> 
> -spence


He means anyone but Bush. I would hardly call the three named above as enlightened. They're modern versions of Father Coughlin.

I think Jindal is a good choice. I also think former Montana Governor Mark Racicot should be considered. I remember in 2000 and 2004 he had quite a public role on the Bush team. He's a western Republican. I think the one problem he would have is that he's now a lobbyist.


----------



## Crownship (Mar 17, 2008)

*A Mad Man*

Alfred E. Neuman


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

chatsworth osborne jr. said:


> ...If the GOP wishes to remain the ******* blockhead party: Sarah Palin, Joe Wurzelbacher, Vince McMahon
> 
> If they wish to be intelligent and rational: Ron Paul, Pat Buchanan, Alan Keyes


Oh come on! While Ron Paul may indeed be a likable, fun-to-watch eccentric, it is hard to consider him as serious Presidential timber(?). :devil:


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

The GOP has to dump the religious right if they want to find success against President Obama in 4 years. If they want to lose again, and badly, they will pick someone like Huckabee or Palin. I think Palin is about to be thrown under the bus and then to the wolves. Fox was reporting all kinds of horrible things about her being a diva, throwing tantrums, not understanding the process of legislation, and thinking Africa was a country and not a continent.

A lot really depends on how successful Obama is in his first term. If in 3 years he has a 65% approval rating and things are looking good for us all, then you'll see the GOP pick a lame duck nominee like Dole in 96. There is no doubt that Jindall is the future star, but he will be 39 or 40 years old when he decides to run for president in 2011. If Obama is a disaster, then he will be their guy. If Obama does well, I'm pretty sure they save Jindall for 2016.


----------



## Howard (Dec 7, 2004)

I thought Sarah Palin was going to run for president in 2012.


----------



## choirmaestro (Aug 27, 2008)

Hmmm...those who could take on Obama...

I agree that Jindal would be a good choice.

Watch for Eric Cantor from Virginia. Speaking as a liberal, I hate his guts. However, he won his district in suburban Richmond with over 60% of the vote. He was on McCain's short list for VP. He's young, and articulate. I see that being a good matchup.

As for the church and state thing:

I'm the son, grandson, and great-grandson of clergy. I've been a Christian all my life with varying degrees of faithfulness. Here's what I think:

The basis of science is the ability to propose, test, and prove hypothesis. It's formulaic. It's true vs. false. Even if one doesn't have personal gifts in science, in the taking of science classes in school one learns important life skills: problem solving, rational thought, trial and error, etc.

Religion is based completely on one's personal belief system - on FAITH. Faith is a powerful thing, and a GOOD thing. Whether you're a Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever, being "religious" or a "person of faith" is wonderful and SHOULD be taught to our children - JUST NOT IN PUBLIC SCHOOL!

I happen to believe in creationism, but I'd never want it taught in my daughter's public school. I believe that God has made possible all that is around us, and there are things that we could never understand. My personal faith tells me that an intelligent designer - for me, the Christian God - did it. I wish I could scientifically test it, but I can't. It's a theological, not scientific question. I ALSO believe in science, and I want my daughter to take all the science she can in public school. It's ultimately up to her to figure out how to balance the two.

If you want your children to learn creationism, I support you 100%. Send your children to parochial schools, to church-based private schools, or home school. Read the Bible, Torah, or Koran with your children. Go to church together. BUT - science in public school is based on scientific principles that can be tested and proved true or false. Religion can't do that.

There's obvious passionate disagreement on the creationism/evolution debate. That's fine. If you don't like what your public schools are teaching, go with an alternative. The idea that religion should be taught as scientific fact disturbs me greatly. I think that, in the end, we need to leave it up to our kids to make up their own minds.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Yes. Have you been watching "Lost"? The Constitution is like the magic box--if five judges want something, it magically appears within!


Now if only Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and George Washington could have conceived of this when they wrote the Constitution. Wait! I bet they could divide 9 by 2. You mean they knew this would happen and still created a 9 member human Supreme Court?!?!

By the way, aren't we allowed to vote for a candidate based on whatever issues we want, no matter how "Constitutional" they are?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Now if only Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, and George Washington could have conceived of this when they wrote the Constitution. Wait! I bet they could divide 9 by 2. You mean they knew this would happen and still created a 9 member human Supreme Court?!?!
> 
> By the way, aren't we allowed to vote for a candidate based on whatever issues we want, no matter how "Constitutional" they are?


Thomas Jefferson was out of the country serving as Minister to France during the Constitutional Convention.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Lushington said:


> Thomas Jefferson was out of the country serving as Minister to France during the Constitutional Convention.


Ahh, well there goes my entire argument. Thank you for contributing.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Ahh, well there goes my entire argument. Thank you for contributing.


Well, if that didn't shoot it down, this might...

HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT

1797-1865

"The delegates who wrote the Constitution created a Supreme Court in Article III, but left its powers and role somewhat unclear. The First Congress established, in the Judiciary Act of 1789, that the Court would consist of six judges working within a system of district courts and circuit courts.

In 1807, Congress increased the size of the Supreme Court to seven, principally because of population growth in the western states of Kentucky, Tennessee, and Ohio. The Court's size rose to nine in 1837 and to ten during the American Civil War, with a new circuit made up of California and Oregon. By 1860 there were ten circuit courts within the federal system. The number of justices was changed back to eight in 1866, and then to nine again in 1869, where it has since stood."

https://www.historyofsupremecourt.org/overview.htm


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

Relayer said:


> Well, if that didn't shoot it down, this might...
> 
> HISTORY OF THE SUPREME COURT
> 
> ...


Well I learn something new every day. The point I was trying to make before the dicta contained in it was nitpicked to death (maybe this is why nothing constructive goes on in government) was that the Supreme Court was always supposed to be made up of people. People who make decisions. People who may make sweeping decisions that other people do not like.

And the Supreme Court along with all of the conservative justices held in Raich that individual pot growing had an effect on interstate commerce and thus could be regulated by the federal government. If individual pot growing effects interstate commerce how does education not effect interstate commerce? The whole point of education is to facilitate jobs and commerce.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

choirmaestro said:


> Hmmm...those who could take on Obama...
> 
> I agree that Jindal would be a good choice.
> 
> ...


Thank you.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

choirmaestro said:


> Hmmm...those who could take on Obama...
> 
> I agree that Jindal would be a good choice.
> 
> ...


Also, from a purely selfish point of view, if you want new medicines and medical techniques developed, teaching evolution, biology, anatomy, and the like might be helpful. Maybe teaching sciences helped bring about the last 100 years of human advancement. Maybe prayer would have led to the same result - but I doubt it.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> Well I learn something new every day. The point I was trying to make before the dicta contained in it was nitpicked to death (maybe this is why nothing constructive goes on in government) was that the Supreme Court was always supposed to be made up of people. People who make decisions. People who may make sweeping decisions that other people do not like.


The post was interesting and it made me wonder. When I checked your facts I learned something new, also.

It does muddy your point, though, when you toss in such inaccurate and gratuitous specifics regarding the Constitution and it's authors, especially just for the sake of trying to ridicule another poster.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Relayer said:


> The post was interesting and it made me wonder. When I checked your facts I learned something new, also.
> 
> It does muddy your point, though, when you toss in such inaccurate and gratuitous specifics regarding the Constitution and it's authors, especially just for the sake of trying to ridicule another poster.


The modern Supreme Court was primarily the work of John Marshall. The Doctrine of judicial review was already gaining a deal of traction in the early republic, and when Marshall adopted it for Constitutional questions it was largely viewed as a logical development of judicial doctrine. This raised the Court to equal status with the other two branches of the federal government, and Court appointments have been a matter of no small concern since. Marshall was a "founding father" by any measure, not least in that he was up to his neck in land speculation, the asset bubble of the day.

The Court was left in a somewhat inchoate state by the hammer-wielding Framers for the same reason much legislation is left in an inchoate state: the drafters don't really have an answer for a sticky issue, so they leave it unresolved so that later assemblies or the Courts can deal with it.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Lushington said:


> Thomas Jefferson was out of the country serving as Minister to France during the Constitutional Convention.


And IIRC Washington and Franklin, though they were actually there, had almost nothing to do with framing the Constitution or setting out the powers of the judicial branch. In fact the Constitution doesn't really say much about it.

Hamilton, though, did spend some time discussing the judicial branch. He basically said we had nothing to worry about, because it could only interpret the Constitution and could only protect rights, not infringe on them. I guess he never imagined how creative and malicious the courts could be in finding "rights" or how oppressive they could be in selectively enforcing them.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Lushington said:


> The modern Supreme Court was primarily the work of John Marshall. The Doctrine of judicial review was already gaining a deal of traction in the early republic, and when Marshall adopted it for Constitutional questions it was largely viewed as a logical development of judicial doctrine. This raised the Court to equal status with the other two branches of the federal government, and Court appointments have been a matter of no small concern since. Marshall was a "founding father" by any measure, not least in that he was up to his neck in land speculation, the asset bubble of the day.
> 
> The Court was left in a somewhat inchoate state by the hammer-wielding Framers for the same reason much legislation is left in an inchoate state: the drafters don't really have an answer for a sticky issue, so they leave it unresolved so that later assemblies or the Courts can deal with it.


If you read the link I included earlier it covers all that and much more. Highly recommended.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Well I learn something new every day. The point I was trying to make before the dicta contained in it was nitpicked to death (maybe this is why nothing constructive goes on in government) was that the Supreme Court was always supposed to be made up of people. People who make decisions. People who may make sweeping decisions that other people do not like.
> 
> And the Supreme Court along with all of the conservative justices held in Raich that individual pot growing had an effect on interstate commerce and thus could be regulated by the federal government. If individual pot growing effects interstate commerce how does education not effect interstate commerce? The whole point of education is to facilitate jobs and commerce.


LOL, like I said, I can't believe that you are actually in law school. If you really are, read that to one of your professors. Hell, pick the most liberal one you know.

This would be less funny if I hadn't already corrected you about _Raich_ at least once.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And IIRC Washington and Franklin, though they were actually there, had almost nothing to do with framing the Constitution or setting out the powers of the judicial branch. In fact the Constitution doesn't really say much about it.
> 
> Hamilton, though, did spend some time discussing the judicial branch. He basically said we had nothing to worry about, because it could only interpret the Constitution and could only protect rights, not infringe on them. I guess he never imagined how creative and malicious the courts could be in finding "rights" or how oppressive they could be in selectively enforcing them.


Federalist 78:



> This simple view of the matter suggests several important consequences. It proves incontestably, that the judiciary is beyond comparison the weakest of the three departments of power; that it can never attack with success either of the other two; and that all possible care is requisite to enable it to defend itself against their attacks. It equally proves, that though individual oppression may now and then proceed from the courts of justice, the general liberty of the people can never be endangered from that quarter; I mean so long as the judiciary remains truly distinct from both the legislature and the Executive. For I agree, that "there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the legislative and executive powers."n And it proves, in the last place, that as liberty can have nothing to fear from the judiciary alone, but would have every thing to fear from its union with either of the other departments; that as all the effects of such a union must ensue from a dependence of the former on the latter, notwithstanding a nominal and apparent separation; that as, from the natural feebleness of the judiciary, it is in continual jeopardy of being overpowered, awed, or influenced by its co-ordinate branches; and that as nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution, and, in a great measure, as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.


Marshall would have none of this.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> Also, from a purely selfish point of view, if you want new medicines and medical techniques developed, teaching evolution, biology, anatomy, and the like might be helpful. Maybe teaching sciences helped bring about the last 100 years of human advancement. Maybe prayer would have led to the same result - but I doubt it.


Alas, but my point is that evolution can't be tested or proven, nor did the theory come from the scientific meathod. So aren't you sending mixed signals to children that they should accept evolution, despite the fact that it is poor science?

Look, I don't disagree that biology should be taught in public schools. I also don't disagree that anatomy or even natural selection should be taught.

But I'll keep arguing, because well, it is so much darn fun.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Separation of church and state.


... is not in the Constitution.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Relayer said:


> If you read the link I included earlier it covers all that and much more. Highly recommended.


Thanks for the link. The Oliver Wendell Holmes Devise is the last word in Court history. _The Oxford Companion_ is a good one volume encyclopedia.


----------



## aspectator (Aug 27, 2008)

I don't have a problem with religion being taught in public schools. I think Religion classes could be beneficial and can definitely help students learn about the history and psychology of Man. Teach about Christianity, Judaism, Islam, and on and on. I'm not in favor of government seeming to endorse one religion over another, or to try to teach Christianity as science.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

JibranK said:


> Jindal's great except for that 'intelligent design' position.
> 
> I believe in God, but religion should not be in our science classrooms. Conservatism is supposed to be about defending our constitution - not removing it as we see fit.


There are more explainations in science than evolution. To me evolution has no scientific merit, so children and upper education, dependent upon taxes, should open the door to other thinking. The left hates to be told to be tolerant.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> I don't know about future republican candidates. I do know one future republican. Joe Lieberman went from Gore's VP candidate to Cheney lapdog to independant caucusing his former party to supporting McCain.
> The guy's a republican transvestite and needs to come out of the closet and complete the operation the brise obviously fouled up.


Maybe the Democrats left Joe Lieberman and the Republicans become the old left?


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Jovan said:


> Separation of church and state.


Funny how you forgot the, or the prohitation of. It seems like the left is trying to ride a rocket as fast as possible as it can from the United States Declaration of Independence, Constitution and Bill of Rights. God and Church are not the same thing and there is nothing in our laws about God and state seperation. Looking at European history it is clear why state and Church should be seperate. But our laws say nothing about God and state being seperate. In fact the United States Declaration of Independence includes God. So, are you saying that the United States Declaration of Independence can't be taught in school anymore?


----------



## Terpoxon (Sep 28, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> And the Supreme Court along with all of the conservative justices held in Raich that individual pot growing had an effect on interstate commerce and thus could be regulated by the federal government. If individual pot growing effects interstate commerce how does education not effect interstate commerce? The whole point of education is to facilitate jobs and commerce.


I remember reading something that Scalia said about this case. He said that he hates the way that the commerce clause has been defined (which I believe goes back to the Marshall Court- the steamboat cases) but with the commerce clause interpreted the way it has been, there was no other way the case could be decided, there is too much precedent.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

choirmaestro said:


> I happen to believe in creationism, but I'd never want it taught in my daughter's public school. I believe that God has made possible all that is around us, and there are things that we could never understand. My personal faith tells me that an intelligent designer - for me, the Christian God - did it. I wish I could scientifically test it, but I can't. It's a theological, not scientific question. I ALSO believe in science, and I want my daughter to take all the science she can in public school. It's ultimately up to her to figure out how to balance the two.


If intelligent designer is true, then why do you want your child to be taught a falsehood in the name of science wasting valuable tax money and students learning time? There is a lot of science in explaining intelligent design and tons of faith in evolution. Hiding a belief, evolution, under a tons of make believe science does not work for me. Therefore it should be removed from the schools. If you want children to learn how to figure stuff out then have them design and build a bridge. I believe in honestesty, not brainwashing. Attacking Christians at school with my tax money by the hoax of evolution scamming as science is totally immoral. And schools are to be a moral example to the students.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> And IIRC Washington and Franklin, though they were actually there, had almost nothing to do with framing the Constitution or setting out the powers of the judicial branch. In fact the Constitution doesn't really say much about it.
> 
> Hamilton, though, did spend some time discussing the judicial branch. He basically said we had nothing to worry about, because it could only interpret the Constitution and could only protect rights, not infringe on them. I guess he never imagined how creative and malicious the courts could be in finding "rights" or how oppressive they could be in selectively enforcing them.


Come on now. It is not hard to assume they knew about government "oppression." "No taxation without representation" comes to mind. I like how in one breath conservatives argue we are supposed to have a government and act how the founders wanted us to and in the next they argue the founders could not have predicted abuses of power and potential over reaching. I think they got it that government was run by people and would be susceptible to human actions.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

PedanticTurkey said:


> LOL, like I said, I can't believe that you are actually in law school. If you really are, read that to one of your professors. Hell, pick the most liberal one you know.
> 
> This would be less funny if I hadn't already corrected you about _Raich_ at least once.


I know that your Raich interpretation is the only one but maybe others are right. Even the Supreme Court justices wrote an "opinion." I don't think that your reading of any opinion is law. Hell, the dissenting Supreme Court Justices opinions aren't even law. And if I were to read my interpretation to my old Con Law professor (I'm now a 3L) I think she would agree. I learned all I know about Raich from her (I don't read these opinions for fun).


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

the GOP is already turning into a regional party based primarily in the south with outposts in the west. if it nominates another palin in 4 years, it will kill itself off completely within a generation (demographics). the problem, as i see it, is that many of the current crop of potential GOP candidates (romney, jindal) have already attached themselves to the same political ideologies that were roundly rejected in 2006 and 2008. because i dont think that the base of the party is willing to accept anyone that isnt sufficiently "conservative" (read extremist), absent obama leading this country into the toilet, the GOP has no chance in 4 years.


----------



## choirmaestro (Aug 27, 2008)

WA said:


> If intelligent designer is true, then why do you want your child to be taught a falsehood in the name of science wasting valuable tax money and students learning time? There is a lot of science in explaining intelligent design and tons of faith in evolution. Hiding a belief, evolution, under a tons of make believe science does not work for me. Therefore it should be removed from the schools. If you want children to learn how to figure stuff out then have them design and build a bridge. I believe in honestesty, not brainwashing. Attacking Christians at school with my tax money by the hoax of evolution scamming as science is totally immoral. And schools are to be a moral example to the students.


I am more than confidant in my ability to share my thoughts and beliefs without relying on a school to do it for me. What are we scared of? Are we actually afraid that some big, bad secularist is going to come in and brainwash our kids? Gimme a break.

What happens when we start teaching faith-based ideas in PUBLIC school? Who's faith with it be? Yours? Mine? Christian? Jewish? Islamic? Buddhist? Shinto? Dr. X from planet Y? No thank you. I'll let the public school teach biology, chemistry, anatomy, physics, and YES - darwinism (though I have to agree that the theory is flawed, but if it's true, who's to say God didn't plan it that way?) - and I'll take care of teaching Christian ideas at home. In the end, it's up to our kids to put it all together and decide.

And by the way - it is NOT the school's job to be a moral leader - that OUR job as parents. It seems to me that the schools have reasonable secular rules that prepare our kids to be law-abiding citizens. (how well they follow through is another topic completely) If you don't like the absence of moral teaching in the schools, then step it up at home.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> Come on now. It is not hard to assume they knew about government "oppression." "No taxation without representation" comes to mind. I like how in one breath conservatives argue we are supposed to have a government and act how the founders wanted us to and in the next they argue the founders could not have predicted abuses of power and potential over reaching. I think they got it that government was run by people and would be susceptible to human actions.


They understood your latter point very well. The effects of "corruption," very broadly defined, were a matter great concern to cranks, pamphleteers, and politicos in the English-speaking world throughout the 18th Century. Bernard Bailyn and John P. Reid are particularly good on this - as was Tom Paine.


----------



## Jovan (Mar 7, 2006)

choirmaestro said:


> And by the way - it is NOT the school's job to be a moral leader - that OUR job as parents.


Quoted for undeniable truth.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Back on topic, I also like Paul Ryan in 2012. A solid conservative, with a sound tax plan.

He's from Wisconsin's 1st, so he has a chance of turning some northern states.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Back on topic, I also like Paul Ryan in 2012. A solid conservative, with a sound tax plan.
> 
> He's from Wisconsin's 1st, so he has a chance of turning some northern states.


Though there are obviously some likely suspects (Ryan, Jindal, etc.), I think the GOP needs to do some soul searching and figure out what it wants to be. The hard right it took several years ago alienated a lot of people (like me) who are small government/strong military/fiscal conservatives...but are socially moderate to liberal. Does it become more centrist? Does it remain right-leaning? That decision, more than anything, will probably dictate the types of candidates who come to the forefront.

This was a humilating, stunning, though not entirely surprising, loss for the GOP. I certainly hope the party's leadership takes this opportunity to ask some serious questions about what it did, and what it needs to do, to reconnect with a wide swath of voters who describe themselves as "moderates."


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

Humiliating and stunning? 

How so?


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Romney. George Romney.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

Relayer said:


> Humiliating and stunning?
> 
> How so?


Good question. A fairly close popular vote when nearly unprecedented disasters plague the incumbent administration is hardly a blood-bath. Had Obama lost, _that_ have been a humiliating and stunning turn of events. This should have been FDR and Hoover all over again. That it wasn't shows the strength of reaction among the people of the US.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Lushington said:


> Good question. A fairly close popular vote when nearly unprecedented disasters plague the incumbent administration is hardly a blood-bath. Had Obama lost, _that_ have been a humiliating and stunning turn of events. This should have been FDR and Hoover all over again. That it wasn't shows the strength of reaction among the people of the US.


obama could have won 47 states and people would be saying he underperformed.

the gop lost north carolina, virginia, florida and indiana - that is humiliating.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> obama could have won 47 states and people would be saying he underperformed.
> 
> the gop lost north carolina, virginia, florida and indiana - that is humiliating.


Sorry, totally ridiculous on all counts.

NC and IN were especially disappointing, no doubt. But, your fervent wish for the election to humiliate the GOP just doesn't make it so.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

TMMKC said:


> Though there are obviously some likely suspects (Ryan, Jindal, etc.), I think the GOP needs to do some soul searching and figure out what it wants to be. The hard right it took several years ago alienated a lot of people (like me) who are small government/strong military/fiscal conservatives...but are socially moderate to liberal. Does it become more centrist? Does it remain right-leaning? That decision, more than anything, will probably dictate the types of candidates who come to the forefront.
> 
> This was a humilating, stunning, though not entirely surprising, loss for the GOP. I certainly hope the party's leadership takes this opportunity to ask some serious questions about what it did, and what it needs to do, to reconnect with a wide swath of voters who describe themselves as "moderates."


What is wrong with Jindal and Ryan? They're not "far-right" but they are fiscal conservatives.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Back on topic, I also like Paul Ryan in 2012. A solid conservative, with a sound tax plan.
> 
> He's from Wisconsin's 1st, so he has a chance of turning some northern states.


A member of the House running against a sitting President? I don't see that one happening. Mark Sanford seems like another good choice. He will be a two term governor of a southern state who doesn't fall into the right wing category like Palin and Huckabee do.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

nolan50410 said:


> A member of the House running against a sitting President? I don't see that one happening. Mark Sanford seems like another good choice. He will be a two term governor of a southern state who doesn't fall into the right wing category like Palin and Huckabee do.


Ah but if you did Jindal/Ryan.


----------



## TMMKC (Aug 2, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> What is wrong with Jindal and Ryan? They're not "far-right" but they are fiscal conservatives.


There's noting "wrong" with either of them, per se. My point was that the GOP needs to figure out exactly what it stands for before it starts throwing support behind particular candidates for 2012. Who know? Maybe Jindal and Ryan are the face of the new GOP.


----------



## MichaelS (Nov 14, 2005)

This ought to get you all going, but Howard Dean is a true fiscal conservative (cut taxes, made State government smaller, balanced the budget, and made a rainy day fund), What is not to like? 

(Sorry to be a troll, but he is really more of a true republican (considering old time republican values) than most of the people you are speaking of).

;-)-


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> This ought to get you all going, but Howard Dean is a true fiscal conservative (cut taxes, made State government smaller, balanced the budget, and made a rainy day fund), What is not to like?
> 
> (Sorry to be a troll, but he is really more of a true republican (considering old time republican values) than most of the people you are speaking of).
> 
> ;-)-


He was while governor of Vermont, but when he achieved national attention he started pandering to the far left.

I was excited when he entered the race, but he started to get creepy. And yes, I've heard the actual audio of the "Dean Scream" with the crowd noise, which made it clear that he was shouting to be heard above the crowd.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

MichaelS said:


> This ought to get you all going, but Howard Dean is a true fiscal conservative (cut taxes, made State government smaller, balanced the budget, and made a rainy day fund), What is not to like?
> 
> (Sorry to be a troll, but he is really more of a true republican (considering old time republican values) than most of the people you are speaking of).
> 
> ;-)-


Do you really believe that?

Paul Ryan:

National Taxpayer Union Rating:

*Name:* RYAN P *Current District:* 01 *Party:* R *State:* Wisconsin *2007 Grade:* A *2007 Score (in %):* 85% *2007 Rank:* 39 *2006 Grade:* A *2006 Score (in %):* 78% *2006 Rank:* 11 *2005 Grade:* B+ *2005 Score (in %):* 69% *2005 Rank:* 32 *2004 Grade:* A *2004 Score (in %):* 78% *2004 Rank:* 25 *2003 Grade:* B+ *2003 Score (in %):* 72% *2003 Rank:* 27 *2002 Grade:* B+ *2002 Score (in %):* 63% *2002 Rank:* 34 *2001 Grade:* B+ *2001 Score (in %):* 69% *2001 Rank:* 46 *2000 Grade:* B *2000 Score (in %):* 66% *2000 Rank:* 58 *1999 Grade:* A *1999 Score (in %):* 72% *1999 Rank:* 20
ACU Rating:

RYAN Paul 
2007 Rating: 96
2006 Rating: 92
Life time: 92.89

Unfortunantly Dean and Jindal aren't rated being governors. I think Jindal would be around the 90th percentile, and Dean would be around 20-30% (he is more conservative than say Pelosi).


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> *A member of the House running against a sitting President? I don't see that one happening. *Mark Sanford seems like another good choice. He will be a two term governor of a southern state who doesn't fall into the right wing category like Palin and Huckabee do.


A community organizer running against a war hero?


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> A community organizer running against a war hero?


War heroes almost always lose in modern America. McCain, Kerry, Dole, BushI.


----------



## nolan50410 (Dec 5, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> A community organizer running against a war hero?


A community organizer *senator* against a war hero *senator*. I'd love to hear the argument that Ryan is in any shape, form or fashion as prominent on the national stage as Obama was at this point 4 years ago.

Jindall is the key, but he's going to be too young and the GOP won't waste him in 2012 if Obama is having success. Jindall will be a force in 2016.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> War heroes almost always lose in modern America. McCain, Dole, BushI.


fixed. Kerry ran from Vietnam and came back to badmouth the troops over there.



nolan50410 said:


> A community organizer *senator* against a war hero *senator*. I'd love to hear the argument that Ryan is in any shape, form or fashion as prominent on the national stage as Obama was at this point 4 years ago.
> 
> Jindall is the key, but he's going to be too young and the GOP won't waste him in 2012 if Obama is having success. Jindall will be a force in 2016.


Four years ago, Senator Obama wasn't big. It was two years ago.

Let's be honest though: parties have thrown candidates in just to run, and sometimes they win. Carter comes to mind.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

nolan50410 said:


> Jindall will be a force in 2016.


Perhaps. But Jindall is Governor of _Louisiana_. He may just as easily be in prison in 2016.


----------



## Concordia (Sep 30, 2004)

Lushington said:


> Perhaps. But Jindall is Governor of _Louisiana_. He may just as easily be in prison in 2016.


But not a state prison. Corruption is in their constitution as a qualification for high office.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Lushington said:


> Perhaps. But Jindall is Governor of _Louisiana_. He may just as easily be in prison in 2016.


One could say that about any politician from Chicago, but look what happened.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> One could say that about any politician from Chicago, but look what happened.


I suppose, by the same measure, he could be in prison by 2016, also.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Poor 'scream' Dean. He was eliminated by dirty tricks. Now he's the DNC lapdog in a bigdog tshirt barking at Ralph Naders using DNC dirty tricks. 
Most of these names are the 'same ol same ol.' Change needs a new word.


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> One could say that about any politician from Chicago, but look what happened.


Illinois senators tend to stay out of the big house. Governors and representatives are less adept.


----------



## a4audi08 (Apr 27, 2007)

Relayer said:


> Sorry, totally ridiculous on all counts.
> 
> NC and IN were especially disappointing, no doubt. But, your fervent wish for the election to humiliate the GOP just doesn't make it so.


lol, it has nothing to do with my wishes. losing VA, NC, and IN is like a democrat losing CA or MA. seriously, look at the long term prospects of your party.

1) educated voters under 30 voted for obama overwhelmingly. 
2) hispanics, probably the fastest growing population, voted overwhelmingly for obama. 
3) there are NO more GOP congressmen in the NE, and Dems are now winning races in Montana, Nevada, and NM. the term "moderate GOP" is becoming an oxymoron. 
4) sarah palin, the most unqualified and ridiculed VP candidate in decades, is now the face of your party. we both know that no one will be the GOP candidate unless s/he satisfies the evangelical base - but anyone that the base OK's is probably too conservative for independents. 
5) go to https://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/president/map.html and look under "voting shifts" and compare 2008 to previous presidential elections. the only part of the country that has become more conservative is the appalachian ridge (from SW PA to TN), the FL panhandle, AK, LA, Northern Texas, and northern AL.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> fixed. Kerry ran from Vietnam and came back to badmouth the troops over there.


I guess the swiftboat ads got to someone. You would think that someone who went to war and won purple hearts would be considered a war hero no matter what party he belongs to or what he did after the war. Maybe by your definition McCain isn't a war hero - he didn't do anything except fall from the sky during a war.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I guess the swiftboat ads got to someone. You would think that someone who went to war and won purple hearts would be considered a war hero no matter what party he belongs to or what he did after the war. Maybe by your definition McCain isn't a war hero - he didn't do anything except fall from the sky during a war.


Except, everyone I know in the military, wouldn't have come home after recieving purple hearts, they would have stayed with their brethren.

Also, at least two of those purple hearts are suspect at best.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Benedict Arnold had a much more impressive war record than Kerry, but oddly enough the Democrats never nominated him to run for president. How things change...


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Except, everyone I know in the military, wouldn't have come home after recieving purple hearts, they would have stayed with their brethren.


How many of those that you know would have bailed from the still-burning Forrestal for some "welcome R&R" in Saigon with a NYT reporter, not even bothering to stick around for the memorial service for the dead sailors? WWII threw up a few exceptions, but as a general rule, in recent decades those military men with the cast of mind to run for President tend to be self-aggrandizing types who don't much resemble Achilles.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

a4audi08 said:


> lol, it has nothing to do with my wishes. losing VA, NC, and IN is like a democrat losing CA or MA. seriously, look at the long term prospects of your party.
> 
> 1) educated voters under 30 voted for obama overwhelmingly.
> 2) hispanics, probably the fastest growing population, voted overwhelmingly for obama.
> ...


Thank you for your editorial, Mr. Olberman:

1 Younger voters are historically more liberal to begin with. It often takes a very popular Republican candidate to sway them. Give them a few years, when utopian thoughts and not living with mommy and daddy will give way to actual responsibilities such as career and family. Reality and life's experiences have a way of making you see things in a different light.
2, 3, and 5 Much of what happened Tuesday was the result of the repudiation of an unpopular sitting president and an economy that suffered a meltdown right at election time. John McCain, while a decent selection, did not have enough to overcome this. The party certainly does need to do some heavy soul searching to get back to a winning formula that also respects Republican values but your dancing on our grave is nothing more than partisan gloating. It may take another election cycle or two to get things to square one, a la 2000, where both candidates were not incumbents and the economy was not as much a factor.
4 It certainly may be wishful thinking on your part, but Sarah Palin is NOT the face of the party and evangelicals and other Christian conservatives are only one leg of the "base". Trying to satisfy just the extreme wing of a political party will not get you elected, as the President elect ably demonstrated. One can certainly have conservative ideals and still not be far right.

Other than that, hi gang, glad to be back. :icon_smile:


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Hey Ken!!!!
As I type, I am listening to Col Mansoor on CSPAN, author of Sunrise in Baghdad: A Brigade Commander's war in Iraq.

Among his many interesting observations, was a reference to Von Clausowitz 'On War' and the observation commanders must understand the war they are fighting and not let it become something else.

Apply this to our two parties. The republicans lost, must regroup. They have it easy. The democrats won, and may very well slip back into fighting the last, or wrong political war in the future.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

KenR said:


> Thank you for your editorial, Mr. Olberman:
> 
> 1 Younger voters are historically more liberal to begin with. It often takes a very popular Republican candidate to sway them. Give them a few years, when utopian thoughts and not living with mommy and daddy will give way to actual responsibilities such as career and family. Reality and life's experiences have a way of making you see things in a different light.
> 2, 3, and 5 Much of what happened Tuesday was the result of the repudiation of an unpopular sitting president and an economy that suffered a meltdown right at election time. John McCain, while a decent selection, did not have enough to overcome this. The party certainly does need to do some heavy soul searching to get back to a winning formula that also respects Republican values but your dancing on our grave is nothing more than partisan gloating. It may take another election cycle or two to get things to square one, a la 2000, where both candidates were not incumbents and the economy was not as much a factor.
> ...


I pretty much agree with that. Let there be no mistake: If the so-called credit crisis had hit this week, the problem would be President-elect McCain's. And think about it. With the nation's economy in its most serious difficulty in a generation, the MSM completely in the tank for Obama, the nation impatient with a war that is lasting longer than a Grey's Anatomy episode (though it really doesn't seem longer), and millions of well-intentioned people wanting to vote for an African-American because he is African-American, the election was still very competitive.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

KenR said:


> Thank you for your editorial, Mr. Olberman:
> 
> 1 Younger voters are historically more liberal to begin with. It often takes a very popular Republican candidate to sway them. Give them a few years, when utopian thoughts and not living with mommy and daddy will give way to actual responsibilities such as career and family. Reality and life's experiences have a way of making you see things in a different light.
> 2, 3, and 5 Much of what happened Tuesday was the result of the repudiation of an unpopular sitting president and an economy that suffered a meltdown right at election time. John McCain, while a decent selection, did not have enough to overcome this. The party certainly does need to do some heavy soul searching to get back to a winning formula that also respects Republican values but your dancing on our grave is nothing more than partisan gloating. It may take another election cycle or two to get things to square one, a la 2000, where both candidates were not incumbents and the economy was not as much a factor.
> ...


Excellent post, Ken, although I'm jealous I did not think of it first. I agree with what you say.

Either this country gets more practical and less ideological, or we will suffer a great deal as we lurch from one extreme to the other based on who plays better short-term political games.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Jovan said:


> The first amendment upholds separation of church and state. Or is that just too hard to fathom? Intelligent design has no place in public schools and you know it.
> 
> Next thing you'll tell me is that the United States were founded by Christians.


I'd like to interject that world religionS should be taught in school. It is extremely ignorant to think that one can have a grasp on the realities of the world without understanding religions of others, whether you are a atheist, Christian, Hindu, Animist, whatever.

We teach literature because literature shapes the way people think, live, and behave, and how things got to be the way they are now. "We read literature to learn about life!" as my 8th grade English teacher liked to exclaim. So, too, does religion. Separation of church and state does not mean the state should DENOUNCE all religions except atheism. It means it cannot force one or outlaw one. Education on holy texts and teachings is not force. It's education.

As an aside, and not directed at anyone in particular, but I hate how supposedly "PC" people bash Christians at a whim, but would never think of bashing, say, Jews, or Muslims.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

The Founders (as if we should do or practice or believe as they wanted us to - how paternalistic) were not all that Christian. I have read in a few places that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible and removed all of Jesus' miracles. He thought Jesus was more of a philosopher than a deity. After 5 weeks of Constitutional Convention Ben Franklyn suggested that they start each day with a prayer from a clergyman but the motion was voted down. Plus they just don't seem all that religious. They were not crusaders. They read works of philosophy. The idea of God given rights is inherently not religious. They Bible doesn't mention God given rights and in fact is full of Godly oppression. They incorporated philosophy into government. God given rights are philosophical. Life, liberty and property is Thomas Paine. These are enlighten, thinking man ideas - not fundamentalist religious imperatives.

So after writing the above paragraph I did a little more research and found:

"Art. 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 Mussulmen and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahomentan 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."

This is from the Treaty of Tripoli which was unanimously passed by the US Senate and signed by President John Adams in 1797.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

Gents,

I voted for McCain and have my doubts about President Elect Obama's policies but lets at least give him a month to put his team in order before we beging planning the 2012 campaign. Given the 24-7 news cycle and the permanent campaign it would be nice to get a least a few weeks break from incessant electioneering. Perhaps current events dictate no rest for the weary but I think we could use a breather, at least through the holidays.

That being said, I am debating between Bobby Jindal and Mitch Daniels for the GOP.

Karl


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

SlowE30 said:


> I'd like to interject that world religionS should be taught in school. It is extremely ignorant to think that one can have a grasp on the realities of the world without understanding religions of others, whether you are a atheist, Christian, Hindu, Animist, whatever.
> 
> We teach literature because literature shapes the way people think, live, and behave, and how things got to be the way they are now. "We read literature to learn about life!" as my 8th grade English teacher liked to exclaim. So, too, does religion. Separation of church and state does not mean the state should DENOUNCE all religions except atheism. It means it cannot force one or outlaw one. Education on holy texts and teachings is not force. It's education.
> 
> As an aside, and not directed at anyone in particular, but I hate how supposedly "PC" people bash Christians at a whim, but would never think of bashing, say, Jews, or Muslims.


I see your point but I was referring to the teaching of religion in a science classroom.

Additionally, I was not Christian-bashing by saying that. The Archbishop of Canterbury is among those who believe that teaching intelligent design in science classes undermines the religious belief in creation.

I believe that God is the Creator but that does not mean I want creation taught in science classes. Children should learn faith from their parents.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> The Founders (as if we should do or practice or believe as they wanted us to - how paternalistic) were not all that Christian. I have read in a few places that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible and removed all of Jesus' miracles. He thought Jesus was more of a philosopher than a deity. After 5 weeks of Constitutional Convention Ben Franklyn suggested that they start each day with a prayer from a clergyman but the motion was voted down. Plus they just don't seem all that religious. They were not crusaders. They read works of philosophy. The idea of God given rights is inherently not religious. They Bible doesn't mention God given rights and in fact is full of Godly oppression. They incorporated philosophy into government. God given rights are philosophical. Life, liberty and property is Thomas Paine. These are enlighten, thinking man ideas - not fundamentalist religious imperatives.
> 
> So after writing the above paragraph I did a little more research and found:
> 
> ...


"God given rights are philosophical"? What the hell does that mean. Read Russell Kirk my friend. As to the Treaty of Tripoli, it states clearly that the "Government" of the U.S. is not founded on the Christian religion. The nation was certainly founded on it. It permeates it and is woven into the tapestry of our culture. Our money says "In God We Trust" as a way of subjugating the power of Government to a higher power.

Thank your lucky stars that this nation was founded on Christian principles. The very notion that we are all equal and have God given rights are rooted on Judeo-Christian principles. The Greeks and the Romans were never able to bring this to perfection.


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> The Founders (as if we should do or practice or believe as they wanted us to - how paternalistic) were *not all that Christian*. I have read in a few places that Thomas Jefferson wrote his own version of the Bible and removed all of Jesus' miracles. He thought Jesus was more of a philosopher than a deity. After 5 weeks of Constitutional Convention Ben Franklyn suggested that they start each day with a prayer from a clergyman but the motion was voted down. *Plus they just don't seem all that religious*. They were not crusaders. They read works of philosophy. The idea of God given rights is inherently not religious. They Bible doesn't mention God given rights and in fact is full of Godly oppression. They incorporated philosophy into government. God given rights are philosophical. Life, liberty and property is Thomas Paine. These are enlighten, thinking man ideas - not fundamentalist religious imperatives.


A stellar string of unsupported conjecture you have there, my friend. They were educated, read philosophy, and thus could not be religious?They don't seem religious because they're not violent crusaders? You should try going to a normal, Godly church someday and see all the violent crusaders in person. Be sure to take your shield for the jousting tournament afterward.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

pt4u67 said:


> "God given rights are philosophical"? What the hell does that mean. Read Russell Kirk my friend. As to the Treaty of Tripoli, it states clearly that the "Government" of the U.S. is not founded on the Christian religion. The nation was certainly founded on it. It permeates it and is woven into the tapestry of our culture. Our money says "In God We Trust" as a way of subjugating the power of Government to a higher power.
> 
> Thank your lucky stars that this nation was founded on Christian principles. The very notion that we are all equal and have God given rights are rooted on Judeo-Christian principles. The Greeks and the Romans were never able to bring this to perfection.


That is true. The 10 Commandments are the soundest legal principles in history IMO


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JibranK said:


> That is true. The 10 Commandments are the soundest legal principles in history IMO


It was the first time in history that a law came into existence that superseded man made laws. It meant that even the sovereign had to answer to a law greater than himself. The Hebrews could keep their kings accountable using God's Law. Our political institutions as we knew them today started in the deserts of Canaan some 3000-4000 years ago.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

JibranK said:


> I see your point but I was referring to the teaching of religion in a science classroom.
> 
> Additionally, I was not Christian-bashing by saying that. The Archbishop of Canterbury is among those who believe that teaching intelligent design in science classes undermines the religious belief in creation.
> 
> I believe that God is the Creator but that does not mean I want creation taught in science classes. Children should learn faith from their parents.


I have not advocated teaching religion or Creationism in the classroom. I just don't think evolution should be handed off to children in a classroom as fact.

It is bad science - Darwin did not follow the scientific method. Teaching Natural Selection is different, as that can be shown scientifically.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

I've read a couple books saying that the founders were more deist than strictly Christian God followers. 

Just because our money says "In God We Trust" doesn't mean "In Christian God We Trust" 

Anyways, I would hope for Ron Paul but he is going to be too old to run again so I am undecided at this point. Our party does however need to redefine itself. We need more libertarian influence and less "Religious Right" 

Many people are being distanced from the republican party just because the entire party is now being lumped as the "Religious Right"


----------



## Lushington (Jul 12, 2006)

MarkfromMD said:


> Just because our money says "In God We Trust" doesn't mean "In Christian God We Trust"


Well, that's pretty much what its proponents had in mind. The phrase first appeared on US Treasury issued coins at the end of the Civil war. It became the National Motto only in 1956, and began showing up on silver certificates the following year. It didn't start appearing on most federal reserve notes until the mid-60s. Not a bad slogan to adorn our current currency.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

Brokencycle,

I was not referring to you or anyone on the forum with that. I was just pointing out that my position was not "Christian-bashing"

With regard to evolutionary biologists, I prefer the work of scientists like Ibn Khaldun ( who was also a theologan) who concluded upon national selection using a better methodology.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

MarkfromMD said:


> Just because our money says "In God We Trust" doesn't mean "In Christian God We Trust"


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.'

What other religons other than Christian and maybe Jewish says that above?

Another thing I like about it is that it shows even government has limits.



> Many people are being distanced from the republican party just because the entire party is now being lumped as the "Religious Right"


What do you expect from the anti-christian media? So much of the media slanders anyway, whats there to believe of the media? Some polls suggest what you wrote above is not the truth. What is the Religious Right anyway? Certainly not all of what the media says, because there are many ideas about what the Religious Right is.

You seem rather impressionable to what left media says.


----------



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

G.O.P. Needs to Change, Pawlenty Tells Governors 
https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/13govs.html?ref=politics


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

WA said:


> 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.'
> 
> What other religons other than Christian and maybe Jewish says that above?


Neither. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a plagiarisation of John Locke's "Life, Libery and Property".

As far as God being the Creator, that's a belief in the vast majority of religions.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

JibranK said:


> Neither. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a plagiarisation of John Locke's "Life, Libery and Property".
> 
> As far as God being the Creator, that's a belief in the vast majority of religions.


Yes, but how many other religions know that the "creator" is the source of their rights? What other peoples could appeal to divine law in order to hold their leaders accountable.


----------



## JibranK (May 28, 2007)

That's different. In that case, yes. It is a trait of the God of Abraham.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

School is supposed to be a place of education. So why not classes on the various religions?

I don't know why so many people hate the "Religious Right". They are asking for less than what this country was when I was a kid. So, why all the bawling? (I expect to hear some dumb answers with that last question)


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

JibranK said:


> Neither. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness is a plagiarisation of John Locke's "Life, Libery and Property".
> 
> As far as God being the Creator, that's a belief in the vast majority of religions.


I wouldn't deem it plagarism. That being said: the reason Jefferson did not use Property is that he did not want to give a justification for slavery. The Constitution only prevented the ban of slavery for a limited time. By changing 'Property' to the 'Pursuit of Happiness,' this prevented the argument that slaves were a God-given or natural right.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Our currency is riddled with masonic symbols. That doesn't make our country masons anymore than a gay man smoking Camels straight ( look at the front leg of the camel sometime.)


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

WA said:


> School is supposed to be a place of education. So why not classes on the various religions?
> 
> I don't know why so many people hate the "Religious Right". They are asking for less than what this country was when I was a kid. So, why all the bawling? (I expect to hear some dumb answers with that last question)


I think I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have no problem with a class on the various religions taught in public schools. I think if you were to ask most people in this country they would have no problem with that. The issue is that is not what the religious right wants. They want religion taught in science class and presented as science or at least as an "alternative view." The problem is that creation science is not science. Besides being wrong if you were to go into legitimate college or university in the developed world and ask any biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy, etc. professor they would tell you the same thing (I'm sure someone will dig up some crazy-eyed science professor to dispute this).

In a world with terrible diseases, lack of resources, energy scarceness, terrorism, etc. we need to be looking for real answers. We should be debating how many hours a day students should spend in their science classrooms - not if religious beliefs should be taught in them.

Again, I have 0 problem with religion in a religious class. I don't even have a problem with Christianity taught in a Christianity class. But not in science class. Religion in based on faith. Science is based on replicable observances and methods. Two different things.


----------



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

At Governors Meeting, Palin Looks Ahead https://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/13/us/politics/14Repubs.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Religion is taught in school. A 'Bible as literature' class is, along with Shakespeare almost obligatory to understand the many literary references, as is a classical mythology unit. 
A class in comparative religion will explain the cultural and historical backgrounds of world religions while the works of Jospeh Campbell make compelling reading for themes found in all. 
What schools cannot, should not teach is Theology.
As an anthropology major, I heared all the classic reasons for swine being unclean in Judaism.
It took a evening class in judaism at my local temple to get a obvious answer from the rebi, and a overlooked one from a jewish biologist. 
Theology is too important to trust to the state.
the safeguards go both ways.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> I think I'm a pretty liberal guy...


Your a good example of why evolution should not be taught in school. You show the only science going on in the class room is brainwashing and indoctrination.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Kav said:


> Religion is taught in school. A 'Bible as literature' class is, along with Shakespeare almost obligatory to understand the many literary references, as is a classical mythology unit.
> A class in comparative religion will explain the cultural and historical backgrounds of world religions while the works of Jospeh Campbell make compelling reading for themes found in all.
> What schools cannot, should not teach is Theology.
> As an anthropology major, I heared all the classic reasons for swine being unclean in Judaism.
> ...


You said it pretty well. I will add that sometimes "Theology" needs to be taught for the historical side. Like in India where, I believe it was too Moguls who where fighting over "Theology" reasons, so we in history class learned a bit about their "Theology" so we would understand what the war was about and how it change or continued history. I never wanted anybody to teach me in public schools about the Christian religion for Theologcial reasons. Nor did I want "science" to attack it, but to respect it.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

WA said:


> Your a good example of why evolution should not be taught in school. You show the only science going on in the class room is brainwashing and indoctrination.


And you're an arrogant douche bag. It happens.


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Wasn't that reply to WA a bit uncalled for?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Stringfellow is one of the reasons I stopped going to public protests.
You present a cogent argument, show respect to your opposition , their views and learn from each other.
And then some psuedo anarchist smashes a Starbucks window.


----------



## Karl89 (Feb 20, 2005)

WA,

I impatiently await your treatsie on the nature of faith and doubt.

Karl


----------



## SlowE30 (Mar 18, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> ... The issue is that is not what the religious right wants. They want religion taught in science class and presented as science or at least as an "alternative view." ....


Says who? I'm a Christian and I didn't vote for Obama and I don't want that. I don't think that's "the issue" here at all. Frankly, I think it's another excuse to bash the faithful based on a few wackos.

In fact, the mysteries and remarkable improbability of "life" and its survival up to this point serve only to bolster my belief that this wasn't all a cosmic accident. Bill Bryson's "A Short History of Nearly Everything" goes into some detail about how crazy it is that we ended up here, intelligent beings flinging electrons thousands of miles at eachother over the internet. I draw my own conclusions.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> And you're an arrogant douche bag. It happens.


There are a number of Christians and non Christians in this world who work at creating medicines who do not believe in macro evolution. There have been so many advancements in medical discoveries without one thought going to macro evolution. There are many discoveries that took longer because they were looking for macro evolution. There is not a single medical discovery that shows or depends upon macro evolution. Even if there was any truth to macro evolution you show that your teachers mixed the facts to con you into believing macro evolution. You should know what slander is and when you see it you should check the other side out, which in this case would mostly be intelligent design. Just because some want it to be and convinced others to want it to be has nothing to do with the facts no matter how they explain their wishes as though they are truth. There is an enormouse amount of science to be taught that has nothing to do with macro evolution. In fact all of it.

Another part against your aurguement is the fact that a number of scientic have walked away from macro evolution because they have come to the conclusion it's impossible. The smallest creature on earth is so complicated that the odds of macro evolution is zero, plus what would it eat. After all the first would have to eat and there was nothing for it to eat for it can only eat something that has evolved. See how long it takes you to live eating nothing biological such as rocks, sand and clay. Even plants have to have something biological to come up through its roots. One method to con is to distract people from regular thinking. Your biggest hero of macro evolution believes life was brought here by aliens, which is avoiding the question of how did life start.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I feel squeezed tighter by this dumb debate than a Trilobite fossil or a tract inside pastor Hagee's rear end pocket.
I profess christian faith through just about the most traditional and conservative expression around ( How many orthodox priests does it take to change a lightbulb? Patriarch looks up from his desk with a upset look ' change?')
As a member of the scientific community, evolution is a tool.
I have posted this before. Evolution only discusses the 'how.' It does not address the who, or most importantly the why, or even the why not.
If I may quote Jack Palance in his Oscar winning role as Curly Washburn " You worry about a lot of crap."


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> There are a number of Christians and non Christians in this world who work at creating medicines who do not believe in macro evolution. There have been so many advancements in medical discoveries without one thought going to macro evolution. There are many discoveries that took longer because they were looking for macro evolution. There is not a single medical discovery that shows or depends upon macro evolution. Even if there was any truth to macro evolution you show that your teachers mixed the facts to con you into believing macro evolution. You should know what slander is and when you see it you should check the other side out, which in this case would mostly be intelligent design. Just because some want it to be and convinced others to want it to be has nothing to do with the facts no matter how they explain their wishes as though they are truth. There is an enormouse amount of science to be taught that has nothing to do with macro evolution. In fact all of it.
> 
> Another part against your aurguement is the fact that a number of scientic have walked away from macro evolution because they have come to the conclusion it's impossible. The smallest creature on earth is so complicated that the odds of macro evolution is zero, plus what would it eat. After all the first would have to eat and there was nothing for it to eat for it can only eat something that has evolved. See how long it takes you to live eating nothing biological such as rocks, sand and clay. Even plants have to have something biological to come up through its roots. One method to con is to distract people from regular thinking. Your biggest hero of macro evolution believes life was brought here by aliens, which is avoiding the question of how did life start.


If this was a stand-up routine it would be hilarious. Unfortunately, I don't think it is stand-up, so it is simply very sad.

Buzz


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

Part of excitement of discussing these topics is deciphering what WA says.


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

WA said:


> There are a number of Christians and non Christians in this world who work at creating medicines who do not believe in macro evolution. There have been so many advancements in medical discoveries without one thought going to macro evolution. There are many discoveries that took longer because they were looking for macro evolution. There is not a single medical discovery that shows or depends upon macro evolution. Even if there was any truth to macro evolution you show that your teachers mixed the facts to con you into believing macro evolution. You should know what slander is and when you see it you should check the other side out, which in this case would mostly be intelligent design. Just because some want it to be and convinced others to want it to be has nothing to do with the facts no matter how they explain their wishes as though they are truth. There is an enormouse amount of science to be taught that has nothing to do with macro evolution. In fact all of it.
> 
> Another part against your aurguement is the fact that a number of scientic have walked away from macro evolution because they have come to the conclusion it's impossible. The smallest creature on earth is so complicated that the odds of macro evolution is zero, plus what would it eat. After all the first would have to eat and there was nothing for it to eat for it can only eat something that has evolved. See how long it takes you to live eating nothing biological such as rocks, sand and clay. Even plants have to have something biological to come up through its roots. One method to con is to distract people from regular thinking. Your biggest hero of macro evolution believes life was brought here by aliens, which is avoiding the question of how did life start.


https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_vogt.html

https://dgukenvis.nic.in/artmar1.htm

These are merely two articles but if you do a Google search for "bacteria hydrothermal vents" you will find 1,000's of them. These are bacteria that consume various inorganic compounds including hydrogen sulfide and heat from deep water vents.  They are miraculous creatures that serve as the bottom of the food chain for most deep water life. They "eat" nothing that has evolved - they merely "eat" chemicals and heat. Not to mention there are lots of plants that can survive on water, sunlight, and nitrogen. If you ever go to EPCOT you can see lots of hydroponic plants growing. Now of course at EPCOT they use fossil fuel derived nitrogen fertilizer but seeing as how nitrogen is an element the plants and animals that died millions of years ago to create the fossil fuels got the nitrogen from somewhere.

Feel free to live an uninformed life if you wish. Every biology class I ever attended was predicated on a discussion of evolution. There is lots of evidence of evolution (the fact that codons are universal throughout nature seems like pretty strong evidence). But please, next time you are sick do not rely on medicine created by a witch doctor that graduated from a liberal elite university - pray for healing - see how far it gets you.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I take communion of prosphora, wine and water in the belief it is the blood and body of Jesus.
I direct unbelievers to the delights of nature as Stringfellow just linked as further evidences of God's infinite love.
Now, my cat needs some grilled turkey delight at 64 cents a can. HE thinks I am nothing less than miraculous providing it daily.


----------



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

Republican governors go back to the drawing board https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-gop14-2008nov14,0,3578221.story


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

Stringfellow said:


> https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_vogt.html
> 
> https://dgukenvis.nic.in/artmar1.htm
> 
> These are merely two articles.....


Everything they eat is biological. Do you know where methane comes from. It even said hydrogen sulfide is biological. I know plenty about hydrogen sulfide having worked in the oil industry. Everything from the oil industry pulled up out of the ground is biological, except for rocks and sand. That means over 2,000 chemicals form the oil industry are somehow biological. What it explained is basically how mushrooms and funguses live off of rotting dead decaying plant life. All these deep sea creatures on the two webpages you provided above depend on the biological for nourishment.

You still haven't answered my question about eating. Plus I was taught by macro evolutionist that the first life was so crude, which means they would have to eat like crazy just to stay alive. Reproductive systems are rather complicated, too. For the first creature to have that takes some explaining. Because that is planning ahead. So, not evolution.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I think I'm a pretty liberal guy and I have no problem with a class on the various religions taught in public schools. I think if you were to ask most people in this country they would have no problem with that. The issue is that is not what the religious right wants. They want religion taught in science class and presented as science or at least as an "alternative view." The problem is that creation science is not science. Besides being wrong if you were to go into legitimate college or university in the developed world and ask any biology, chemistry, physics, anatomy, etc. professor they would tell you the same thing (I'm sure someone will dig up some crazy-eyed science professor to dispute this).
> 
> In a world with terrible diseases, lack of resources, energy scarceness, terrorism, etc. we need to be looking for real answers. We should be debating how many hours a day students should spend in their science classrooms - not if religious beliefs should be taught in them.
> 
> Again, I have 0 problem with religion in a religious class. I don't even have a problem with Christianity taught in a Christianity class. But not in science class. Religion in based on faith. Science is based on replicable observances and methods. Two different things.


How can you say that evolution is not based on faith? It can't be scientifically proven.

Natural selection is one thing, evolution is another.

I believe the most adept species survive and gain dominance in their habitats and thus perpetuate their genetic code. I believe that over time species "evolve." However, natural selection, unlike evolution, has no foresight (and is almost random) - the mutations of a creature might actually be a hindrance, and then that creature will eventually cease to exist.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> https://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_vogt.html
> 
> https://dgukenvis.nic.in/artmar1.htm
> 
> ...


First of all you can't eat "heat." Heat is simply the transfer of thermal energy - Mr. Science here should know better.

Secondly, what does medicine have to do with evolution? Last I checked antibiotics were discovered on accident and had nothing to do with evolution. Also, last time I checked medicine is heavily founded in the scientific method.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

The celebration of ignorance on this list is just breathtaking.

Buzz


----------



## Stringfellow (Jun 19, 2008)

M6Classic said:


> The celebration of ignorance on this list is just breathtaking.
> 
> Buzz


No kidding! If you can't understand that there are lots of creatures that consume inorganic compounds there is no reasoning with you.

It's ok to believe the sky God created life but that is a belief that cannot be tested. I can't do an experiment with 10mol HCl, 1mol O, and 1mol God. Is the notion of evolution science? Yes. Why? It can be tested. We have a fossil record, genetic testing, etc. It is a testable theory which makes it scientific. God isn't testable.

Lots of science taught in the past has been wrong but that doesn't make it not science. We use to think the earth was the center of the universe. We taught this as scientific truth. It was wrong! But it was testable and correctable. We use to teach that the earth was flat. We were wrong. But the notion was testable which makes is science. The fact that an idea is right or wrong isn't what makes it teachable as scientific. The fact that it is testable does. I can't test God. Keep the faith! Faith is a beautiful thing - just not in science class.


----------



## Miket61 (Mar 1, 2008)

Stringfellow said:


> I can't do an experiment with 10mol HCl, 1mol O, and 1mol God.


Of course not - Oxygen is diatomic.


----------



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

*Republican governors go back to the drawing board*

https://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-gop14-2008nov14,0,3578221.story


----------



## Kingsfield (Nov 15, 2006)

A Way Out of the Wilderness by Karl Rove 
https://www.newsweek.com/id/169173


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Stringfellow said:


> No kidding! If you can't understand that there are lots of creatures that consume inorganic compounds there is no reasoning with you.
> 
> It's ok to believe the sky God created life but that is a belief that cannot be tested. I can't do an experiment with 10mol HCl, 1mol O, and 1mol God. Is the notion of evolution science? Yes. Why? It can be tested. We have a fossil record, genetic testing, etc. It is a testable theory which makes it scientific. God isn't testable.


Evolution is a theory. I cannot be tested because of the time involved. It is induced based on evidence, but it cannot be directly tested. Nor does evolution attempt to explain the origin of life! Read, and I mean actually read, Darwin and you will see what I mean.

God is not testable, but neither do we know how memory is stored and retrieved in our brains. Neither do we know why we love, or feel jealous. We don't know why we need sleep and we don't know why we dream. These things cannot be tested. All things that occur in God's creation are part of that creation. Scientific principles are part of creation and exist within the laws of creation. Nothing there that contradicts God or creationism. We cannot look for the truth of God in a Laboratory because God stands outside his creation.

I'm typing on a computer right now. I can run no experiment in order to determine how many people made it. Who they were, what their names were, how old they were. I cannot know what was in their mind the moment they were making it. They stand outside of their work. I can judge the work by itself and know that something outside of it made it.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Evolution is a theory. I cannot be tested because of the time involved. It is induced based on evidence, but it cannot be directly tested. Nor does evolution attempt to explain the origin of life! Read, and I mean actually read, Darwin and you will see what I mean.
> 
> God is not testable, but neither do we know how memory is stored and retrieved in our brains. Neither do we know why we love, or feel jealous. We don't know why we need sleep and we don't know why we dream. These things cannot be tested. All things that occur in God's creation are part of that creation. Scientific principles are part of creation and exist within the laws of creation. Nothing there that contradicts God or creationism. We cannot look for the truth of God in a Laboratory because God stands outside his creation.
> 
> I'm typing on a computer right now. I can run no experiment in order to determine how many people made it. Who they were, what their names were, how old they were. I cannot know what was in their mind the moment they were making it. They stand outside of their work. I can judge the work by itself and know that something outside of it made it.


Therefore, evolution and creationism are equal? This is just craziness. The best thing students of science can do is just ignore the creationists as much as possible. After all, it is only the creationists who think their is a debate between evolution and creationism.

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> Therefore, evolution and creationism are equal? This is just craziness. The best thing students of science can do is just ignore the creationists as much as possible. After all, it is only the creationists who think their is a debate between evolution and creationism.
> 
> Buzz


I never said, nor did I imply, that evolution and creationism are equal. Evolution does not attempt to define how life began. Please read Darwin before you start to speak of evolution. Darwin attempts to describe how life evolved. The origins of "species". That is to say that how life evolved into the different forms that it now displays. I'm not saying that I completely agree with it, but that's what Darwin was trying to describe.

What you call "creationism" has nothing to do with Evolution. One can have a scientific mind and study and believe in the evolution of life yet still believe in the divine creation of life by God. Evolution is therefore a natural phenomenon that exists within the totality of God's creation. Evolution is the same as any number of directly or indirectly observed phenomenon that are such.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> I never said, nor did I imply, that evolution and creationism are equal. Evolution does not attempt to define how life began. Please read Darwin before you start to speak of evolution. Darwin attempts to describe how life evolved. The origins of "species". That is to say that how life evolved into the different forms that it now displays. I'm not saying that I completely agree with it, but that's what Darwin was trying to describe.
> 
> What you call *"creationism" has nothing to do with Evolution*. One can have a scientific mind and study and believe in the evolution of life yet still believe in the divine creation of life by God. Evolution is therefore a natural phenomenon that exists within the totality of God's creation. Evolution is the same as any number of directly or indirectly observed phenomenon that are such.


If we can agree that creationism has nothing to do with evolution then I admit my error. Unfortunately, many people consider creationism and its evil spawn, intelligent design, as alternatives to evolution.

I have read Darwin, all of it and I understand him very well. I was fortunate enough to study evolution and ethology with the great thinker and theorist, Nick Thompson. I have my own ideas about evolution, not all of which would be described as Darwinian.

Buzz


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

M6Classic said:


> If we can agree that creationism has nothing to do with evolution then I admit my error. Unfortunately, many people consider creationism and its evil spawn, intelligent design, as alternatives to evolution.
> 
> I have read Darwin, all of it and I understand him very well. I was fortunate enough to study evolution and ethology with the great thinker and theorist, Nick Thompson. I have my own ideas about evolution, not all of which would be described as Darwinian.
> 
> Buzz


Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Its like saying a ham sandwich is an alternative to a Buick! And you'll forgive me if I say that although you say you have read Darwin, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of his ideas. You take evolution as a postulate. You're wrong. Evolution has not, and most likely cannot, be proven. It is an induction made on observation. The main problem with Darwin is wrapped up on the last sentence in your post: You have your own ideas about evolution.

You have taken a theory that has very little evidence supporting it and have run with it, turning it into something quasi-religious. If evolution were absolute, then it would not be open to interpretation, would it? I cannot argue the facts of mathematics; two plus two equals four but I have my own opinion on that! Evolution has therefore become a religion in and of itself. It has its own prophets, and has over the years expanded to try to explain more than what it was originally intended to do.

I don't have a problem with evolution being taught in schools. I don't even want "intelligent design", which I find a ridiculous notion, being taught. But I want evolution to be taught correctly.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Creationism is not an alternative to evolution. Its like saying a ham sandwich is an alternative to a Buick! *And you'll forgive me if I say that although you say you have read Darwin, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of his ideas.* You take evolution as a postulate. You're wrong. Evolution has not, and most likely cannot, be proven. It is an induction made on observation. The main problem with Darwin is wrapped up on the last sentence in your post: You have your own ideas about evolution.


No, I do not have a fundamental misunderstanding of Darwin's ideas, and trust me when I tell you in all kindness and understanding that I have been lectured about Darwin by people with far greater minds than yours or mine. What I do have is a fundamental disagreement with some Darwinian...not necessarily Darwin's, mind you...principles, chief among which is any idea that evolution is linear or progressive.

Buzz


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> ...two plus two equals four but...


Two plus two equals five for really large values of two. :icon_smile_wink:


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*It's bris!*



Kav said:


> I don't know about future republican candidates. I do know one future republican. Joe Lieberman went from Gore's VP candidate to Cheney lapdog to independant caucusing his former party to supporting McCain.
> The guy's a republican transvestite and needs to come out of the closet and complete the operation the brise obviously fouled up.


https://www.torahview.com/bris/html/the_bris.html


----------



## Blueboy1938 (Aug 17, 2008)

*The un-Bush!*

Senator John McCain spent the last two years making himself over in the image of President George W. Bush. He put the frosting on that cake by nominating Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President. Interestingly, she woke up the core Republicans at the convention. He put them to sleep.

Dan Lundgren (R-Sacramento) is seeking to replace John Boehner as minority leader in the House of Representatives. Boehner is arguably the highest ranking Republican national figure, now that Senator McCain has acquired the title of "looser." Lundgren's argument is that, if the Republican Party doesn't put on a more inclusive and less doctrinaire face, and, oh yeah, mean it, they are going to have a very hard row to hoe. Their only hope if they don't is that Barack Obama screws up.

Even if the Republicans manage to retake some seats in Congress, that's not where the next Republican presidential candidate will come from. Why? Because more of the moderate Republicans were knocked off in 2008, making the national officeholders look increasingly conservative and radico-religio-right.

The only hope for a potential winner on the Republican ticket in 2012 is a governor. Bobbie Jindal of Louisiana looks good, if a little too new at the moment. By 2012, if he watches his step and events don't swamp him (another Katrina?), he will look more seasoned.

Charlie Crist of Florida is another possibility that has a little more "seasoning" than Jindal, having won statewide office thrice, but not much.

The problem for the Republicans is that the rabid right, with it's cheerleaders like Rush Limbaugh, have obviously driven the party into the ground. 2008 was just the next step in that process after the 2006 disaster. The motor-mouths like Limbaugh are urging more of the same. That's a formula for further irrelevance.

My sense is that whomever is nominated by the Republican Party for president will be tossed under the bus. That means no chance, really, of winning the White House back until 2016, no matter who runs.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Yeah, moderates like George Bush and John McCain are clearly the GOP's future.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If folks on the right want to get some of their agenda considered (and they do have some good ideas) they need to be political like the rest of the political spectrum and learn to be realistic and to compromise.

Otherwise, they will be in dismay as politicians they severely disagree with continue to be elected.


----------



## charms (Mar 24, 2007)

Christie Todd Whitman. Politically connected family, balanced and credible approach to environmentalism, socially moderate, former governor of a fiercely Democratic state, and one of the earliest to bail on the sinking ship USS Bush.

The far right won't like her, but she's kind of Republican who can win elections.


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

charms said:


> Christie Todd Whitman. Politically connected family, balanced and credible approach to environmentalism, socially moderate, former governor of a fiercely Democratic state, and one of the earliest to bail on the sinking ship USS Bush.
> 
> The far right won't like her, but she's kind of Republican who can win elections.


...and yet she refuses to confirm or deny that she dated Steve Forbes in high school.

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

charms said:


> Christie Todd Whitman. Politically connected family, balanced and credible approach to environmentalism, socially moderate, former governor of a fiercely Democratic state, and one of the earliest to bail on the sinking ship USS Bush.
> 
> The far right won't like her, but she's kind of Republican who can win elections.


She is a Republican in name only. Seriously, in what way is she not a Democrat? Leaving aside her ability to secure the nomination, she would lose badly in a general election. The Republican turn-out would be tepid, and the Dems would say nice things about her and all vote for her opponent. Not clear why independents would favor her over her Dem opponent. We already tried a moderate Republican against a liberal Democrat -- it worked poorly. I don't see how a liberal Republican would fair better against a liberal Democrat.


----------



## yanks1184 (Oct 28, 2008)

I believe that Joe L would have made a better VP for McCaine than Palin for obvious reasons. So when the next election comes rolling around, I'd be willing to bet that we see good ole Joe somewhere on the Republican ticket; that is if the GOP wants to grab some of those swing votes back. Of course this is all contingent on The O-man and his ability to follow through on his promises.


----------



## charms (Mar 24, 2007)

Mike Petrik said:


> She is a Republican in name only. Seriously, in what way is she not a Democrat? Leaving aside her ability to secure the nomination, she would lose badly in a general election. The Republican turn-out would be tepid, and the Dems would say nice things about her and all vote for her opponent. Not clear why independents would favor her over her Dem opponent. We already tried a moderate Republican against a liberal Democrat -- it worked poorly. I don't see how a liberal Republican would fair better against a liberal Democrat.


Like I said, the far right won't like her. She is a solid Republican moderate, in other words in line with the majority of the country that is fiscally conservative and socially moderate-liberal.

If you look at her record, she is tough on crime, cuts taxes, has a reasonable cooperate-with-industry-but-not-too-much approach to the environment, supports limited drilling in ANWR, supports "work first" welfare and benefit limits, and supports free trade. Solid GOP positions. On the issues where she disagrees with the GOP's right wing, she's in line with the majority of the country. As a bonus, she's actually intelligent, informed, and capable of fending off lightweights like Katie Couric.

I'm not necessarily saying I support or like her, I'm just saying that I think she fits the profile of a winning Republican for 2012/2016.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> She is a Republican in name only. Seriously, in what way is she not a Democrat? Leaving aside her ability to secure the nomination, she would lose badly in a general election. The Republican turn-out would be tepid, and the Dems would say nice things about her and all vote for her opponent. Not clear why independents would favor her over her Dem opponent. We already tried a moderate Republican against a liberal Democrat -- it worked poorly. I don't see how a liberal Republican would fair better against a liberal Democrat.


Not to quote the Rolling Stones, but "You can't always get what you want."

Perhaps uniting behind someone who is electable might make a lot more sense than simply giving the liberals a blank check to do whatever comes up.

This would mean that a lot of folks out on the right will either have to reach true adulthood or watch as the country goes a lot further to the left than it would have if they thought with their brains instead of their emotions.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> This would mean that a lot of folks out on the right will either have to reach true adulthood or watch as the country goes a lot further to the left than it would have if they thought with their brains instead of their emotions.


Judge not for you do what you judge others of doing. Abortion is stepping on a slippery slope. Now it is more than abortion. What and who is next? So, who is not thinking, but going by foolish feelings?


----------



## M6Classic (Feb 15, 2008)

WA said:


> Judge not for you do what you judge others of doing. Abortion is stepping on a slippery slope. Now it is more than abortion. What and who is next? So, who is not thinking, but going by foolish feelings?


Does Chauncey Gardener write your stuff, Wa?

Buzz


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> Not to quote the Rolling Stones, but "You can't always get what you want."
> 
> Perhaps uniting behind someone who is electable might make a lot more sense than simply giving the liberals a blank check to do whatever comes up.
> 
> This would mean that a lot of folks out on the right will either have to reach true adulthood or watch as the country goes a lot further to the left than it would have if they thought with their brains instead of their emotions.


Perhaps I wasn't clear. I am asking for someone to explain to me why Whitman is not a GOP liberal indistinguishable from Dem liberals. Without such an explanation, I do not see how a Republican liberal is more electable than a Democrat liberal, and further don't see why anyone would care. For example, in what areas are Whitman's policy positions different from either Obama or Clinton?


----------



## KenR (Jun 22, 2005)

charms has already stated that Christine Todd Whitman is a _moderate_ Republican, which would put her as something of a centrist on the larger political scale.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

What, these days, is a Republican? For a sobering viewpoint, consider The Economist's Lexington's current essay, Ship of Fools.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

KenR said:


> charms has already stated that Christine Todd Whitman is a _moderate_ Republican, which would put her as something of a centrist on the larger political scale.


Whatever "charms" is can state whatever it wants, but my question remains unanswered.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

Blueboy1938 said:


> Senator John McCain spent the last two years making himself over in the image of President George W. Bush. He put the frosting on that cake by nominating Governor Sarah Palin for Vice President. Interestingly, she woke up the core Republicans at the convention. He put them to sleep.
> 
> Dan Lundgren (R-Sacramento) is seeking to replace John Boehner as minority leader in the House of Representatives. Boehner is arguably the highest ranking Republican national figure, now that Senator McCain has acquired the title of "looser." Lundgren's argument is that, if the Republican Party doesn't put on a more inclusive and less doctrinaire face, and, oh yeah, mean it, they are going to have a very hard row to hoe. Their only hope if they don't is that Barack Obama screws up.
> 
> ...


If someone can figure out a way to get Palin to sit down and shut the hell up, make Joe the (non) Plumber (who was definitely a RNC plant) disappear, and put a cork in Limbaugh and Hannity, everything would be in good shape! Then Obama could go about his business and we'll get this country back on track.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

DownSouth said:


> If someone can figure out a way to get Palin to sit down and shut the hell up, make Joe the (non) Plumber (who was definitely a RNC plant) disappear, and put a cork in Limbaugh and Hannity, everything would be in good shape! Then Obama could go about his business and we'll get this country back on track.


Anyone who questions Obama must be an RNC plant! All resistance should be silenced and quelled. Remove all political figures who show any resistance. We are all now sheep in the Obama flock.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Anyone who questions Obama must be an RNC plant! All resistance should be silenced and quelled. Remove all political figures who show any resistance. We are all now sheep in the Obama flock.


Yes, plainly if Obama cannot cure the thousands of crises (i.e., the famine, plague, etc.) caused by George Bush, it the fault of the Governor of Alaska and Joe the Plumber.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Anyone who questions Obama must be an RNC plant! All resistance should be silenced and quelled. Remove all political figures who show any resistance. We are all now sheep in the Obama flock.


Don't be so naive. We're supposed to believe this guy just shows up and asked these preposterous questions on his own; I don't think so. He wasn't even a plumber, had no way to buy a business (which wasn't for sale), he wasn't intelligent enough to know what he was asking much less understand Obama's explanantion, and then he's running all over the country with McCain and Palin. Coincidence, right? These boobs built their entire campaign around this moron!
The entire Republican party is made up of mindless sheep! They'd follow Sara Palin off a damned cliff if she led them to do so.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

DownSouth said:


> If someone can figure out a way to get Palin to sit down and shut the hell up, make Joe the (non) Plumber (who was definitely a RNC plant) disappear, and put a cork in Limbaugh and Hannity, everything would be in good shape! Then Obama could go about his business and we'll get this country back on track.


Why does Obama need Joe to "disappear" in order to do his job?


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DownSouth said:


> Don't be so naive. We're supposed to believe this guy just shows up and asked these preposterous questions on his own; I don't think so. He wasn't even a plumber, had no way to buy a business (which wasn't for sale), he wasn't intelligent enough to know what he was asking much less understand Obama's explanantion, and then he's running all over the country with McCain and Palin. Coincidence, right? These boobs built their entire campaign around this moron!
> The entire Republican party is made up of mindless sheep! They'd follow Sara Palin off a damned cliff if she led them to do so.


Now that is a funny post! Yep, we Republicans planted him alright. Flew him direct from Area 51 in a black helo! It is amazing how you can always count on the delusional to think that those who don't see the conspiracy are naive.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

Mike Petrik said:


> Now that is a funny post! Yep, we Republicans planted him alright. Flew him direct from Area 51 in a black helo! It is amazing how you can always count on the delusional to think that those who don't see the conspiracy are naive.


Now, now, Mike! Let's not get carried away. The operative words there are "mindless sheep". And bottom line is, the best guy won. Your guys had nothing to offer but same old, same old. Plus, putting the country at risk with such a nitwit for a running mate. The phrase "President Palin" should have been enough to scare the pure hell out of anyone with an ounce of common sense. Talk about putting desire to win over love of one's country.


----------



## Mike Petrik (Jul 5, 2005)

DownSouth said:


> Now, now, Mike! Let's not get carried away. The operative words there are "mindless sheep". And bottom line is, the best guy won. Your guys had nothing to offer but same old, same old. Plus, putting the country at risk with such a nitwit for a running mate. The phrase "President Palin" should have been enough to scare the pure hell out of anyone with an ounce of common sense. Talk about putting desire to win over love of one's country.


Thanks, Downsouth. I gather some of your words are operative and some are not. And since in this case I can hardly be expected to guess which are which, I'll not waste my time in responding.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

O.k. Obama has killed his Lion and become a man.
That's the easy part. Now he has a very short honeymoon
with the american people and window of opportunity to deliver. American Opinion is no longer a shifting tide.
It's a washing machine with burned out controls switching from agitator to rinse to spin and back again.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

*Touche'*



Mike Petrik said:


> Thanks, Downsouth. I gather some of your words are operative and some are not. And since in this case I can hardly be expected to guess which are which, I'll not waste my time in responding.


Touche', my friend! All in good spirit .... no malice intended and, hopefully, none taken.
Have a great day!!


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

DownSouth said:


> Don't be so naive. We're supposed to believe this guy just shows up and asked these preposterous questions on his own; I don't think so. He wasn't even a plumber, had no way to buy a business (which wasn't for sale), he wasn't intelligent enough to know what he was asking much less understand Obama's explanantion, and then he's running all over the country with McCain and Palin. Coincidence, right? These boobs built their entire campaign around this moron!
> The entire Republican party is made up of mindless sheep! They'd follow Sara Palin off a damned cliff if she led them to do so.


And the award for most sweeping generalization ever goes to....

How smart does someone have to be to understand that if you own a business that has an income of $250,000 a more your taxes would go up? How hard is it to understand that Obama said that "spreading the wealth around is a good thing." Not to mention, how is it a preposterous question? Taxes that would affect oneself are hardly that.

How did the entire McCain campaign build itself around Palin? It was around long before Palin was a part of the national scene.

So you know which plumbing business he was going to buy? And just because one isn't a licensed plumber, doesn't mean they aren't one, nor does it mean they can't purchase a plumbing business.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> And the award for most sweeping generalization ever goes to....
> 
> How smart does someone have to be to understand that if you own a business that has an income of $250,000 a more your taxes would go up? How hard is it to understand that Obama said that "spreading the wealth around is a good thing." Not to mention, how is it a preposterous question? Taxes that would affect oneself are hardly that.
> 
> ...


First point, the tax increase (3%) is on individual income tax AGI of $250,000, not on a business that makes $250,000 a year.
Second, "spreading the wealth around" has been around for awhile, it's known as "taxation".
Thirdly, unless you were asleep, the news coverage was much more about that dimwit, Sara Palin than it was about McCain; which in some part probably cost him the election.
And, yes news reports did say that Joe's employer said his business was not for sale. And, I would think that an income of around $40,000 annually plus unpaid taxes of $1200 would probably preclude anyone from buying any business. Guess what, his taxes don't go up at this income level.
You might expand your horizons and tune out The Fixed News network with their one-sided view and try some more honest reporting like Chris Matthews or Keith Olberman, who at least present an intelligent, investigative report, instead of right-wing propaganda.
Have a good day.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

If the business is a small partnership or LLC (very few businesses as C Corporations), the income does flow through and is taxed to the individual(s) that own that business.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

forsbergacct2000 said:


> If the business is a small partnership or LLC (very few businesses as C Corporations), the income does flow through and is taxed to the individual(s) that own that business.


Taxable income, not gross income.

What's oppressive about tax rates equal to or lower than the Clinton era? IIRC, the economy did rather better than the last eight years.


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

Please, no Bobby Jindal. 

The last thing we need is another Bushite water-carrier for the left wing of the party.

I'm hoping for an actual conservative -- perhaps Mark Sanford.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

scwtlover said:


> Taxable income, not gross income.
> 
> What's oppressive about tax rates equal to or lower than the Clinton era? IIRC, the economy did rather better than the last eight years.


You recall incorrectly.



Jolly Roger said:


> Please, no Bobby Jindal.
> 
> The last thing we need is another Bushite water-carrier for the left wing of the party.
> 
> I'm hoping for an actual conservative -- perhaps Mark Sanford.


Jindal is a conservative. How is he not?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

DownSouth said:


> First point, the tax increase (3%) is on individual income tax AGI of $250,000, not on a business that makes $250,000 a year.
> Second, "spreading the wealth around" has been around for awhile, it's known as "taxation".
> Thirdly, unless you were asleep, the news coverage was much more about that dimwit, Sara Palin than it was about McCain; which in some part probably cost him the election.
> And, yes news reports did say that Joe's employer said his business was not for sale. And, I would think that an income of around $40,000 annually plus unpaid taxes of $1200 would probably preclude anyone from buying any business. Guess what, his taxes don't go up at this income level.
> ...


Nice try. I don't watch news on TV at all. The reason the news coverage was about Sarah Palin was because the news figured they could demonize her - somthing they couldn't with McCain.

Funny, Barack Obama talked about us midwesterners being bitter and clinging to guns and religion. He also talked about campaigning in 57 states with one to go. You never heard about this in the news.

Second, spreading the wealth around isn't called taxation. In fact, this country survived for quite some time without the income tax.

Third, you know people buy companies all the time when they can't afford them.... it is called loans or investors. Who said Joe was going to buy the company he was working for?

I forgot though... you liberals are so much smarter than all of us that is why you need to be in charge of the government so you can pass high taxes and numerous mandates so you can "help" us live "better."


----------



## Jolly Roger (Apr 26, 2007)

brokencycle said:


> Jindal is a conservative. How is he not?


Bobby Jindal is about as "conservative" as George W. Bush.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Brokencycle,
Since the election, a frenzy is taking place. I don't know the demographics, but firearm sales have exploded since the election. People in Texas were buying four (4) that's four(4) M1A sSpringfields at TWICE the already inflated price of a scant few days before.
Handguns of any configuration are flying out the doors ( well, after the waiting period in some states.)My nieghbor, who never held a firearm in his life just came home with a Ruger Super Blackhawk,Just like "Dirty Harry's GUN."
I'm sleeping on hte floor at night for awhile. He did grouse about ammo.
People have yet to make the connection between two conflicts and the escalation in brass, lead and powder.
People are buying 5000 round bricks of .308 and that fav of the true american patriot- the SKS and it's 7.62 proudly made by the People's Army.
It's almost as if enough cases of ammo will build the third piggie's house so the big bad wolf can't blow it down.But then again some people think masturbation an intimate relationship.
I'm a content Liberal with my SMLE, 60 rounds of Rhino 215 moose and bear loads and 200 fresh military Hardball.
See, I've got a liberal plan for the Anazazi God of destruction, brother to Kokopelli, known as TEOTWAWKI
-the end of hte world as we know it. 
I KNOW where all the guns and ammo are bunkered in this town. I figure I'll corner the market on SPAM, one of the few companies on 3 nonstop shifts with open overtime and falling behind demand.
I'll swap one can for two boxes ,no 4 boxes of ammo. Anybody object with that chicom tyrejack, I'll pull a mujahadeen on them and utilise that old Smelly's superior range.
Now I have 4 rifles and 5000 rounds of ammo. diabolical, ain't it?
Maybe Obama is right on this one.


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

It is unfair to compare the last few years to the Clinton era because there was this little thing that happened during the Clinton years called the explosion of computer use. 

Obama's tax policies are morally reprehensible as he is "only raising taxes on the top 5%" and said 5% currently pays 60% of the income tax burden.

And Kav, guns aren't even allowed in Kalifornia dontcha know.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Jolly Roger said:


> Bobby Jindal is about as "conservative" as George W. Bush.


Explain. Give specific examples of how he is a liberal.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Kav said:


> Brokencycle,
> Since the election, a frenzy is taking place. I don't know the demographics, but firearm sales have exploded since the election. People in Texas were buying four (4) that's four(4) M1A sSpringfields at TWICE the already inflated price of a scant few days before.
> Handguns of any configuration are flying out the doors ( well, after the waiting period in some states.)My nieghbor, who never held a firearm in his life just came home with a Ruger Super Blackhawk,Just like "Dirty Harry's GUN."
> I'm sleeping on hte floor at night for awhile. He did grouse about ammo.
> ...


So are you implying that Obama is directly responsible for the end of the world? :devil:

It is a fear that has some basis though. Obama has an F by the NRA. He also has an F by the ACU and the Taxpayer's Union.

People are afraid he'll take their guns, so they're getting them before they can't.

Don't worry, you can still get .22 ammo at less than 6 cents per round.

But that .50 AE is over $1.50.round. How is a man suppose to defend himself from the zombie infestation?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Mark, knock of the kalifornia insults. That isn't Lenin laid to rest at a ridgline library within sight of my apartment.
While we have some onerous gunlaws, and equally onerous guncrimes, ownership is still a exercised right.And you can do what in our nearby nation's Kapital?


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> So are you implying that Obama is directly responsible for the end of the world? :devil:
> 
> It is a fear that has some basis though. Obama has an F by the NRA. He also has an F by the ACU and the Taxpayer's Union.
> 
> ...


Baseball or cricket bats, golf clubs, chainsaws, hammers etc. 
Guns would certainly be a better defense, but eventually you will run out of ammo and the zombies will eat you.

-When there is no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the earth.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Brokencycle
A half day drive on my buggout route is a desert ranch so desolate even the coyotes skirt it for several miles.
I'm in a recyprical friendship with the progenitor of Burt Gummer.
He lives in a thick walled adobe in an invisible box canyon that's cool in summer and warm in winter.
I've got some 'stuff' stashed out there that would make our governator cry ' Please, I am really a girly man in private life.Don't shoot that Luftwaffe survival drilling at me."
The trick was packing in the old 37MM cannon by pack mule at night
I swear those Area 51 guys were changing course when we showed up on the air to ground heat sensors.......


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Baseball or cricket bats, golf clubs, chainsaws, hammers etc.
> Guns would certainly be a better defense, but eventually you will run out of ammo and the zombies will eat you.
> 
> -When there is no more room in hell, the dead shall walk the earth.


Chainsaws make too much noise- they attract the living dead. They also tend to jam on human flesh.

Melee with a zombie is also dangerous. :icon_smile:

Besides, if we give up our guns we'll be at the mercy of even the Canadians. :devil:


----------



## MarkfromMD (Nov 5, 2008)

Kav said:


> Mark, knock of the kalifornia insults. That isn't Lenin laid to rest at a ridgline library within sight of my apartment.
> While we have some onerous gunlaws, and equally onerous guncrimes, ownership is still a exercised right.And you can do what in our nearby nation's Kapital?


Haha Kav, Maryland is ranked 5th for best gun laws by the Brady bunch so we are actually the 5th worst state for gun rights. No CCW or hi-cap mags here either.

Very interesting to see you talking about BO as survivalism isn't normally something that comes up on a clothing forum.


----------



## DownSouth (Jun 30, 2005)

brokencycle said:


> Nice try. I don't watch news on TV at all. The reason the news coverage was about Sarah Palin was because the news figured they could demonize her - somthing they couldn't with McCain.
> 
> Funny, Barack Obama talked about us midwesterners being bitter and clinging to guns and religion. He also talked about campaigning in 57 states with one to go. You never heard about this in the news.
> 
> ...


The "filtered" media as she called it (whatever the hell that is) didn't demonize Palin, they just let her talk and she took care of that on her own. The woman needs to learn when to shut up.

The "57 state" snafu was reported numerous times on the news channels I watched.

And Joe the Plumber is the one who said he was buying the company he worked for.

And lastly, I'm not a "liberal". I just happened to vote Democratic this time because I thought they had the best candidate(s) for our country after eight years of the dumbest President this country has ever had. We don't consider ourselves "smarter" than anyone; it's just that we choose to "think" rather than follow party politics no matter who is nominated and refuse to let our decisions be made for us by useless people like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Brit Hume, Bill Bennett, Bill O Reilly, and the countless other "conservative" moronic talking heads that spew their hatred and meaness over the airways daily.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

MarkfromMD said:


> It is unfair to compare the last few years to the Clinton era because there was this little thing that happened during the Clinton years called the explosion of computer use.
> 
> Obama's tax policies are morally reprehensible as he is "only raising taxes on the top 5%" and said 5% currently pays 60% of the income tax burden.


President Clinton left office with the budget in surplus and economists worrying about the impact on credit markets of paying down the national debt (because of the reduced need for government securities). President Bush offered (unsustainable) tax cuts as his panacea for every problem and its opposite. At the same time he misled us into an unnecessary war that he funded through increased deficits and borrowing.

Heckuva job, Bushie.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

brokencycle said:


> Chainsaws make too much noise- they attract the living dead. They also tend to jam on human flesh.
> 
> Melee with a zombie is also dangerous. :icon_smile:
> 
> Besides, if we give up our guns we'll be at the mercy of even the Canadians. :devil:


Oh, I didn't mean to suggest we should give up our guns. I have several guns. I was just pointing out that eventually you will run out of ammo and have to resort to other means. A cricket bat seemed to work well for Shaun.

Hopefully the zombies are more like the ones Shaun faced (slow and dim witted) rather than the ones in Dawn of the Dead (2004).


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

I am not a survivalist. I believe in emergency
pre- preparedness. Bugging Out is a 72 hour grab and go bag in case of fire or earthquake.
the whole firearms paranoia cracks me up.
When I worked at Home Despot, I became embroiled in this old debate.
I walked through the store with our head of security, a super conservative who burned a candle before a photo of Buchannan.
I assembled a one shot knuckle gun with PVC, a nail and a few components I won't mention.
The cartridge was a nail gun .22, supposedly locked, but typically several spilled on the floor.
Our debate removed itself outside behind the store.
I killed a pigeon with one shot, my only shot.
With a few operations, my 'shotgun' was a harmless assembly of building materials.
My friend is begging me to show him the assembly sequence again. The asistant manager just looked pale, mumbled about what I must know and wasn't sharing.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

DownSouth said:


> The "filtered" media as she called it (whatever the hell that is) didn't demonize Palin, they just let her talk and she took care of that on her own. The woman needs to learn when to shut up.
> 
> The "57 state" snafu was reported numerous times on the news channels I watched.
> 
> ...


Have you ever actually listened to Special Report with Brit Hume? I have to be honest, I've never heard him "spew hate or meanness." And I also think that program tends to be pretty neutral. The panal at the end tends to lean conservative with people like Krauthammer, but they also have people from NPR on there.

And liberals of course "think" and don't "follow party politics." I mean, no one makes their decision based on what Thomas Friedman writes or any of those other "unbiased and neutral" articles in the New Republic or The Progressive.


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

Laxplayer said:


> Oh, I didn't mean to suggest we should give up our guns. I have several guns. I was just pointing out that eventually you will run out of ammo and have to resort to other means. A cricket bat seemed to work well for Shaun.
> 
> Hopefully the zombies are more like the ones Shaun faced (slow and dim witted) rather than the ones in Dawn of the Dead (2004).


I hope so as well, and most other references to zombies are the slow dim-witted kind.

There's always the Zombie Survival Guide if you're interested. Some of it is valid; however, I don't buy into his "use a .22 because it is light and ammo is cheap" argument. At any sort of range a .22 is not going to pierce the zombie's skull.


----------



## scwtlover (Nov 12, 2008)

brokencycle said:


> And liberals of course "think" and don't "follow party politics." I mean, no one makes their decision based on . . . any of those other "unbiased and neutral" articles in the New Republic . . ..


When was the last time you read through an issue -- or several issues -- of The New Republic?


----------



## brokencycle (Jan 11, 2008)

scwtlover said:


> When was the last time you read through an issue -- or several issues -- of The New Republic?


The last time I read an article was yesterday. I just read some of the articles linked on RealClearPolitics.


----------



## Green Lantern (Dec 19, 2006)

*Separate Church from State!*

Isn't that the platform that gave initial rise to this "Republican" party in the first place? Now, you are just a bunch of Church people trying to establish a government. Allow the freedom of thought to reinvigorate your Party and stop running a bunch of close minded props for office!


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Green Lantern said:


> Isn't that the platform that gave initial rise to this "Republican" party in the first place? Now, you are just a bunch of Church people trying to establish a government. Allow the freedom of thought to reinvigorate your Party and stop running a bunch of close minded props for office!


Care to elaborate on how the GOP is trying to advance religion using government? I'd really like to see a realistic example rather than the usual swinging at shadows.


----------

