Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Monday, July 28, 2008
Bill Steigerwald :: Townhall.com Columnist
Government Is Our Problem
by Bill Steigerwald
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



On Jan. 20, 1981, when Ronald Reagan delivered his inaugural address to a nation battered by high inflation, punitive taxes and a stagnant economy, he said famously, “In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

“Yeah, right!” said all the sophisticated socialists in politics and media who assumed Reagan knew and cared as little as they did about limited government, free market capitalism and individual freedom.

Reagan's libertarian rhetoric was better than his actual governance or his ability to derail or even downsize the speeding train of Big Government. But his complaint about government is truer than ever.

Behind virtually every major social problem, financial crisis or corruption scandal that afflicts us lies the heavy hand or leaden foot of government, which today in all its levels gobbles up more than 50 percent of our annual GDP and controls more of our lives than ever.

The list of current government fiascoes and crises is long and bipartisan.

The Iraq War: Whether we “win” or lose, whether it was a bloody $3 trillion strategic blunder or a brave moral crusade, it could be brought to us only by Big Government and the politicians in charge of it.

The Energy Crisis: Our increased dependency on foreign oil and $4-a-gallon gasoline is a result of nearly 30 years of failed federal energy policy, which for political reasons has put us at the mercy of the thugs who run places like Venezuela and Saudi Arabia.

The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Crisis: As expert Peter Wallison recently told the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, you can put the blame squarely on Congress for not only failing to regulate Fannie and Freddie but also for encouraging them to make irresponsible investments in housing that have exacerbated the subprime mortgage mess.

The Dollar Crisis: No greedy Big Banks to blame. The only entity in America with the power to depreciate our money or wreck our economy is the federal government.

Ongoing federal fiascos – far too numerous to count in their entirety – include our failed, wasteful and/or hideously distortive agriculture, transportation, immigration and health-care policies; the homeland security mega-bureaucracy in infamous; the war on drugs is lost; our national forests are permanently mismanaged.

And let's not forget our state and local governments. Pennsylvania’s government -- famous for high taxes, mismanaged state highways and a bloated, corrupt and self-serving Legislature – has no peer. And Pittsburgh, like most big cities, is tortured continually by the waste, inefficiency and incompetency of its government mass transit systems and public schools.

Government invariably causes problems and does harm to some at the expense of others, no matter where it treads, because it is an evil mix of power and politics. The only solution -- as every libertarian knows -- is to severely limit the power and scope of the state.

Reagan naturally understood that. So did the great classical-liberal political theorist Herbert Spencer. He tried to warn about the "proper sphere of government" way back in the 1840s.

Government, Spencer wisely wrote, should not be used to do such impossibly complex things as regulate commerce, educate the people, provide charity or even make roads and railways.

It should be used "simply to defend the natural rights of man -- to protect person and property -- to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak -- in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more."

Too bad nobody listened to old Herb. It would have saved us a lot of problems.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Bill Steigerwald, born and raised in Pittsburgh, is a former L.A. Times copy editor and free-lancer who also worked as a docudrama researcher for CBS-TV in Hollywood before becoming a reporter for the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and a columnist Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. Bill Steigerwald recently retired from daily newspaper journalism..
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Yeah?
Every word you write is true (well, I do have one quibble), but WHERE IS THE CANDIDATE FOR LIMITED GOVERNMENT? Huh? Where?!?

He sees the problem
Yet offers no solution. I believe we all know the reason; the solution is too terrible to contemplate. And that my dear friends is the best armor money can buy for the continued dismal function of government.

Oh Well,
and it's easy to state the obvious. Unfortunately, I see no candidate that is espousing limited government. As far as this POTUS race is concerned, Proverbs 14:7 tells us that we should stay away from fools if we are looking for wise counsel.

Government is not the problem
To claim government is the problem is in effect to claim anarchy as the answer. It's silly.

The problem is what kind of government is best. Government of, by and for multi-national corporations IS a problem. Government of, by and for the PEOPLE is not a problem and is the answer. Libertarianism is also not the answer... it is simply an idealistic impractical and unworkable idea that exist no where in the world that the author could point to as evidence to back his claim of advocacy for it.

Here's the authors list of so-called government crisis;

The Iraq War: Brought to you by weapons contractors, for-profit media and the oil companies.

The Energy Crisis: Brought to you by the auto-industry and the oil companies

The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Crisis: Brought to you by Wall Street and bankers pushing deregulation to make themselves rich with the backing of the US taxpayer

The Dollar Crisis: brought to you by a Fed policy directed by banking and finance gurus

Ongoing federal fiasco's – agriculture (Mega-Ag corporations) transportation, (the AUTO AND OIL industries) immigration (LARGE EMPLOYERS HIGHERING LOW WAGE WORKERS) and health-care policies ( Thank you Health Insurance industry and their 25% administration fees); the homeland security mega-bureaucracy in infamous; the war on drugs is lost; our national forests are permanently mismanaged. (Private security agencies, privatized jails and selling our forest to mega-corporations in that order)


When you dream of small government and unregulated markets you get mega-corporations capable of taking over the government to their advantage.


Until the PEOPLE take back control of their government from multi-national wealthy elitist expect more of the same.

Republicans leadership is expert at making the right wingers believe they are voting for their best interest when in fact they are voting to sell out our country to people who see it as nothing more then easy money.

not the GOP
Well, after a few years of consideration, I left the GOP a few weeks ago for the Libertarian Party. Do I like their social policies? No. Do I like their international policies? No. But, I think the biggest threat to freedom right now is big government, so I'm now an official card carrying Libertarian.

(I think I'm probably going to get on some weird mailing lists.)

muirgeo

Your considerations might be right. However, please do remember that, if Government didn't have the power in the first place to influence/do things you listed, big corporations would have nowhere to go to buy results that suit them.

Unbelievable
I can't believe the kind of Marxist swill people are willing to drink and pass around. When faced with the ridiculous abuses of government power by expansive bureaucracies driven by "Progressive" partisans, people attempt to obfuscate the issue by placing blame on "the corporations."

Energy policy is crippled because of the "Environmentalist" lobby's appeal to a diseased union of populist rhetoric with backdoor money deals through the Democrat Party. Sure, Big Energy Companies don't seek competition, but Government is the entity blocking competition out of the market to appease Eco-Terrorists and their ignorant flunkies.

The Fannie/Freddy crisis was brought on by the inability of Big Government to police itself and the idea that "Equality of Results" could somehow be legislated into existence. Idiotic do-gooders thought that handing out "free money" to people with no credit qualifications was a public service.

Even Health Care is being poisoned due to government interference. The government has created a non-competitive environment due to pointless regulations that lend themselves to favoritism. They also provide a tax advantage to Employer-based Insurance and screw anyone seeking Individual or Family coverage in a competitive market.

Here's a hint: Big Bad Business only gets to stay that way because idiots like you created a Big Government for them to leverage into squashing competition.

Limited government is the only way to secure freedom. The top-most level of government exists to smite foreign invaders and market monopolists, conduct international diplomacy, and regulate conflicts between the States. It certainly doesn't exist to provide for your retirement, subsidize lifetime poverty, provide you with insurance, build you a house, control and define "education," or force acceptance of your particular culture, religion, or sexual predilections.

muirgeo says:
"Until the PEOPLE take back control of their government from multi-national wealthy elitist expect more of the same."
Not to make light of obviously sincere intent but I have to ask. You say TAKE BACK. To, like the Walmart Customer Service Center? Take back how? It's the same question I posed for Steigerwald.
They say you can't unscramble scrambled eggs, you can't put the genie back in the bottle, and you can't put governments back into their chains once unloosed.
I challenge any one of you to tell me not what we need to do but how.
I doubt there are enough of you up to it to make up a basketball team.


Nothing silly about it
muirgeo writes - 4:39 PM EST
Government is not the problem
To claim government is the problem is in effect to claim anarchy as the answer. It's silly.
===
Government has been the main problem all through the history of the world.
Nazi Germany for instance.
Government was the problem.

This government today is the biggest problem in America, everything else is minor in comparison

Igor wrote


"Your considerations might be right. However, please do remember that, if Government didn't have the power in the first place to influence/do things you listed, big corporations would have nowhere to go to buy results that suit them. "


Yeah that's the standard Libertarian argiment but government has to be able to go to war,to have an energy policy, to build roads an dto coin money. I mean how do you expect a minimalist government to be able to do these things if it has almost NO power. No it's not perfect but I don't fear a government as long as it is of,for and by the people. It's the only way!


MellorSJ2 asks where the limited gov't
candidate is. That's easy - the Libertarian and Constitution Parties.

Even in the GOP there are depressingly few who want to return our federal government to its constitutional limits.

Some of you asked what the solution is. I propose that those of us who believe in limited government:

- for POTUS, vote for Barr (LP) or Baldwin (CP), not McCain, or any write-in.

- If you've got a reasonably conservative GOP senator in a tight race, vote for him even if he's a big spender. We'll need at least 41 non-RINO GOP senators to keep Obama from doing stuff like national health care.

The GOP does better at limiting government growth against a democrat than against a big-government republican (compare 1995-2000 vs 2001-now).

My hope is that McCain loses a couple of red states by margins less than the CP+LP vote, and that the GOP responds by nominating a relatively limited government candidate such as Jindal or Palin in 2012.

I'm afraid the best we can hope for at this point is to limit the growth of government. Maybe in a few years when social security and medicare collapse people will get a clue.

Goverment

Here is the decision tree that makes this issue simple.


1) Do you want to live in
A) a country with a government? or
B) one with out government?

Assuming you chose 2A

2A) Do you want your government to be
A) representative. or
B) of a hereditary nobility


Assuming you choose 2AA

3AA) Do you want government to represent;
A) the will of ALL the people
B) the will of an elite minority.

Right now we have the later and that seems the will of the Republicans. It was also the will of the pre-revoltionary Tory's who supported King George.
It's that simple.

muirgeo, I want my government to
follow the constitution, not an elite minority or a mob.

Earlier you wrote "The problem is what kind of government is best." How about that which governs least"?

You wrote "Libertarianism is also not the answer... it is simply an idealistic impractical and unworkable idea that exist no where in the world"

Our constitution sets forth a libertarian government. This country followed it very well up to the civil war, then had significant setbacks under progressives such as Teddy, Wilson, Hoover. It basically died under FDR, if it wasn't dead already.


You wrote "The Energy Crisis: Brought to you by the auto-industry and the oil companies."

No - we would not be having this crisis if government would allow domestic drilling. American Auto companies are getting their butts kicked. American oil companies, while doing well, would be doing even better - and not at our expense - if we quit sending so much energy money to other countries. Government also has subsidized corn ethanol and other stupid boondoggles which have screwed up other markets.

continued...

What question for today not covered
By the Founders?

The US Constitution covers it all.
Limited Government
Separation of Powers

It is being ignored by Government today, and is why the Government is the problem

to muirgeo, part 2
muirgeo wrote "The Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Crisis: Brought to you by Wall Street and bankers"

Did you read the column? That one was caused by government mandating that mortgage companies lend money to people unlikely to pay it back. Surprise! Many of them didn't pay it back.

"The Dollar Crisis: brought to you by a Fed policy directed by banking and finance gurus"

Again, government spends more than it makes, and prints money. The fact that those people used to work for banks doesn't mean small government doesn't work - it means big government isn't working.


"When you dream of small government and unregulated markets you get mega-corporations capable of taking over the government to their advantage."

This is oxymoronic - if a corporation has gotten government to give it an advantage, that IS BIG GOVERNMENT. Real deregulation merely gets government out of the way, not in the mix helping certain companies at the expense of others.

I do agree with you on one thing - far too much of the GOP is more interested in making corporations happy than following the constitution. I hope they get their butts kicked out of office for that.

This says it best
It should be used "simply to defend the natural rights of man -- to protect person and property -- to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak -- in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more."

Herbert Spencer

The US Government was once limited and did not have the power to grow into all the areas it has since the 1930's.

What has changed to allow Government Restriction to be removed?
The money system itself.

From the Gold Standard to the Printing Press of the Federal Reserve Banking System.
Illegally handed the Power of Congress to set the value of the money supply.

Article I

Section 1. All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Section 8.
Clause 4.
To coin money, regulate the value thereof

Bankers are setting the value of our money and can print off as much of it Congress wants.
All of it is then added to the National Debt, from whence comes all the taxes, also illegally.

When do people demand the government obey the law?
The government is committing crimes against the Law themselves, and it abuses it Constitutional Powers daily.
This is the true problem, we do not demand it in any strength of numbers

GW Bush & GOP
pass a 0.3 trillion dollar corporate welfare package for Fannie mae and Freddy Mac and nobody but Laura Ingraham and Michael Savage say a damn thing. The vote in the Senate people was 72-13. That's a hell of a lot of RINOS. The vote in the House according to Boehner was 25% GOp in favor of this Socialist Corporate Welfare bailout at the hands of the US taxpayers and yet again furthering our runaway natioanl debt - ALL ON THE TAXPAYERS' BACK TO BAIL OUT THEIR CORPORATE BUDDIES IN CORPORATE AMERICA. This is heinous insanity. It is 1776 all over again. It is the reincarnation of King George III. Ronald reagan would be LAMBASTING today's GOP, and Ronald Reagan would be voting for Chuck Baldwin of The Constitution Party. Reagan would be SCREAMING at the top of his lungs at today's RINO GOP which is a carbon-copy of the ignominiously evil Democrats. Look at the stunning silence on townhall about this. They snuck this one like they almost did SCAMNESTY complegtely under the radar and TOWNHALL HAS NOTHING ABOUT IT. Like Laura Ingraham said, "We should be marching on DC" right now. Our politicians don't give a damn about WE THE PEOPLE'S MONEY. The entire generation of BAby Boomer's have a sense of entitlement, most having been spoiled rotten by The Greatest Generation who were their parents who wanted to provide them with all the things they had to do without. America will never be great again until the Boomers are dead and gone.

I DON'T SEE A SOLUTION
Congress and big business are the only places people in power can go, stay 2-4 years, get the best health care taxpayer money can buy and a retirement, all voted for themselves by themselves. AND, look at the homes most of them live in. I was told my senator, Hatch, lives in an elegant mansion. He was elected with the pledge of serving for a limited time. Now with his financial situation and his control of the republican infrastructure, he has a strangle hold on his seat. It's just ridiculous.

Mitt Romney was correct when he said gov't is broken. They can't seem to do anything beneficial to our citizenry. At least he used his own money and didn't expect his party backers to pay him back - that should say something about his character. All they want to do is create better ways to influence our basic behavior, even our buying choices. But the worst part is their inaction on expedient problems. To not allow votes on energy bills is tatamount to treason against the constitution and stopping the democratic process. They promoted the "noble" effort to get as many people as possible into homes, but we now have the housing collapse which spreads the financial bondage through deficits to everyone when they bail these companies out. It devalues our dollar and causes a cynergy of financial woes. BOTH parties share the blame for our present state, hence the dismal approval statistics. We need more noble and honest people leading our country. The biggest problem is without hugh wealth or an unpopular religion, one cannot hope to get elected, and the majority of wealthy people don't seem to give a damn for Joe American.

Chris,
You claim the subprime meltdown was a result of government mandate and you also claim that unfettered drilling would solve our energy problems.

You are ignorant of the truth and if you want to debate these in more detail go to my Townhall blog; Of, By and For the People and I'll educate you to how uninformed you are on the facts of these issues. You listen to right wing propaganda and you never hear the truth or never question their assumptions based on ignorance.

Also the dollar crisis is exatcly what the wealth and banker class want. That's how they get so rich. You really show me that you are completly uninformed on these issues.

What DC Doesn't Want You to Know
is that your government is now a Corporocracy, of, by, and for the Corporations, as Lou Dobbs so aptly puts it. Both parties run political whores like brothels for their CEO connections on K Street. They don't care one iota if they have to spend YOUR HARD-EARNED taxpayers' money to pay fortheir innumerable Corporate Welfare Bailouts to please their Corporate CEo buddies in need all at your expense. That's why numerous politicians in the GOP including President RINO along with their fellow corporate whore brethren in the Democratic Party just put on the American Taxpayer's credit line(The National Debt) another corporatewelfare bailout to the tune of 0.3 trillion dollars, all while you were distracted with your summer vacations. They have already done the same for Chrysler, the airlines, their buddies on Wall Street, and countless others all because they know the average American will be just ignorant enough to think emotionally that using OUR taxpayer money to bail out these suffering corporations is so SWEET. Maybe the terrorists will aim a little better next time; they hit the wrong building! I hope thios generation is the generation to start American Revolution, Part II. We must vote 3rd party and even have coalition government if not for any other reason than to block the madness. Liberalism is runnign away with our nation. They have already brainwashed an entire generation because the short-sighted goofball lawyer IDIOTS in the GOP stood back and let the Democratic Party teachers' unions BRAINWASH THE ENTIRE ELECTORATE.

Here is the proof guys!
This chart graphically depicts what I claim. You put the deregulatory republicans in office and spending shoots through the roof because Corporations come to dominate and control policy in a relatively unregulated environment.

http://www.issues2000.org/askme/ndebtgdp.gif

Zietgeist
"The government is committing crimes against the Law themselves, and it abuses it Constitutional Powers daily."


"The government " is doing these crimes because it is contrioled by a wealthy ruling elite.


Watch all 5 parts of this Zeitgeist film.

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




Take back the government



"We must vote 3rd party and even have coalition government if not for any other reason than to block the madness."


I could agree with you here. Imagine if evetryone vowed not to vote for either major party in all future national and state elections. That mght be a way to take back the government.

Some one should start an organization weather conservative or liberal just vow NOT to vote for either of the two major parties.

muirgeo, you say government is not
the problem, but corporations using the government is the problem. That's contradictory.

You say "the dollar crisis is exatcly what the wealth and banker class want." Agreed. But it is the GOVERNMENT that actually creates the crisis, not the banks.

I can want a billion dollars, but it only becomes a problem for someone else when the government forces them to give me some.


Your chart shows that the GOP have become big spenders, INCREASING the size of government, which is the problem.

I'm not defending the GOP, which has spent off the deep end since Bush took office. I am saying we need to limit government, which would solve (and/or have prevented) all the problems you're discussing.


The 1977 Community Reinvestment Act prevented banks from selecting only the most likely to repay loans. The 1995 changes to that act "substantially increased the amount of loans to ... low- and moderate-income borrowers for home loans..." and "allowed the securitization of CRA loans containing subprime mortgages..."

Government is largely responsible for the current credit crisis by that act, and by insulating banks that take poor risks by bailing them out. That encourages bad-risk taking in the future. A bank - or any business - that makes poor choices should be allowed to crash and burn without government interferance.

It's unanimous:vote 3rd party this year.
I can't imagine what McCain can do to get me to vote for him. I'm waffling between Barr and Baldwin - I was for Barr all the way until his idiotic July 17 statements on Global Warming.

I've been planning to vote to re-elect my GOP senator, Jeff Sessions. He's been a good conservative force on some issues. But he's a big spender - he (and Shelby, my other senator) voted for the bloated farm bill and this stupid credit bailout over the weekend.

I'd love to vote 3rd party there, but I'd hate to be a part of allowing Obama to have a filibuster-proof senate.

I joined the Constitution Party
My hope is for the death of both controlling political parties of democrats and republicans.

Read the Constitution Parties Platform for yourself

http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php

There are all sorts of wild eyed conspiracy nutcases lying about what they stand for.

Read it yourself, its like reading Jefferson

Good Times, Bad Times
There is enough blame to go around, if you ask me. Big government with it’s irresponsible spending has just as much to do with our problems as does big business and it’s profiteering. But let us not overlook another player at the table, the American public.

If you read about what daily life was like during WW2 or the depression, or better yet are able to talk to those who lived through those years you will quickly realize that we have had it relatively easy, as a nation, for the last several decades. Not that I have anything against that per se, but we seem to have forgotten by and large that those good times were just that. We are not entitled to them by virtue of just living in America though we can definitely realize them here better than anywhere else in the world!

Perhaps the energy crisis is a blessing in disguise in that it may force a return to sensible and responsible living/spending by government, corporations and individuals as well as re-igniting good old fashion work ethics.

We have nearly an entire generation that has never had to sacrifice as a whole. That has got to have an impact somewhere down the line whether that is of feeling entitled to the good life or of not truly appreciating it when one has it.

I don't think so, Chris
"Subject: MellorSJ2 asks where the limited gov't
candidate is. That's easy - the Libertarian and Constitution Parties."

The Constitution Party is explicitly a xian party. Moreover, as I scrolled down to post this, I see that No Talent has joined it. That means FOR SURE that it's wrong headed.

As for the Libertarians, I am so registered, but what I remember about Barr was (and maybe I remember wrong) that he's a social conservative more suited to the CP.


Rationalizations for Obama

The complex process the human mind uses to arrive at decision-making has been the topic of many volumes.

One consensus that is generally held is the human mind can justify any decision and any action that it takes.

Rationalization is the mortal enemy of facts, logic and reason.

Rationalization is in ‘simple’ terms, a defense mechanism that attempts to explain bad decisions or behavior in a rational logical manner.

Rationalizing that a vote for any candidate that cannot win is not a vote for Obama gives us a prime example of rationalization.

Rationalizing that a ‘symbolic’ vote will teach the major parties a lesson contrasts the reality of their premise that the major parties ‘do not know what they are doing’ and ‘haven’t learned from the past’.

Teaching 'Politicians' a lesson is oxymoronic at best - Obama-Followers will vote for Obama regardless. Third party votes at this time in history, is simply a 'proxy' vote for Obama that gives one a feeling of 'superior' Patriotism, I guess.

Rationalizing that ones closely held principles trump the safety and wellfare of America and its citizens is little different from those who want America destroyed.

Those who say we need to return to the Constitution that many Americans have left or attempted to destroy will be best accomplished by giving those Americans their desires and wishes is akin to giving children matches and gasoline.

The children will surely learn a lesson if survival succeeds in overcoming the odds.

Rationalizing that an Obama presidency will be good for America in the long run defies facts, logic and reason.

MellorSJ2 - whatever you think of TS,
I recommend you follow his link to the CP platform. You may be surprised at how libertarian they are. There is nothing contradictory between the libertarian philosophy of government and conservative Christianity.

Jesus and the apostles did not attempt to use force to convert unbelievers, and were concerned about their unbelief to the complete exclusion of their bad behavior. Modern Christians should do likewise.

The CP acknowledges Christ in the first sentence of their preamble. Then they have a much more libertarian view of war and of illicit drugs than does the GOP.

I like the LP's take on tariffs and immigration better than the CP's, and as you point out, pro-life Barr is more socially conservative than many LP members, so the LP looked better to me this year. That is, until Barr started talking about how we needed to do something about global warming on July 17.

But above all, both the LP and CP do call for a return to constitutional limits to the federal government, which was my original point.

Retired Geek, I guess that explains how
rationalize your plan to vote for liberal in November.


Seriously, history shows that the GOP in congress will fight a Dem - any Dem - over everything, but will do whatever a GOP POTUS wants. And this GOP nominee wants limits on free speech, cap & trade, limits on profits and compensation, limits on domestic drilling, increased illegal immigration, etc.

If we were voting for an absolute dictator, I'd vote for McCain - but we are voting for a president that has to work with congress and the courts.

An Obama presidency will be bad for the country. But a McCain presidency will be no better.

The best of our bad choices is to take action that will cause the GOP to try to re-capture the conservative vote by moving back to limited government in the future.


RG writes: "Those who say we need to return to the Constitution that many Americans have left or attempted to destroy will be best accomplished by giving those Americans their desires and wishes is akin to giving children matches and gasoline"

huh?

Weakening America for the 'Common Good'

Rationalizing that ones closely held principles trump the safety and wellfare of America and its citizens is little different from those who want America destroyed.

This election is not about Republican or Democrat, rather it is about the American way of life.

Problem solvers assay the facts and with reason and logic make a decision.

Those blinded by ideology and emotion draw lines in the sand and say that is the best solution for the problem.

Vote your conviction of weakening America for the 'Sacrifice For The Common Good' of your ideology or vote for what is the in the best interests of All Americans.

Defying facts, logic and reason

Many will vote to teach politicians a lesson.

Politician Lesson is a true oxymoron.

Conservatives that will come in and clean up behind Obama - I have a question for you?

How well is your cleaning process doing on cleaning up Social Security?

How well is your cleaning process doing on cleaning up the 'War on Poverty'?

How about posting some facts for the rest of us on how well your 'clean up process' works!

Those of you who are disgusted with empty promises - share with us some of your success stories on cleaning up behind liberals or are those empty promises also?


If Retired Geek's Rationale Prevailed
in 1856, there never would have been the GOP which at that time was a fledgling 3rd Party. The fledgling GOP even ran a Presidential candidate in 1856, a man by the name of Fremont, who won 11 states off the bat. A mere 4 years later in 1860, the GOP happened to find itself in the good fortune of a 4-party Presidential election, and WON!!! GOP naysayers and McCainiacs are just rationalizing RINOISM by supporting today's anything-but-Conservative GOP. There is nothing conservatively principled whatsoever about supporting today's GOP. It's not your father's GOP! Today's GOP is just a delayed death-knoll for America. All the devil needs to win is that Christians have NO FAITH! The same applies to Liberalism and every other Satanically inspired ism straight out of Hell. You have the political power right in your hands if you BELIEVE you do. Christians are so powerless today because they do not even believe in the power promised them in their own Bible; thereby, Satan wins by default. The system remains as it is because the political powers that be in DC know they can continue to count on playing The American People, the fools who keep drinking their Kool-Aid every 2 or 4 years who will justify their vote as "the better of 2 evils" and do their Chicken Little panicky vote for the GOP or the Democratic Party.

Who Was this Man?

What is important about the phrase by Obama "Sacrifice For The Common Good".
------------------------------------------------

A National Socialist Party demanded this phrase "COMMON GOOD BEFORE INDIVIDUAL GOOD".

This National Socialist Party made these demands:

"Newspapers transgressing against the common welfare shall be suppressed."

"We demand that the State shall above all undertake to ensure that every citizen shall have the possibility of living decently and earning a livelihood."

"We demand the nationalization of all trusts."

"We demand profit-sharing in large industries."

"We demand an agrarian reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to expropriate the owners without compensation of any land needed for the common purpose."

"We demand that ruthless war be waged against those who work to the injury of the common welfare."
------------------------------------------------

A man who had never held a job, a man who had never accomplished anything other than organize others.

This man gave a speech at a gathering of 2000 - he was not a leader but a worker - the speech he gave that day changed the world forever.

Who was this man?

muirgeo - ''deregulatory,'' eh?
--
Burbles muirgeo:

"You put the deregulatory republicans in office and spending shoots through the roof because Corporations come to dominate and control policy in a relatively unregulated environment."


Ah, the glistening blankness of historical illiteracy, seamless and whole.

Sorry to de-virginize you, putzie, but the Republican Party has *NEVER* been "deregulatory."

It's also never been supportive of reduced (or even modestly controlled) government spending.

From the days when America used to call them Whigs, Republicans have been the party of thieving currency inflation, megabuck government "infrastructure" boondoggles, heavy tariffs enabling big business to rape the American consumer, and every other kind of atrocity.

The first "Peactime Billion-Dollar Congress" (the 51st) was purely Republican, with a Republican president to rubber stamp every horror. That was the Congress which exacerbated the Bland-Allison Act by passing the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, accellerating the issue of "greenback" fiat currency while dictating silver coinage at an exchange rate with gold that deliberately overvalued silver (mining and refining operations had resulted in greatly increased silver production, and a fall in the real - not statutory, but real spot market - price of silver such that speculators effectively looted the U.S. Treasury's gold reserves by flooding it with cheap silver presented for Congress-mandated purchase).

The Republican policies were deliberately inflationary, and spending in that Congress was rife with "entitlement" programs for selected GOP constituencies.

It led to the Silver Panic, the most horrendous depression in the entire 19th Century history of these United States.

And the GOP today is - believe it or not - much, much worse.

--


If the nitwit mellor is against it


No reprobate likes American values built in Christian Principles


http://www.constitutionparty.com/party_platform.php


Preamble

The Constitution Party gratefully acknowledges the blessing of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ as Creator, Preserver and Ruler of the Universe and of these United States. We hereby appeal to Him for mercy, aid, comfort, guidance and the protection of His Providence as we work to restore and preserve these United States.

This great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been and are afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

The goal of the Constitution Party is to restore American jurisprudence to its Biblical foundations and to limit the federal government to its Constitutional boundaries.

The Constitution of these United States provides that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." The Constitution Party supports the original intent of this language. Therefore, the Constitution Party calls on all those who love liberty and value their inherent rights to join with us in the pursuit of these goals and in the restoration of these founding principles.

The U.S. Constitution established a Republic rooted in Biblical law, administered by representatives who are Constitutionally elected by the citizens. In such a Republic all Life, Liberty and Property are protected because law rules.

We affirm the principles of inherent individual rights upon which these United States of America were founded:


The problem with the GOP...
--
...has never been that they're "deregulatory" (in the sense of getting government out of Americans' lives) but rather that they're not libertarian *ENOUGH*.

This observation does nothing, of course, to cause anyone but an idiot (you reading this, muirgeo?) to support the National Socialist - or are they still calling themselves "Democratic"? - Party.

This year, there really is nothing on the presidential Banquet of Bilge menu.

Barack the Magic Negro is Jimmy Carter in mulatto drag, so exquisitely inexperienced that the corpses in his closet have barely had enough time to give his home that John Wayne Gacey reek so common among Cook County politicians.

B. Hussein is going to be one of those Democrat presidents who'll make the country nostalgic for the keen mind and moral fibre of Bill "It Depends on What Your Meaning of the Word 'Is' is" Clinton.

And John "The Enemy Ace" McCain (the proper honorary title for a naval aviator who has personally removed five or more aircraft from the BuAer inventory) - the first Republican presidential candidate in the past half-century to have entered the campaign with *LESS* money than his Democrat rival because he's completely and irrevocably enraged the conservative base upon which the GOP depends for its political life - gives all of us a chilling flashback to the wonderful election of 1996, when the GOP chose Bob "The Corpse That Walks" Dole to head the ticket.

The so-called Constitution Party is nothing more than a bunch of religious whackjobs seeking to impose Christian Sharia on the nation, and Bob Barr - a failed Republican - is defecating all over the Libertarian Party (which used to be the only honest-to-God constitutionally consistent political option to appear on a ballot in more than a century).

This year, kiddies, we have ourselves an absolutely undeniable proof that if voting could *POSSIBLY* make any difference, they'd make it illegal.

--

Retired Geek asks if anyone has ever
gotten rid of an enacted program: "I have a question for you? How well is your cleaning process doing on cleaning up Social Security? [or] the 'War on Poverty'?"

It starts by not having a combination of POTUS and Congress that will add to the mess. Like, for example, Bush and a GOP congress passing a prescription drug benefit.

On the other hand, the GOP congress under Clinton allowed no new entitlements, and they cleaned up welfare somewhat.

Now, I give McCain credit for voting against Bush's drug entitlement, but he's got a list of environmental programs that would be even worse, and if he is elected, they will be passed.

Obama wants government health care, but if there are 41 real republicans in the senate, that won't happen.

Real Christians Should Vote CP
The Catholics support Amnesty for Illegal Alien Criminals - in other words breaking the law. The Catholics up North would advocate supporting the Democratic Party because it supports Illegal Immigration even if the Democratic Party also emphatically supports the right to kill innocent babies in the name of Christ, I suppose!!! How else can you explain why John Kerry and Teddy Kennedy, two world-class baby serial murderers, have never been excommunicated by their beloved "Cathoholic" Church???

The Liberal "Christians???" support gay marriage, Abortion murder, multiculturalism, the homosexual agenda indoctrination in public schools - anything but THE TRUTH.

True Christians should embrace the Constitution which guarantees the integrity of our government. The GOP has had the support of the Christian Coalition which brought it to power in the 80's and brought it to its apex of power in 1994 and beyond. However, the GOP stood back and let the NEA(read: the opposition party of Satan - the Democratic Party)indoctrinate our youth with all sorts of doctrines of demons in the public schools. Think about that for a minute: What if the GOP had exclusive control of theeducation of our youth??? The Liberal media establishment and the Democrats in Congress would be screaming at this egregious injustice at the top oftheir lungs, but what doers the GOP do or even say??? - NOTHING!!!

Cont'd...Real Christians Should Vote CP
What did the GOP do about Abortion? It was able to successfully oppose Partial-Birth Abortion with near unanimous bipartisan consent - Whooptidamndoo!!! It did NOTHING! What did the GOP do about stopping gay marriage??? They couldn't even bring a resolution up for a vote to support marriage between a man and a woman. What did the GOP do to fight Illegal Immigration? They ALMOST shoved it down our throats to please their Corporate masters. The GOP's agenda is anything but Christian. The GOP's constituency of today is the abandoned moderate wing of the Democratic Party, which is completely unChristian and wouldn't know Jesus Christ even if He punched them in the face. Chuck Baldwin of the Constituion Party(CP)is a Christian pastor and former Marine with his own political talk radio show. He has emphatically stated that unlike the Bushes and Reagan, when he is elected President he will use his Executive Power to deny Federal taxpayer funding of Abortion clinics. How's that for standing by what you believe in??? When has the GOP ever once even suggested doing this??? George Bush hasn't even fought for the innumerable number of American and fellow Christian missionaries who are daily slaughtered in Muslim countries. George Bush and the GOP believe they are above OUR laws against Illegal Immigration. Chuck Baldwin will "slam the border shut". It's a NO-BRAINER! G.O.P. stands for nothing more today than Give(US)Oil, Please! If all REAL CHRISTIANS would make a stand this election for COMMON SENSE, we can ROCK THE ESTABLISHMENT in DC and NYC to ITS EVIL CORE!!!

The Government is the Way It Is
because we are in many respects too divided to unite politically to oppose the 2 major parties of TYRANNY in other viable 3rd parties. There's the North-South Christian cultural divide and the Libertarian-Constitution party Christian divide evidenced so clearly by Neil Boortz' refusal to entertain any questions about Abortion on his talk show. We are a divided nation that must separate for its own political and economic survival. Our Constitution to which all of the States agreed is NONEXISTENT and not even recognized in this Apostate government in DC. It is only prostituted for political gain when it is politically expedient. In such a situation that we find ourselves, it would behoove all of us to consider, as peace-loving fellow Americans, who value independence and self-determination, that it is each of our states' rights to secede from this Union if we deem that Union to no longer be viable in so much as it refuses to recognize the Constitution upon which it was founded and the morality required to maintain such a government. We are at a cultural impasse borne from our religious beliefs or lack thereof. Evil and good cannot coexist. The Lord states that evil is as far from me as the East is from the West. It does us no good to keep arguing politically with each other over issues WE WILL NEVER AGREE ON. If those self-same issues happen to be matters of morality, common sense, established law, sovereignty, established Constitution, foreign policy, and national survival, it is wrong to force your fellow Americans to remain in such a Union just as it is wrong to force your morality or immorality on someone else. Secession is an Idea Whose Time has Legitimately Come! The aspostate, dysfunctional, runaway, anything-but-government(if I can even bring myself to call it that anymore!!!) in DC was a nice experiment for 200 years until it suddenly blew up the entire laboratory. The government in DC belongs in Mexico City for all I'm concerned.

The Obelisk in DC
and the peculiar shape of the dome of Congress in DC pretty much sum up what our government is doing to our posteriors.

SJ Doc writes
The so-called Constitution Party is nothing more than a bunch of religious whackjobs seeking to impose Christian Sharia on the nation,

====
What a moron
You are the biggest whackjob in TH, outside of mellor.

Christian sharia, what a complete idiot

Anyone against the Constitution Party
Would not vote for 53 out of 56 of the Founders of America.
ALL Protestant Christian Church goers.
From George Washington to John Adams.

American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity
John Adams

Without wishing to damp the Ardor of curiosity, or influence the freedom of inquiry, I will hazard a prediction, that after the most industrious and impartial Researches, the longest liver of you all, will find no Principles, Institutions, or Systems of Education, more fit, IN GENERAL to be transmitted to your Posterity, than those you have received from you[r] Ancestors

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were united:
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html

Christians Should Secede From the USA
and form our own government much as the Founding Fathers did. I believe it would do a great service to our fellow anti-Christian Libertarians and anti-God, murderous Democrats who wish to be left alone to their own immoral ways and dissociated from us. As Christians, we do not seek to impose our morality on anyone, but likewise we do not want immorality imposed on us. How does one solve such an impasse??? SECESSION! It's good for BOTH AMERICAS! Let's give it a try! There's nothing Christian about remaining in a government with no concept of national debt; that gives sanction to the murder of 54 million innocents; that defies Almighty God and blesses gay marriage; that ignorantly divides the land of Israel against Biblical mandates; and then has the audacity and unmitigated gall to ask Almighty God to bless her?!?!

Chris: Not quite
"I recommend you follow his link to the CP platform. You may be surprised at how libertarian they are. There is nothing contradictory between the libertarian philosophy of government and conservative Christianity."

Agreed. As a person-holding-to-libertarian-principles, I acknowledge that conservative xians hold many values I hold dear--and some I don't.

"Jesus and the apostles did not attempt to use force to convert unbelievers, and were concerned about their unbelief to the complete exclusion of their bad behavior. Modern Christians should do likewise."

Nor did Jesus and the apostles try to pass laws that enforced their agenda. Modern xians should give it a try.

"The CP acknowledges Christ in the first sentence of their preamble."

Then we are already in trouble. Why not the Great Elf? Religion is a private matter. You don't want an abortion? Don't have one. You don't want to marry a person of the same gender? Don't. You don't want to experiment on stem cells? Then just say no.

We are no doubt in agreement that the government should not be funding any of these activities--and so is the CP.

"Then they have a much more libertarian view of war and of illicit drugs than does the GOP."

Hard to be stupider on these subjects than the GOP.:

Xian sharia
No Talent quotes SJ Doc "The so-called Constitution Party is nothing more than a bunch of religious whackjobs seeking to impose Christian Sharia on the nation"

and continues, in his usual white-space-free way: "What a moron

You are the biggest whackjob in TH, outside of mellor.

Christian sharia, what a complete idiot"

Obviously, "xian sharia" is an oxymoron, sharia being the muslim code of law.

What SJ Doc meant (no doubt) was that the xians wish to impose their morals on every one else, just like the muslims with sharia law. Granted, the xians are less brutal than the muslims (except for--you guessed it--No Talent who wants have me killed for being gay), but the point is the same: They want to impose their morals on the rest of us.

Just look at this loser's post: "There's nothing Christian about remaining in a government with no concept of national debt; that gives sanction to the murder of 54 million innocents; that defies Almighty God and blesses gay marriage; that ignorantly divides the land of Israel against Biblical mandates; and then has the audacity and unmitigated gall to ask Almighty God to bless her?"

While I can only agree with (and hope for) the sentiment that xians leave the USA, the clear implication TakeBack(not "Leave")TheGovernment's post is that s/he wishes to impose his xian "morals" on the rest of us.

Get lost. And take the rest of them(*) with you.

(*) "Them" means those xians who wish to impose their morals on the rest of us. You want to be a xian, go right ahead. You want me to live like a xian...

shut up mellor
You an idiot too

When America was established
And had Honorable men.
Now we got morons like mellor given a voice thanks to the internet.



Religious Clauses in State Constitutions

Delaware; Article 22 (1776) "Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any office or place of trust...shall...also make and subscribe the following declaration, to whit:

'I,_____, do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed for evermore; and I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration'"

Georgia; Article VI (1777) "The representatives shall be chosen out of the residents in each county...and they shall be of the Protestant religion..."

Maryland; Article XXXV (1776) "That no other test or qualification ought to be required...than such oath of support and fidelity to this State...and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion."

Massachusetts; First Part, Article II (1780) "It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons, to worship the SUPREME BEING, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe..."

Massachusetts; First Part, Article II (1780) "The governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless...he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

Massachusetts; Chapter VI, Article I (1780) "[All persons elected to State office or to the Legislature must] make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.

'I,_____, do declare, that I believe the Christian religion, and have firm persuasion of its truth

When America was established w/honor
New Hampshire; Part 1, Article 1, Section 5 (1784) "...the legislature ...authorize ...the several towns ...to make adequate provision at their own expense, for the support and maintenance of public protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality..."

New Hampshire; Part 2, (1784) "[Provides that no person be elected governor, senator, representative or member of the Council] who is not of the protestant religion."

North Carolina; Article XXXII (1776) "That no person, who shall deny the being of God or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority either of the Old or New Testaments,...shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.

Pennsylvania; Declaration of Rights II (1776) "...Nor can any man, who acknowledges the being of a God, be justly deprived or abridged to any civil right as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiments or peculiar mode of religious worship."

Pennsylvania; Frame of Government, Section 10 (1776) "And each member [of the legislature]...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I do believe in one God, the creator and governor of the universe, the rewarder to the good and the punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.'"


Established by Christians
Now I regret letting all the morons in like mellor and SJ Doc


Pennsylvania; Article IX, Section 4 (1790) "that no person, who acknowledges the being of a God, and a future state of rewards and punishments, shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this commonwealth."

South Carolina; Article III (1778) "[State officers and privy council to be] all of the Protestant religion."

South Carolina; Article XII (1778) "...no person shall be eligible to a seat in the said senate unless he be of the Protestant religion."

Tennessee; Article VIII, Section 2 (1796) "...no person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this State."

Vermont; Declaration of Rights, III (1777) "...nor can any man who professes the protestant religion, be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right, as a citizen, on account of his religious sentiment...; nevertheless, every sect or denomination of people ought to observe the Sabbath, or the Lord's day..."

Vermont; Frame of Government, Section 9 (1777) "And each member [of the legislature],...shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz.:

'I do believe in one god, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the scriptures of the old and new testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the protestant religion.'"

George Washington, be mocked by mellor

The moron if he was alive today


Washington's Prayer Journal

(3) Monday Morning
O eternal and everlasting God, I presume to present myself this morning before thy Divine majesty, beseeching thee to accept of my humble and hearty thanks, that it hath pleased thy great goodness to keep and preserve me the night past from all the dangers poor mortals are subject to, and has given me sweet and pleasant sleep, whereby I find my body refreshed and comforted for performing the duties of this day, in which I beseech thee to defend me from all perils of body and soul. Direct my thoughts, words and work, wash away my sins in the immaculate blood of the lamb, and purge my heart by thy holy spirit, from the dross of my natural corruption, that I may with more freedom of mind and liberty of will serve thee, the ever lasting God, in righteousness and holiness this day, and all the days of my life. Increase my faith in the sweet promises of the gospel; give me repentance from dead works; pardon my wanderings, & direct my thoughts unto thyself, the God of my salvation; teach me how to live in thy fear, labor in thy service, and ever to run in the ways of thy commandments; make me always watchful over my heart, that neither the terrors of conscience, the loathing of holy duties, the love of sin, nor an unwillingness to depart this life, may cast me into a spiritual slumber, but daily frame me more 7 more into the likeness of thy son Jesus Christ, that living in thy fear, and dying in thy favor, I may in thy appointed time attain the resurrection of the just unto eternal life bless my family, friends & kindred unite us all in praising & glorifying thee in all our works begun, continued, and ended, when we shall come to make our last account before thee blessed saviour, who hath taught us thus to pray, our Father, & c.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/george.html

Washington Prayed twice a day
George Washington Prayer Journal


4) Monday Evening
Most Gracious Lord God, from whom proceedeth every good and perfect gift, I offer to thy divine majesty my unfeigned praise & thanksgiving for all thy mercies towards me. Thou mad'st me at first and hst ever since sustained the work of thy own hand; thou gav'st thy Son to die for me; and hast given me assurance of salvation, upon my repentance and sincerely endeavoring to conform my life to his holy precepts and example. Thou art pleased to lengthen out to me the time of repentance and to move me to it by thy spirit and by the word, by thy mercies, and by thy judgments; out of a deepness of thy mercies, and by my own unworthiness, I do appear before thee at this time; I have sinned and done very wickedly, be merciful to me, O God, and pardon me for Jesus Christ sake; instruct me in the particulars of my duty, and suffer me not to be tempted above what thou givest me strength to bear. Take care, I pray thee of my affairs and more and more direct me in thy truth, defend me from my enemies, especially my spiritual ones. Suffer me not to be drawn from thee, by the blandishments of the world, carnal desires, the cunning of the devil, or deceitfulness of sin. work in me thy good will and pleasure, and discharge my mind from all things that are displeasing to thee, of all ill will and discontent, wrath and bitterness, pride & vain conceit of myself, and render me charitable, pure, holy, patient and heavenly minded. be with me at the hour of death; dispose me for it, and deliver me from the slavish fear of it, and make me willing and fit to die whenever thou shalt call me hence. Bless our rulers in church and state. bless O Lord the whole race of mankind, and let the world be filled with the knowledge of Thee and thy son Jesus Christ.
more...

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/george.html


Fools, idiots, morons mock this today

talent scout - Religious psychopath
--
The incontinent gutblasting feculence of the religious "True Believer" gets more than just a little wearisome, doesn't it?

Whether Moslem or Christian or Socialist, the religious whackjob is a murderous little weasel, frothily rabid, hydrophobically fixated, incapable of reason and yammeringly obsessed with the sort of crazed sweatiness that one tries to keep out of the public eye because you don't want your kids exposed to the fact that there really *are* grown-ups who can and should be treated with complete contempt.

I mean, it's tough enough getting the little guys to take their NEA-member teachers seriously, isn't it? With people like talent sout and Take Back masquerading as adults, it's getting more and more difficult to maintain the illusion that people of supposedly mature years are automatically entitled to courtesy and respect.

We all know that religious belief is irrational, right?

I mean, if every little droplet and drizzle of Holy Ejaculation weren't purest unsupported drivel, we wouldn't have to speak about "faith" at all, would we?

Those of us who work with what's proven (or provable) *KNOW* what's moral, and that's the right of the individual human being to be left unmolested in doing whatever he goddam well pleases, just as long as he refrains from violating the equal rights of other people to do the same *AND* shoulders the obligation to take responsibility for whatever he does.

The only people agonizing their way into moral conflict are the ones afflicted with an abject and unremitting denial of reality.

Religious true believers, schizophrenics, and other psychopaths.




=====
"Religious factions will go on imposing their will on others unless the decent people connected to them recognize that religion has no place in public policy. They must learn to make their views known without trying to make their views the only alternatives."

-- Barry Goldwater

It's been a lot of years...
...since I read Ayn Rand's prophetic novel, Atlas Shrugged, but it seems to me that the line, "Brother, you asked for it." pretty much says it all.

Most of this country is like muirgeo, convinced that it's not government as a whole, just the Republicans (or the Democrats). But the fact is, when more of the GDP goes to finance government than goes to all of the rest of the country's wants and needs, then you can pretty much conclude that government is a big problem.

Because of the ignorance and the myopia of the muirgeos of the country, government on all levels has gotten out of control. It's estimated (because even the GAO can't say for sure) that out of every dollar, government "costs" amount to seventy cents, leaving thirty cents left for the task for which it was allotted. Huge, bloated, redundant, inefficient bureaucracies have taken over like a brain tumor.

Personally, I think it's too late. The muirgeo mindset (ignorant, trite and egocentric) is so entrenched in America, along with both a sense of victimhood AND entitlement that government will just keep growing and spending. Every crisis that is caused by government interference in the economy is yet another excuse for government to exercise even more power, until it will finally collapse under its own weight.

It's already started. If the government doesn't stop this runaway spending on credit this economy will crash. Right now, the federal government is running up huge deficits and paying the debt service on credit. It's like a family living on credit cards and making the payments on the credit cards with more credit cards. Obviously that’s not sustainable.

SJ Doc
SJ Doc writes: "Those of us who work with what's proven (or provable) *KNOW* what's moral, and that's the right of the individual human being to be left unmolested in doing whatever he goddam well pleases, just as long as he refrains from violating the equal rights of other people to do the same *AND* shoulders the obligation to take responsibility for whatever he does."

In spite of your obvious disdain for people of faith, that was well said. However, I'd add a caveat.

The fact is that government's final answer to any dispute with its citizens is the muzzle of a gun. When government uses force to prevent people from celebrating religious holidays in public places like town squares and public schools because somebody might be "offended," then I ask you: What's the difference between that and the faithful bashing gays because they're offended?

Or better yet, when rabid atheists clamor to have all vestiges of religion removed from "public" places because they're "offended," and use the force of the government to implement their agenda, how is that, as you put it, "the right of the individual human being to be left unmolested in doing whatever he goddam well pleases, just as long as he refrains from violating the equal rights of other people to do the same?" Unless there is a "right" to freedom from being offended, there's a bit of an inconsistency here.

And no, I'm not religious. I'm an atheist.

Evil roots
The NEA and our current educational systems are the roots of Dumbing down America. Yes, big Government is indeed the problem, no question about it.

The only major accomplishment of our educational system over the past three decades is the dumbing down of our young. We have reached a point where we don't even take part in international Math competition as the results would be too embarassing.
Obama is a pretty good example of this and, unfortunately, he obviously has many supporters who have had a similarly terrible education.
Every people have the government they deserve. Decades of liberal government in California, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania have all but de facto bankrupted these states, yet their people don't seem to be any wiser in spite of this. America seems to be eager to follow these states with more taxes, more regulations and this is indeed very good for Brazil, Russia, India and China.

Bob_C - Don't worship government either
--
Asks Bob_C (a self-avowed atheist):

"The fact is that government's final answer to any dispute with its citizens is the muzzle of a gun. When government uses force to prevent people from celebrating religious holidays in public places like town squares and public schools because somebody might be 'offended,' then I ask you: What's the difference between that and the faithful bashing gays because they're offended?"


Like I'm ever going to argue that the agents of government (politicians, bureaucrats, and other such goons with guns) are *NOT* full of guano?

The difference between the government clowns and the freelance religious fanatics "bashing gays" is that the people on the public payroll are responsible for managing property purchased (or expropriated) at the expense of the polity as a whole, regardless of race, religion, or knowledge of sexual lubricants.

At least *nominally*, the actions of government jobholders in foreclosing the religious use of public facilities is lawful.

If you're going to tax Wiccans for the support of the town square, and yet refuse them the right to build a Beltane bonfire in the middle thereof and dance "skyclad" around the flames, then you've got to tell the more numerous Christians that using the same space for *their* primitive rituals is off the menu, too.

By contrast, private citizens "bashing gays" are just plain guilty of assault and battery.

The solution?

No more public property.

Everything in private hands, under the responsiblity of private owners, without either governmental immunity *or* political correctness.

Wiki up "agorism," okay?

You want to keep things the way they are right now?

See Kelo v. City of New London (2005) and wonder what happens when some goon from your local government stands before your home to say:

"Nice house you got there. I'd hate to see something happen to it."

--

look deeper...
we the people are like sheep gone astray, forgetting where we came from and the life-and-death importance of ethical behavior and decisions - as individuals first, and in groups. the inevitable consequences of our moral decline are increased anguish and suffering. Who heard our cries for mercy and guidance in 1776? when those humbled bloodied familes emerged victorious a few years later, to whom did they give credit for victory? and, when the elected congress of this nation gathered together for the first time, what was their first act as a group, unanimously? Lord have mercy on us, for we are going ever more astray. we deny our increasing inadequacy to govern ourselves, and each other. we ignore the One who has made all the difference for good in history - would that we would repent, cry for mercy, and pray earnestly for wisdom that surpasses human understanding. would that we would recognize the lesser evils as we vote...

SJ Doc
I'll try once more.

Definition: By "gay bashing" I meant verbal abuse, not physical abuse. Otherwise you are correct. It's be assult and battery.

Perhaps I'm not making my point clear. At the risk of sounding impertinent, the idea that government will miraculously release all "publicly owned" land into private hands is a blue-sky pipedream. On that score I don't think you have any choice about "keeping things the way they are right now." Remember the government's final argument? Okay, that being said, back to the original subject.

Your Wiccan scenario was colorful, but it leaves me with the question: "Why should your Wiccans be denied use of the public square any more than the "more numerous Christians?" Why is it okay to use public facilities for "Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-Bisexual Pride" rallys, Rock Concerts, ethnic festivals, Oktoberfests and classic car rallies, among many other events, but anything to do with religion is denied under the claim the somebody might be offended?

I'm offended by oulets that sell slutty clothes to ten-year-olds, making them look like prostitots. But I think that's the business of the parents, not mine. I'm offended by guys running around with their dirty grundies and hairy butts showing. Do I want their style of dressing banned or them arrested? Absolutely not.

Look, as far as religion goes, I think that taking anything on faith is self-destructive, but to those who wish to live their life on faith, I say have at it if that's what you want. I'm not offended by it. I'm not offended when a Jehovah's Witness group shows up at my front door any more than I am by a vacuum cleaner salesman. As long as they don't get up in my grill and they take "no" for an answer, I don't care. But I do get offended when religious people are denied access to public facilities that are otherwise accessable to any other group.




It's not Christianity
Christianity has little to do with the article, which is the growth of government. Social conservatives, as they are often called, are not, in most cases, fiscal conservatives. It is for this reason that the Reagan coalition has splintered. The classic example is Bush, Jr. Social conservatives remain solidly behind this president, yet he over-saw the single largest expansion of the federal government in our history for one 8 year period, as the budget grew from $1.85 trillion in 2000 to $3.25 trillion this year. We now work for the government until July 15, the latest date in our history. In 1950, the states combined each raised and spent $1 for each $1 spent by the federal government. Today, the federal government spends $5 for each $1 spent by the combined states, controlling $5 out of $6. At the same time, that 80% of the public that has no education beyond high school, and a significant number of the rest as well, cannot give a rational explanation of the difference between a parliamentary system, a direct democracy, nor a republic. And not knowing the difference, they do not make decisions based upon such factors. The parties, in turn, having learned that they can buy votes, do so. And the public, which includes the social conservatives, continues to go to Washington with their problems, as they expect government to provide the very solutions it does such a demonstrably poor job of providing. The way of life some still cling to, has already slipped away - and as this election demonstrates, is not going to be restored.

Cont'd.
The Republic has been over-taken by direct democracy, and Washington has become the central dispensor of all revenues. Churchill once said that democracy is about the worst form of government, "it's just better than the alternatives." And, of course, he's right. We now have the tyranny of the majority. It was, after all, the majority that delivered up McCain and Obama, and it will be the majority that elects one or the other. The 80% rule. If Christians, in the end, had the same fiscal principals as fiscal conservatives, the government could not have grown as it has - but they do not. 90% of the people, after all, and perhaps even more, believe in God. And easily 1/2 or more have a reasonably strong attachment to Christianity.

In the end, better eduction would help, and better morality might make us more comfortable, but it will not change what we have become.

About Barr:
I just reviewed Barr's comments on Global Warming. He calls for open minded investigation. He stops short of endorsing any specific policy until there is a proven need, and declares caution is necessary before instituting draconian economy busting remedies. What exactly do any of you find wrong with that position?

Bob_C - What ''pipedream''?
--
Persists Bob_C:

"Why is it okay to use public facilities for 'Gay-Lesbian-Transgender-Bisexual Pride' rallys, Rock Concerts, ethnic festivals, Oktoberfests and classic car rallies ... but anything to do with religion is denied under the claim the somebody might be offended?"



Short answer? It's not.

If the facilities are "public," they're maintained for one purpose and one purpose only: to facilitate the execution of government functions.

Government is breaking things and killing people. Violent force used in retaliation against criminal malefactors.

What other legitimate purpose does government have?

If the property isn't being use in aid of exerising violent force, why is it public?

As for the supposed "pipedream" of restoring government-expropriated (and/or purchased) real estate to the private sector, have you ever worked in government, hm?

After a couple of years in the U.S. Public Health Service, I spent a good deal more time moonlighting in various government-run clinics while I was building my practice.

(I hadn't yet undergone that "Aha!" moment in which people suck up a sufficiently toxic exposure to government to become libertarians.)

Every one of these clinics were run out of decrepit buildings the programs had leased in run-down neighborhoods. One of them was particularly memorable for the fact that every spring and fall I got to lecture patients and staff members on termite reproduction as the waiting room was swarmed by alates seeking to establish new colonies.

So little of what government does - at any level - is either necessary or legitimate that it's not impossible to conceive that Congress could function perfectly well under canvas, pitched in the middle of a patch of rented swampland, with no structure more permanent than a Port-a-Privy on the property.

As for *figurative* gay-bashing....

Well, hell. Laissez-aller, right?

--

RealCon - Mixing cause and effect
--
Gripes RealCon:

"How about the problem being the slimy scum we have put in government. How about the last 4 president's, Phil Gramm, and the Keating 5? Sweetheart laws and a government looking the other way resulting in bailout after bailout all to allow the Wall Street vermin to walk away with their loot without fear of any consequences."


Tsk.

Among the many pithy sayings among us RTKBA advocates is the phrase:

"Guns cause crime like flies cause garbage."

The premise, of course, is that criminality brings in gunplay. The problem isn't the firearms but the criminally violent people who use them.

So it's never "the slimy scum we have put in government" but the fact that government (especially with all the economic power that's been invested in government since the city fathers of Ur first put together a municipal charter with a little graft on the side for the mayor's son-in-law) attract slimy scum.

I mean, who else is better suited to winning eletions?

Honest men or slimy scum?


The solution to the problem on which you're fixated isn't putting honest men into positions of government power....

('Cause if you can find an honest man willing to accept such power, how the hell long d'you think he's going to *STAY* honest? Or avoid getting screwed out of his job in the next election?)

....but depriving government of the economic power that makes government jobs attractive to slimy scum.

Swatting the mosquitos won't work.

You've got to drain the swamp.

And this is controversial precisely...how?

--

Superficially attractive
While Baldwin seems to be an upright guy, the Constitution Party is not what its name implies. It is understandable that people with religious convictions may be attracted to the Constitution Party. But those of us who believe in our republican form of government, and respect the meaning and intent of the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution should find the unAmerican mixing of church and state in the CP platform a little unnerving.

I think it unwise to support the CP unless your desire is to replace failing democracy with a certain to fail theocracy. Besides the Libertarian Party is larger, better organized, and will be on the ballot in more states than the CP. Therefore, voting for Barr over Baldwin is likely to be more effective in the long run.

SJ Doc
SJ Doc opines: "The solution to the problem on which you're fixated isn't putting honest men into positions of government power but depriving government of the economic power that makes government jobs attractive to slimy scum."

Sounds so simple when you say it. How do you propose to go about this transformation, hmm?

If you think the government is going to reform itself, your naivete is monumental.

If you think the great unwashed is going to do anything about it, you're stark, staring bonkers.

Americans, by and large, are an ignorant bunch when it comes to economics, their government, history and current affairs. They get their worldview from perky Katie and the Nitwitness news. To top it off, America has become a land of self-centered victimhood. I doubt if you're going to get any great portion of them to openly rebel on any level. I mean, we can't even get anywhere near half the eligible voters in America to vote, never mind revolt against Washington.

You speak bravely and loudly, but I think you're all thunder and no lightning.

Reagan was wise
Perhaps we should remember and listen to what Reagan had to say.

Here's another Reagan quote:
"Our government has no power except that
granted it by the people." -- Ronald Reagan

But remember also this important quote by JFK.
"The ignorance of one voter in a democracy impairs the security of us all."
NoObama!

Bob_C:
There are many small steps that can be taken to reduce the power of government. Perhaps one of the most important steps is recognizing that legislation does not necessarily equal law. The ultimate power to determine what is law and what is not law is in the hands of the people; it is not in the hands of politicians.

Ignorance
If your point is that ignorant voters nominate poor candidates which is how we got to McCain and Obama, one of which those same ignorant voters will now elect to be the President, then I imagine you could say that we have precisely what the ignorant voters have delivered to us. Ignorance, after all, is no respector of parties. The 80% have the government they vote for - and the others have little choice save to go along - or not vote. Reagan could not stop those voters from demanding ever more of government, and growing it. And neither will McCain or Obama. And, if you believe, as I do, that the loss of the Republic and the massive growth of the central government has already endangered my security - meaning my freedom and my way of life - then why vote for either man? You're not, after all, voting to protect the Republic, you're voting to protect this entitlement direct election socialistic democracy we've created - which is why I now work for government until July 15. Now, why would you do that - assuming, of course, that you're a conservative?





Bob_C - Ah, the futility of funk
--
Grumbles Bob_C:

"Americans, by and large, are an ignorant bunch when it comes to economics, their government, history and current affairs. They get their worldview from perky Katie and the Nitwitness news. To top it off, America has become a land of self-centered victimhood. I doubt if you're going to get any great portion of them to openly rebel on any level."


Along with the "boiled frog" parable, there's the one about the two other batrachioid critters. These had jumped into a bucket half-full of milk.

One of 'em gasped: "We'll never get out of here!"

He went limp, slumped under the surface, and suffocated.

The other one kept paddling desperately, kicking up a froth until he'd churned himself a glob of butter, upon which he climbed and supported himself until the milkmaid returned and disgustedly chucked both frogs out of the pail onto the grass.

Whereupon the one who'd kept kicking hopped away.


The American people are *RIGHT NOW* getting a short, sharp, shockingly painful lesson in economics, and whether Hussein or McCain gets to redecorate the Oval Office next January, that lesson is going to get way to hellangone beyond the power of "the Nitwitness news" to dissemble.

Think about the surprise that struck the muddy mainstream in the last quarters of 2007, and churned up the water in the early GOP primaries this year, when Ron Paul articulated *PRECISELY* the "government as plundering, counterfeiting, murdering bastiches" message and it drained "Katie" of all her perkiness as the Paulistas came out of nowhere to make her pet Republican - John "The Enemy Ace" McCain - look like the senile cement-head we all know he truly is?


I've lived long enough to watch things go to hell.

I've recognized every step, and they're all reversible.

The milk is already starting to curdle.

We've just got to keep on kicking.

--

RealCon:
Yours is a fantasy world that ignores human nature. The problem is not company executives that raid pension funds for operating capital. The problem is people who think it is wise to trust companies, and there executives to safeguard their retirement funds.

SJ Doc
Thanks for the humor, it made me laugh and I do not do that often when I come to TH.

Your tongue is good for cleaning urinals only,only thing left I see from you, so stick to licking pizz pots, and keep out of adult conversation.


SJ Doc:
Good post. Nice to see you on this thread.

Most of the activity today is on the Dinesh column, where the atheists and Bible pounders have gathered to berate one another for the umpteenth time.

Hi talent scout:
Nice to see you here. I read a couple of your early posts on this thread and they were spot-on.

RealCon - The joys of bipartisanship
--
RealCon obsesses perpetually about:

"The ability to dream up any scam and not have to worry that the Republican party has cleared the way for you."


Aw, c'mon. Like the National Socialist - or are they still calling themselves "Democrat"? - Party doesn't do just the same goddam thing?

If you're looking for someone to defend the Whigs (currently masquerading as "Republicans"), look somewhere else, okay?

You're obviously one of those butt-holes who think that the noble, pure, recondite government can (or should, or ever would) function as a counterweight against the awful-nasty-terrible-corrupting influence of private sector wealth.

You also put out milk and cookies for Santa Claus, too, don'tcha?

Silly bastich. Government power is *ALWAYS* going to be grabbed by the wealthy.

One way or the other, people with beaucoup bucks buy favor with those who have the power to send violent men a-marching.

Always have. Always will.

The only solution is to dilute that power to the point at which it's not worth buying.

Sure, the newspaper-owning wealthy clowns can use 'em to defraud people.

At the cost of ruining their newspapers' reputationa as reliable information sources.

Unless they can get government goons with guns to suppress *other* sources of information, though, the commercial channels that the wealthy tricksters don't own are going to out-compete the prostituted papers.

The solution to any supposed failing of the free (meaning "keep the pucking government out of it") market is simply more freedom.

What, you don't like freedom?

Jeez, who woulda thought? A government-sucking scumball who hates liberty.

What's the odds of that?

--

I do not deny religion is corrupt
And I am against religion in government just as much as any atheist is.

There are two powers that control the minds, the thinking of all men.

Political and religion, both are used by corrupt people to gain power and influence.

I am against any religion in government, in the same way I am against political corruption.
They are kissing cousins, twins of evil parentage.
What political corruption can do to a nation can also be done by religious corruption of principles.

This nation has a Foundation built in Principles of Christianity, and has been corrupted just as our politics has.

So for you idiots like Doc, keep you pizz pot licking tongues quiet until you can join the higher thoughts of your leaders.
The men who Founded America set the Principles for this Nation in the US Constitution, all from Christian Principles.

This is too high above the minds of morons I know, but there is hope some are left in America that has enough honesty to understand that promoting these principles is not the same thing as promoting a religion, you morons.

American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity
John Adams

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity
http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html



Public Largess is NOT a Christian
Principle.
This is one of the ideas out there that has been corrupted from the pure teachings of Christianity.

Charity is an individual matter.
It is not charity to force any man to pay for another mans living expenses.
That is as far from a Christian Principle as hell if from heaven.

This is pure Marxism, and lied to the public to get their rotten corruption into government policy calling it a Christian Principle.

And is NOT.
It is the OPPOSITE of Christian Principle.

Giving as taught by Christianity is a free will offering coming from a desire to give.

Using the government to force a man to give is pure unadulterated Marxism

But you must understand, all Marxists are LIARS

I'M STILL FUMING
But I'm not dead yet. Can anyone come up with an occupation better than a part time, full benefits, and a full retirement after 4-6 years of "service"? I'm starting to believe the service we are receiving can be paid for in Nevada. Of all americans, congress needs additional retirement money less than anyone else in this nation. They are pork barrel spending.

SJ Doc:
I wasn't really extending an invite. I avoid pointless, circular discussions whenever possible.

I never really thought about religion as an emasculating force, but you may have a point. Far too many men use religion as the ultimate abdication of personal responsibility.

Declaration of Independece
Christian PRINCIPLES

This is not promoting a religion as the morons among us today accuse.
This is promoting Principles of truth found in the Christian FAITH, it is not religion.

Jesus Christ Himself was against religion, it is corrupt.
Just as corrupt as politics, because the same sore of desires are found among both.
A desire to rule over others.
This is anti-American and anti Christian Principle.


IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth,

the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them,


a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident,

that all men are created equal,

that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —

That to secure these rights,

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

CONSENT IS A CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLE.
Force is anti Christian

Marxist liars
All Marxists are not liars, some of them are actually self-deluding to the point of believing what the say.

talent scout:
Most posters here are intimately familiar with the DoI and the U.S. Constitution. Speaking for myself, I'd rather hear about what you think than about what you've read. Just a thought scout, not a criticism.

I Promote this idea
"I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every
form of tyranny over the mind of man." --Thomas Jefferson*

I do not care if the tyranny comes from a religion or a government.
I have sworn along with Jefferson ETERNAL HOSTILITY against both that seek to FORCE any man to do anything against his will.

There is an old saying that is TRUTH.

When force is used to force your will, the opinion of the victim is of the same opinion still

Force by government or religion is still TYRANNY.
The mind is free to make choices, free to give, free to support, and this is the TRUE LIBERTY OF AMERICA.
Now CORRUPTED by wicked and evil men of religion and politics.

God is the Author of Freedom of choice.
And Force is not a part of Him in any area.

Not a single teaching of TRUE Christian Principles uses FORCE.

The Teachings of Jesus Christ can only be accepted by FAITH.
NOT FORCE.
Using the government to force people to give is communist marxism.
Not Christianity

talent scout - The unexamined principle
--
Maunders talent scout - endlessly! - about:

"a Christian Principle"

...while burbling ever and anon about "the pure teachings of Christianity" and how the nation is supposedly founded on "a Christian Principle" even though he's personally "against any religion in government, in the same way I am against political corruption."


Whee! Pull out that elastic tape measure and let's see how far we can stretch the nominal inch to wrap it all the way around talent scout's pointy little head.

Let's see. We've got us a non-objective basis for civil government that wriggles away from every attempt to define it ('cause "a Christian Principle" is a matter of faith, not mensurable or otherwise verifiable reality)...

== == == ==
"I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
== == == ==

...and government is the agency in civil society to which we entrust an effective monopoly on the exercise of retaliatory lethal force for the defense of individual rights, meaning that we've *GOT* to have an objective and pretty much indisputable basis upon which said government legitimately operates, or else there's no real reason why the private citizen shouldn't shoot down every government thug like a rabid dog.

As a public health measure.

So talent scout wants a "faith-based" government, eh?

Gee. Just like Iran, right?

And that's working out *so* well, isn't it?




=====
"From the saintly and single-minded idealist to the fanatic is often but a step."

-- Friedrich von Hayek

Real Hope
The republicans got what they deserved because they did not limit spending.

Hillary is left with real debt and begs for help because true campaign finance reform is at work.

The democrats will loose because they continue to promise but do not deliver. Stop the war, Impeach Bush/Chenney, produce a plan for quality education, and they haven't an actual energy program because they grasped onto the global warming scare as a juxtaposition to Bush.
They like the republicans before put politics ahead of their principles.

It will be for links like TH to counter the media cover.

Doc, your stupidity is too deep
To pull you out of the ignorance you prefer, and you do it with free will.
You prefer to be a moron and are just like the liberals, you idiot.

You make this subject nothing but a launching pad to attack people, and makes you a blue ribbon idiot of impossible stupidity.

You idiot, can you not keep it on topic withour spewing your filthy minded pizz drinking mouth at a poster?

I haven't seen it yet you liberal moron

Doc is too stupid to read
I was not around in 1776 to establish the Unity of the United States.
But John Adams was there and he is the one who said America was established by CHRISTIAN PRINCIPLES.
Not me you idiot.

READ IT MORON:
American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity
John Adams

The general Principles, on which the Fathers Atchieved Independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html

Are you saying
InsightingTruth 11:51 AM EST
Subject: Marxist liars
All Marxists are not liars, some of them are actually self-deluding to the point of believing what the say.
=====
If a person repeats a lie it no longer is a lie?

Believing a lie then makes it true?
Unbelievable


Sorry for the delay
Just now read this

====

InsightingTruth writes: 11:58 AM EST
talent scout:
Most posters here are intimately familiar with the DoI and the U.S. Constitution. Speaking for myself, I'd rather hear about what you think than about what you've read. Just a thought scout, not a criticism.
===

Appreciate the attitude of your post, its a nice change for communications.

I think this.
People do read the D of I and Constitution for sure.

But they fail to understand the meaning of the words.
Its been lost because the Spirit of the Words is no longer the Spirit in America.

The Spirit of Liberty that Coined the words of the D of I has been lost in this time by the masses.

I simply seek to restore the Spirit of the Words that can only come from understanding them as the mind of Jefferson created them, with the same mental attitude he possessed.

John Adams was THERE
Not me, not Doc, not any of us alive today were living in 1776.
The only way to understand how America became the United States is to read what the men of that day said.
Not the morons of today, who are simply ignorant or deceivers, intentional deceivers or not.
People can be sincere, and be sincerely wrong.
People can be honest in what they believe and are honestly believing a lie.

Philiosphy had NOTHING TO DO WITH UNITING THE AMERICAN STATES.
The Christian Faith UNITED THE STATES.

Adams was there and tells all who are open to hear.
Having liberty means people can deny what Adams said, but what is the truth?
I will listen to Adams over any man living today, cause he was THERE.
And elected to the Presidency in the very beginning.

No man knows what united Americans better than this man.



quote Adams:

"Who composed that Army of fine young Fellows that was then before my Eyes? There were among them, Roman Catholicks, English Episcopalians, Scotch and American Presbyterians, Methodists, Moravians, Anababtists, German Lutherans, German Calvinists Universalists, Arians, Priestleyans, Socinians, Independents, Congregationalists, Horse Protestants and House Protestants, Deists and Atheists; and "Protestans qui ne croyent rien ["Protestants who believe nothing"]." Very few however of several of these Species. Nevertheless all Educated in the general Principles of Christianity: and the general Principles of English and American Liberty.

Could my Answer be understood, by any candid Reader or Hearer, to recommend, to all the others, the general Principles, Institutions or Systems of Education of the Roman Catholicks? Or those of the Quakers? Or those of the Presbyterians? Or those of the Menonists? Or those of the Methodists? or those of the Moravians? Or those of the Universalists? or those of the Philosophers? No."

Christian Principles DID


SJ Doc

SJ Doc exclaims: "Think about the surprise that struck the muddy mainstream in the last quarters of 2007, and churned up the water in the early GOP primaries this year, when Ron Paul articulated *PRECISELY* the "government as plundering, counterfeiting, murdering bastiches" message and it drained "Katie" of all her perkiness as the Paulistas came out of nowhere to make her pet Republican - John "The Enemy Ace" McCain - look like the senile cement-head we all know he truly is?"

LOL!!! In case you haven't noticed, fellow senile cement-head, nobody listened to Paul and because of the MSM, McCain got elected!! Also, in case you haven't noticed, a lightweight, half-term Senator from Illinois who's promising "change we must change to the change we hold dear" is most likely going to occupy the White House in January.

Now I understand why you won't answer my question. Your cute little parables and your insipid sarcasm can't hide the fact that you haven't a clue what you're talking about. The fact is that even economic collapse will not wake the American people up to reality. Americans will scream loud and long for the government to DO SOMETHING.

Americans are too stupid to understand that it's the government that caused the problem in the first place. The feds will use any crisis as an excuse to legislate ever more intrusions into the economy, thus gaining even more power over the drooling masses.

Take it easy, Doc. Nice chatting with you.

Bob_C - "You elected?''
--
"No, but I got nominated pretty good."


Goofs Bob_C:

"In case you haven't noticed, fellow senile cement-head, nobody listened to Paul and because of the MSM, McCain got elected!!"


Yeah, sure.

Chuckles, John "The Enemy Ace" McCain hasn't even been *nominated* as the Rotarian Socialist Party's presidential candidate yet. That doesn't happen until the Whigs hold their convention in September. Y'know? Big noise, lots of fumbling, gaudy futility?

Kinda like a crowd of eunuchs at a gang-bang.


Ah, but:

"Americans are too stupid to understand that it's the government that caused the problem in the first place. The feds will use any crisis as an excuse to legislate ever more intrusions into the economy, thus gaining even more power over the drooling masses."


Heinleinianly admitting that one should "Never underestimate the power of human stupidity," I nevertheless have to take heft of the degree to which the Permanent Institutional Incumbent Party (both Republicrat and DemaGOP) have buttpucked the American economy over the past several decades, especially with the recent Weimaresque acceleration of currency debauchment rates perpetrated by the Federal Reserve.

Well, inflation has always been a big part of the Republican Party heritage, hasn't it?

I think this is going to jolt even the droolers.

I'm just tickled to know that Hussein's going to be the public face of catastrophe when it comes thundering down.





=====
"Depend upon it, Sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully."

-- Samuel Johnson

talent scout - Worshiping John Adams
--
Succumbing to the HBO syndrome, talent scout burps:

"I will listen to Adams over any man living today, cause he was THERE.
"And elected to the Presidency in the very beginning."


Oh? You mean the same John Adams who pushed for the Alien and Sedition Acts?

The blatantly unconstitutional measures denounced by Jefferson and Madison, and against which were published the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions?

The same John Adams who nearly ripped the nation apart, and *DID* manage to lead his Federalist Party into utter death and destruction in the 1800 elections, leaving Jefferson's Democratic-Republicans running what was for all intents and purposes a one-party state for the next 20 years?

That John Adams, right?


Succumbed to the HBO syndrome, didn'tcha?

The mainstream media puts up a dramatization (like *Band of Brothers*) and the blind idiots think that history was *EXACTLY* what you saw on the tube, right?

Ah, yes. John Adams was "THERE," all right.


Fortunately, Jefferson nailed the miserable sumbitch, after which neither he nor his Hamiltonian co-conspirators were *ANYWHERE*.





=====
Dean Wormer: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

-- Harold Ramis, Doug Kenney, Chris Miller (screenplay) Animal House (1978)

You old brain dead moron
SJ Doc writes:
Subject: talent scout - Worshiping John Adams
--
ts:
How stupid you going to get?
You abuse words just as you do good manners you idiot.
You drunk again today?
Dumb question I know, you are drunk every day, and night.
=====



SJ Doc writes:
Succumbing to the HBO syndrome, talent scout burps:
===
ts:
Haven't watched HBO for over 30 years moron.
I read actually history, and you do not.

=====

"I will listen to Adams over any man living today, cause he was THERE.
"And elected to the Presidency in the very beginning."

SJ Doc writes:
Oh? You mean the same John Adams who pushed for the Alien and Sedition Acts?
=====
ts:
Impossible idiot that you are, they are not the same subject, moron.


Both the Alien and Sedition Act
Was passed by the US Congress for those among us who do not understand the President does not pass law.

He is expected to obey law passed by Congress.
I understand Doc is too stupid to understand this basic principle of who is responsible for both the Alien and the Sedition Act.

Clue for Doc, it was NOT Adams.
He was under the law just like everyone else.
But back then it worked like it is supposed to work.
The people demanded it be removed and it was.

The first of the laws was the Naturalization Act, passed by Congress on June 18, 1798

Congress then passed the Alien Act on June 25,1798

The Alien Enemies Act, was enacted by Congress on July 6, 1798

The Sedition Act, passed on July 14, 1798

Jefferson got it removed in 1800

Adams did not make this law, or any law, moron.

Different subject anyway, moron

talent scout - So John Adams must be...?
--
...discussed entirely apart from everything he did as the second president of these United States?

So the most significant (and most controversial and divisive) years of that fat little manic-depressive's life have got to be off-limits?

And you've gotten your head this far up your butt *without* watching HBO?

Well, that's some kind of achievement, I guess.

Sort of like pinching the world's biggest loaf without undergoing an anterior resection, but - hey, if it's what marks you for posterity....







=====
"Among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism."

-- The Reverend Doctor Bird Wilson
in a sermon (23 October 1831) published in the *Albany Daily Advertiser* (29 October 1831),

Doc is a
cantankerous old and bitter man.

He reminds me of Walter Matthau and Jack Lemon, Grumpy Old Men, cantankerous cynics, but lovable, lol.
He does handle cynicism humorously in his attacks at me.

So, my scoldings at the old moron is mostly in jest.

But he can print some very stupid remarks here at other posters

Christian Principles is not on HBO
SJ Doc writes:- 3:46 PM EST
talent scout - So John Adams must be...?
--
...discussed entirely apart from everything he did as the second president of these United States?
====
ts:
Must be? No
But this is a letter Adams wrote to explain what Principles United all the people back then.
This is a LETTER DOC

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html" target="_blank">http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html

This is a Law passed by Congress.
Alien and Sedition ACTS.
Capiche?

====
Doce writes:
So the most significant (and most controversial and divisive) years of that fat little manic-depressive's life have got to be off-limits?
====
ts:
LOL
No Doc
The fat little Founder is open for examination.
But not by an incompetent old bitter man, who is a quack.
Filled with cynicism and as jaded Don Rickles.

===


Doc writes:
And you've gotten your head this far up your butt *without* watching HBO?

Well, that's some kind of achievement, I guess.

Sort of like pinching the world's biggest loaf without undergoing an anterior resection, but - hey, if it's what marks you for posterity....

=====
ts:
You do make me laugh Doc.
Thanks to history I do not need you or HBO.
This is History Doc.
Read some it will open you mind to the FACT Christian Principles was the Principles that United the people of America in 1776

READ IT! you old moron....lol.

http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html" target="_blank">http://www.constitution.org/primarysources/adamsprinciples. html

American Independence was Achieved Upon the Principles of Christianity
John Adams

WOW
All of the problems pointed out by Steigerwald have been caused not by government, but a lack of regulation and oversight. The GOPs efforts to deregulate the oil futures markets have caused the high oil prices (Thanks Phil Gramm)

This is a repeat of the S&L crashes in the 80s under Reagan. Once deregulation occurred, the foxes were guarding the henhouse and the crooks were free to steal.

The same thing happened with the energy markets (Thanks Enron)

And now we see the same thing happening again:

Almost exactly 20 years ago — in the middle of the saving and loan crisis — federal regulators seized Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, California. The takeover took place more than a year after five United States senators had tried to hold-off a government investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board into Lincoln’s risky loan practices regarding home loans.

Those five senators included Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and the chairman of Lincoln was Charles Keating – who was not only a top McCain donor but was Cindy McCain’s business partner in a real estate deal in Arizona (as I detailed earlier this year). This scandal — known as The Keating 5 — remains an albatross for McCain’s political career.

As a result of Lincoln’s collapse, American taxpayers lost more than $2 billion.

Well, 20 years later, we’re back in the middle of another banking crisis and federal regulators have already begun seizing insolvent banks, and this advisory ran on the wires over the weekend:

Silver State Bancorp (NASDAQ:SSBX), the holding company for Silver State Bank, announced today that Andrew K. McCain submitted his resignation today as a director on the Boards of Directors of Silver State Bancorp and Silver State Bank, citing personal reasons.


Andrew is none other than the son of John McCain.




The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798
Was passed under the threat of war with France.

It got abused and used on American Citizens who dared disagree with Adams.
Quite like the Tax Laws abused today by such as Billy bob and Hilliary Klinton.

"One of the men arrested was Benjamin Franklin's grandson, Benjamin Franklin Bache, editor of the Philadelphia Democrat-Republican Aurora. Charged with libeling President Adams"

(he was a moron though)
"Through his newspaper and several key pamphlets, he promulgated Anti-Federalist sentiment, favoring stronger state governments that could better represent their populations and also opposing the passing of the Constitution. Bache was also a strong critic of President George Washington and his handling of the Jay Treaty, among other issues. Bache was unabashedly pro-French, and his support of France led to his arrest for sedition, and his federalist tirades were targeted in the creation of the Sedition Act of 1798. Bache is viewed by many critics as one of the earliest vocal critics of American policy, and a crusader for the freedoms of speech and of the press."

All, and any law can be abused, and we have PLENTY OF THAT TODAY.
Look at Washington DC and Chicago for an example, concerning the 2nd Amendment.

talent scout - Sucking spume...
--
...from religiot propaganda (the Constitution Party's Web site) "proves" precisely nothing.

Kinda like a Ku Kluxer referencing *The Protocols of the Elders of Zion*, right?

Gargle as vigorously as you like, you're not going to wash out the taste of secularism.

In order to build a union - even before Hamilton and his ilk conspired to criminally "amend" the Articles of Confederation by replacing them with a constitution creating an entirely new government (with the power to *TAX* and therefore to destroy) - the Founders overcame their religious bigotries and set up a government that was deliberately divorced from any sectarian allegiance whatsoever.

So the Treaty of Tripoli (approved by the Congress on 7 June 1797, and signed into law by President John Adams three days later) could state:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."


Which is about as explicit as it gets, right?

Private letters - and personal sentiments - notwithstanding, an international treaty having the force of law kinda trumps whatever a pack of religious whackjobs exhume in support of their brain-blown quest to sell faith-based bullpuckey as if it were either politically viable or morally valid.

If you can think at all (and we're cutting you a helluva lot of slack here, bubbie), think about the fragility of a nation recently cobbled together from thirteen very disparate (and contentiously hostile) separate sovereign states, the government of each jealous of its independence and angry at the Federalists for raising and maintaining the sort of standing army ready and able to suppress any "sedition" that might arise.

And you think that the supposedly "Christian" Founders were stupid enough to throw a bucket of nitric acid on that bale of cotton by driving for religious conformity of any kind?

--

I see No Talent has lost his cookies
... AGAIN.

But at least he's not ranting on about sodomy.

Nice work there, SJ Doc.

Charles - Are you really this stupid?
--
Whines Charles:

"All of the problems pointed out by Steigerwald have been caused not by government, but a lack of regulation and oversight."


Ah, yes. Government is infallible, incorruptible, omniscient, omnipresent....

Hey, why don't you get together with talent scout?

He worships a mythical critter, too.


Dumpuck, did it ever occur to you that the root cause for "the S&L crashes in the 80s" wan't lack of benign, benevolent, godlike government regulation but rather government *INTERFERENCE* in the operation of market forces that tend far more reliably to impose a negative feedback mechanism on fiscal irresponsibility and unreliability?

Ever handled the medical management of an opiate addict, or a Quaalude abuser, or an alcoholic with the DTs?

One of the things that such substances do is to "buffer" the brain against neuronal activity, which rises to artificially high levels as tolerance develops, so that withdrawal of the drugs (or booze) predisposes the patient to potentially fatal epileptiform seizures.

Same thing happens in banking. "Protect" the depositors (and through them, the institutions) against malpractionate lending and investment practices, and the government GUARANTEES that inappropriate and even criminal actions will take place, eventually hitting the point at which things fail even more catastropically than if there'd been no "regulation" at all.

Now, you've got to be *really* stupid to fail of understanding this.

And this leaves us with determining just precisely *HOW* stupid you are.

Shall we get stuck in?

--

You dopey old quack
SJ Doc - 5:07 PM EST
talent scout - Sucking spume...
--
...from religiot propaganda (the Constitution Party's Web site) "proves" precisely nothing.

Kinda like a Ku Kluxer referencing *The Protocols of the Elders of Zion*, right?

Gargle as vigorously as you like, you're not going to wash out the taste of secularism.

In order to build a union - even before Hamilton and his ilk conspired to criminally "amend" the Articles of Confederation by replacing them with a constitution creating an entirely new government (with the power to *TAX* and therefore to destroy) - the Founders overcame their religious bigotries and set up a government that was deliberately divorced from any sectarian allegiance whatsoever.

So the Treaty of Tripoli (approved by the Congress on 7 June 1797, and signed into law by President John Adams three days later) could state:

"The government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

=====
ts:
You are an UTTER fool.
A complete wreck that stupidity alone can create, and you are a freaking idiot.

First off you imbecile, the word Principle is not the same thing as Government.
You are way too dense to grasp this major difference.
Having the discernment of a frog.
Or a mellor, same thing.

The US Constitution is drawn up in agreed to Founding Principles.
The US Constitution was not meant to be a document to spread the Faith of Jesus Christ they all believed in but maybe, maybe 3.

The US Constitution was written to create a Government that is BASED IN PRINCIPLES.
Only an idiot would confuse it as you do, you wacky old quack.

The US Government is for GOVERNING ALL MEN, believer and non believer alike.
And ONLY THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST ALLOWS SUCH GOVERNMENT, based in the Principles He taught.
You are so brain dead I know this will never penetrate your rock head though.


Principles are NOT LAWS
We have some morons here who are dumber than a box of rocks, Doc and his sodomite friend mellor the moron.


Learn the difference in principles and law you morons.

prin·ci·ple (prin's?-p?l) pronunciation
n.

1. A basic truth, law, or assumption: the principles of democracy.
2.
1. A rule or standard, especially of good behavior: a man of principle.
2. The collectivity of moral or ethical standards or judgments: a decision based on principle rather than expediency.
3. A fixed or predetermined policy or mode of action.
4. A basic or essential quality or element determining intrinsic nature or characteristic behavior: the principle of self-preservation.


law (lô) pronunciation
n.

1. A rule of conduct or procedure established by custom, agreement, or authority.
2.
1. The body of rules and principles governing the affairs of a community and enforced by a political authority; a legal system: international law.


The Underlying Principle of the 1st Amendment is from Christianity.
Separation of Church and State

Luke 20:25 -
And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

talent scout - Oh, faith in Jesus
--
Gasps talent scout:

"The US Government is for GOVERNING ALL MEN, believer and non believer alike.
"And ONLY THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST ALLOWS SUCH GOVERNMENT, based in the Principles He taught."


Keep forgetting to unlock that caps key, right?

And "THE FAITH OF JESUS CHRIST" ensures a wonderful, perfectly equitable, benign, and glorious government just reeking of that cuddly Kumbaya spirit, right?

You wanna tell that to the city fathers of Magdeburg? No? How about the Nederlands town of Haarlem? Drogheda? Granada? Mountain Meadows?

How do you feel about celebrating St. Bartholomew's day in Paris?

Ever ask an Armenian Christian how he feels about pan-Islamism in general and the Turks in particular?


Yeah, all that "faith-based" warmth and bonhomie (especially among Christians of various sects - Catholics and Lutherans and Hussites and Calvinists) is just *TOO* reassuring as proof of your premise, isn't it, putzie?

And "a Government that is BASED IN PRINCIPLES" derived from a witch doctor's ineffable gutrumblings - and subsequent "holy scripture" - is ever such a reliable foundation upon which to predicate the policies of a societal agency charged with a monopoly on the infliction of retaliatory violent force throughout its jurisdiction, right?

Yeah, sure.

Hey, you're the supernaturalist. You wanna conjure up the ghost of Arnaud Amalric (Papal legate at the sack of Beziers in 1209) and ask him how to tell which of those thousands of men, women, and children were good Christians?






=====
"Kill them all; for the Lord knoweth them that are His."

-- Arnaud Amalric

To dumb Doc
To waste more time on you.
AND THE CAPS COME AND GO AS I PLEASE.
I do not care what morons think, so why argue with one

talent scout - And there we see...
--
...what happens to a low-church lowbrow who tangles with a guy who's been through the Camden Diocese Parochial School system.

Say what you will about child-molesting priests, at the very least they groped their way to giving their charges a better education in theology (and history of religion) than any sweaty Protestant cow-college preacher could ever provide.








=====
"The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national morality, and the family as the basis of national life."

-- Adolf Hitler

Talent Scout

Doc's not stupid, he's delusional. He thinks he's the most intelligent guy in the house and that he alone has all the answers. He's incapable of discussing an issue without insult, condescension, sarcasm or a combination of all three. Consider, that like a slimey politition, he won't answer a direct, simple question. Instead he hurls insult and changes the subject.

And his irrational hatred of religion and the religious kinda makes me wonder if he got diddled by a priest or whacked upside the head by too many nuns for his big mouth.

Doc also has a tattoo on his forehead. It says: ONE WAY-DO NOT ENTER.

I just hope, if he truly is a practicing MD, he's WAAAY better at practicing medicine than he is at rational discussion. If not, those pesky malpractice insurance premiums must be scary.

Train of Thought
Bob_C Said:
"It's been a lot of years since I read Ayn Rand's prophetic novel, Atlas Shrugged, but it seems to me that the line, "Brother, you asked for it." pretty much says it all.

Then Redlac said:
The Republic has been over-taken by direct democracy, and Washington has become the central dispensor of all revenues. Churchill once said that democracy is about the worst form of government, "it's just better than the alternatives." And, of course, he's right. We now have the tyranny of the majority.

That reminded me of the weekly meetings at the Twentieth Century Motor Company in Atlas Shrugged, where the leeches decided by majority vote who got a new car, and whose kid got an operation.

And SJ Doc said:
The solution to the problem on which you're fixated isn't putting honest men into positions of government power....but depriving government of the economic power that makes government jobs attractive to slimy scum.

Think about it, SJ Doc, what did John Galt do at the meeting at the 20th Century Motor Co.?
He got up and walked out, and then deprived the government of its economic power.

Rather than fight or argue with the government to make it a bit less overbearing, which is a Sisyphean task, the producers in this country should voluntarily remove themselves from the leeches and the system, leaving the deterioration to those who created this mess. They asked for it, let them stew in it.

Perhaps that is what happened to Steve Fossett - he flew to Galt's Gulch. LOL

Countryman - John Galt didn't have...
--
...a family for whom he was responsible, did he?

Francis Bacon put it this way:

"He that hath wife and children, hath given hostages to fortune; for they are impediments to great enterprises, either of virtue or mischief. Certainly wife and children are a kind of discipline of humanity."


Ayn Rand's characters were - with only a narrow few exceptions - unencumbered shadows with less depth and dimension than the stock "mad scientists" of Gernsback's gosh-wow scientifiction.

When you've got a wife and kids, you're just making the mortgage payments, and the property taxes, and all the bills keep going up and up and up....

Well, son, the reason why the government - the politicians and the bureaucrats - do everything they can to screw us out of everything we earn and everything we save and everything we own is that the private citizen living on the thin edge of catastrophe is one *VERY* easy person to exploit.

Particularly if you can criminalize every other breath he takes.




=====
"'Did you really think we *want* those laws observed?' said Dr. Ferris. 'We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one *makes* them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.'"

Bob_C writes
"And his irrational hatred of religion and the religious..."

And just how can a hatred of religion--and the huge damage it causes--possibly be "irrational"?

MellorSJ2 - as opposed to those athiest
paragons of virtue such as Stalin and Chairman Mao?

Some people are evil - claiming that their actions in the name of religion means that all religion is bad is ... irrational.

SJ Doc
Then it seems we're screwed; the government has us hostage, and there's no way to argue out of the hold it has on us.

As Thoreau said, "Most men lead lives of quiet desperation."

chris - Don't mistake for atheism...
--
...that which is more properly defined as a *competing* religion.

Mentioning socialists like Dzhugashvili ("Uncle Joe" Stalin) and Mao Zedong only serves to oppose your purpose of excusing the malignant irrationality of religious faith, chiefly because these men - and the murderous movements they led - neither started nor rose to maximum malingnancy nor declined into senescence and death except as charismatic supernatural appeals to unfounded faith.

All socialism - including Obama's; just open your eyes and look - is like that.

If the Soviet and Chinese Communists suppressed (and in the latter case are continuing to suppress) dissident religious belief systems in their respective domains, it is *precisely* because their leaders and subordinate idealogues recognize that religions are RIVALS.

Religions make exactly the same sort of appeal, demanding unthinking faith of their adherents just as socialism relies upon suppressing (indeed, cannot survive in the face of) reasoned examination of its premises and policies.


Hm. I suddenly realize that I'd first read Eric Hoffer's *The True Believer* (1951) more than half a century ago.

You never have, right?





=====
"The urge to escape our real self is also an urge to escape the rational and the obvious. The refusal to see ourselves as we are develops a distaste for facts and cold logic. There is no hope for the frustrated in the actual and the possible. Salvation can come to them only from the miraculous, which seeps through a crack in the iron wall of inexorable reality. They ask to be deceived."

-- Eric Hoffer

SJ Doc, by bringing up Stalin and Mao
I was making a narrow point - that Mellor had made a logic fallacy (Guilt by Association) in claiming that all religions are bad because of the evil some have done in the name of religion.

I post was to dispute his logic rather than his conclusion (which I also dispute, but was not discussing in the post).

There are evil people in any group - history shows that the normal state of human affairs is oppression and murder - so blaming the religions those people claim to adhere to is illogical and therefore irrational.

Even Hoffer wrote about positive true believers.


I agree with your analysis of Stalin and Mao, by the way. It shows that everyone is religious. Everyone has faith in things that science cannot address - either you believe people have a soul that continues to exist after death, or you believe that we do not. From a scientific perspective, the question is unknowable.

Your argument that religion is "unfounded" or "unthinking" is also a logical fallacy - petitio principii. You start with the premise that belief in the supernatural (non-physical existance) is irrational. Since traditional religions (as opposed to secular humanism) believe in the supernatural, therefore they are irrational. That is circular reasoning.

As long as you hold to your first premise, there is no point in debating the issue.

I have chosen a different authority (the Bible) than you (what 21st century science can prove?). Since we start with conflicting premises, I freely admit that this means there is also no point in trying to convince me that God does not exist.

The difference is that I'm not calling you "unthinking" because you start from a different premise.

chris - All religions are bad...
--
...because they all rely upon (indeed, can't *SURVIVE*) reasoned examination.

It's a fundamental flaw of every belief system.

What socialism and Christianity and every other kind of sysematized attack on rational thought demands of the individual human being is the abdication of that single characteristic which makes him human: the ability to reason.

Thumb through Luther's *Table Talk* and you'll find this:

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has: it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but - more frequently than not - struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God."


And it's not for naught that the religious true believer - whether Christian, Communist, Muslim, or animist - holds in deadly hatred the dispassionate examination of scientific method.

The religious damned fool - someone like you, who has "chosen a different authority (the Bible)" because he *NEEDS* to uncritically surrender himself to intrinsically baseless and unexamined (indeed, declaredly unexaminable) certainties - is the most profoundly immoral and violently evil kind of person that history can record.

Worse, even, than the psychopath (who, at least, has the excuse of being pathologically incapable of telling right from wrong).

Y'see, chris, as a religious believer, you have the *ability* to think, but in the most centrally important aspects of morality, you've voluntarily refused to do so.

The difference between you and the most fanatical member of Pol Pot's Khmer Rouge isn't one of substance but merely degree.

You've sold your birthright - your humanity, your power to think rationally - for a mess of "True Believer" pottage.

You've filled your belly and blanked out your mind.

And you think that this is somehow praiseworthy?

--

Chris - Ah, typing in a box
--
That first line properly reads:


...because they all rely upon the suppression of (indeed, can't *SURVIVE*) reasoned examination.







=====
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."

-- Eric Hoffer


Again, you define "reasoned thought"
to mean thoughts that preclude the existence of the supernatural - therefore I am not thinking reasonably. Circular Argument, as I said.

Luther was flat wrong in his analysis of reason and faith - he should have studied the Bible, which says:

- that Paul reasoned with those he was proselatizing.

- we should be ready always to give an answer to every man that asks you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear.

- that we should not wilfully be ignorant.


You say that I hold "in deadly hatred the dispassionate examination of scientific method."

My hypothesis is that there is a God and that people have a soul that continues to exist after the body dies, and that God will judge that soul. How do you propose to test my hypothesis in an experiment? How do you propose to publish the results for others to repeat?

As I said earlier, my claim is unknowable from a scientific perspective. It is not provable or disprovable by science.


I'm back to work, but will check back tonight for your proposed course of scientific inquiry.

chris - Oh, you've got a ''hypothesis''?
--
Errs chris:

"My hypothesis is that there is a God and that people have a soul that continues to exist after the body dies, and that God will judge that soul."


Hoo, boy. You *really* are as the beasts that perish about scientific method, aren't you?

In that context, the word "hypothesis" refers to a formula derived by inference from scientific data that explains a principle operating in nature.

In pure philosophy, it might be taken to mean an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument, *but* religious belief is - ipso facto - not subject to reasoned argument, is it?

There's also the use of "hypothesis" to signify a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences, but again....

Well, logic isn't your purpose, your method, or your forte, is it?

You concede at least that your "claim is unknowable from a scientific perspective. It is not provable or disprovable by science."

And yet you're trying to use the *language* of science - of reasoned analysis - to bolster the illusion that you've got something of substance to say.

Willy-nilly, the modern American religionist is at every turn confronted with the puissance and efficacy of rational thought.

And even in his efforts to defend irrationality, he unconsciously lapses into the improper use of terms devised for the pursuit and the analysis of reasoning.

Kind of a "cargo cult" thing, y'know?

It'd be risible if it weren't so goddam sad.



=====
"I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind — that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overborne by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking."

-- H.L. Mencken

Crucifixion?
SJ Doc writes:
Date: Jul 29, 2008 - 9:53 PM EST
Subject: talent scout - And there we see...
--
...what happens to a low-church lowbrow who tangles with a guy who's been through the Camden Diocese Parochial School system.
----
ts:
I take it you are Bishop James T. McHugh.
Or his evil twin?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE6DB123B F936A2575AC0A962958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

"About 200 of the Camden Diocese's lay teachers struck the system's eight high schools on Sunday after Bishop James T. McHugh insisted on adding language to a proposed three-year contract granting him power to determine, solely and without appeal, when a teacher has overstepped Catholic doctrine, public morality or other, unspecified, "policies of the Diocese as stated by the Bishop."

====
SJ Doc writes:
Say what you will about child-molesting priests, at the very least they groped their way to giving their charges a better education in theology (and history of religion) than any sweaty Protestant cow-college preacher could ever provide.
=====
ts:
Says it all, you must be one of the child molesters.

No wonder your own evil is hidden from your eyes, you are part of it

talent scout - Labor troubles in Camden
--
Well, thanks for the update. I haven't been paying much attention to diocesan affairs inasmuch as my kids are all grown with families of their own, and I was last personally involved in the parochial school system sometime during the Johnson administration.

Like George Carlin, "I was [Catholic] until I reached the age of reason," after which I simply paid the Jesuits for a good education.

As for the "child-molesting" thing, I spent a bunch of years (straddling Vatican II, meaning I started out memorizing the liturgy in Latin and then had to do it all over again in English) as an altar boy, and not *one* inappropriate grope or suggestion.

Admittedly, I was a helluva homely kid (and I'm not much to look at right now), but the level of repression among those Irish priests was - in retrospect - kind of impressive.

Most Catholics of my generation (active and lapsed) tend to regard the recent Big Noise about Father Fumblydiddles with mutual looks of bewilderment, if only because those guys with the turned-around collars were THE ENEMY.

The parochial school disciplinarians. The guys who handed out punishment details, detentions, massive "Why I Should Not Talk in Class" essays, all the rest of that crap.

How the hell could a Catholic school kid even *imagine* any sort of affectionate (or even remotely pleasurable) relationship with *THOSE* bastiches?

Sooner imagine a Viet Cong sapper sneaking into a firebase for no purpose other than to offer the commanding officer a blow job. Sheesh.


So are you ever going to come up with something even remotely resembling a point?




=====
"Progress: The process whereby the human race has got rid of whiskers, the vermiform appendix and God."

-- H.L. Mencken

SJ Doc, you finally got it!
SJ Doc writes "*but* religious belief is - ipso facto - not subject to reasoned argument, is it?"

It is subject to reasoned arguments between people who can agree on an authority, but is not subject to the scientific method. You and I have not agreed on an authority, so no reasoned argument can occur about religion between us. That was the point of my 9:21 post.


SJ Doc continues: "...And yet you're trying to use the *language* of science - of reasoned analysis - to bolster the illusion that you've got something of substance to say."

No - I was using the language of science in a non-scientific context to point out the absurdity your claim that the religious hold "in deadly hatred the dispassionate examination of scientific method."

Apparently you now agree that applying the scientific method to religious claims is nonsensical. Thank you.


SJ Doc quotes Hoffer: "The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not."

For not caring whether there is a god or not, you sure seem to care a lot about whether other people believe in God.

chris - Not a Monty Python fan, either?
--
If you were, I'd invoke the "Argument" sketch.

Fumbles chris:

"[Religious belief] is subject to reasoned arguments between people who can agree on an authority, but is not subject to the scientific method."


Not at all. Even if the people participating in the discussion share common delusions about some concept with is not subject to reasoned analysis, because those delusions are inescapably ineffable in nature, there can be no genuinely objective commonality upon which to preadicate reasoning.

That discussion between religious authoritarians might well seem "reasonable" (in the sense of good fellow-feeling and lack of contumely), but then so would the minutes of the Wannsee Conference.

Ain't nothing of *reason* about the premises, conclusions, or general character of your religious idiots' klavern no matter how hard you waffle.


As for your observation that I "seem to care a lot about whether other people believe in God," please note that any physician (particularly one with a background in public health) is *supposed* to concern himself with epidemiological trends, including those pertinent to mass hallucinations and other forms of mental illness.

Those who politicize their religious idiocies bring those fantasies into being as motivation for government action - "breaking things and killing people."

This is *not* a public health hazard?





=====
"Religious freedom in a cultural complex is inversely proportional to the strength of the strongest religion. This is supposed to be one case of a general invariant, that all freedoms arise from cultural conflicts because a custom which is not opposed by its negative is mandatory and always regarded as a 'law of nature.'"

-- Robert A. Heinlein

chris - ''Render unto Caesar....''
--
The limits of the "Reply" box being what they are....

Much as I decry the general malignancy of religious belief, I cannot deny the seductive power of comfortable illusion.

Which, after all, is what keeps the average marriage together and prevents most parents from simply, efficiently, and justifiably murdering their miserable offspring.

I've raised kids, and I've got a dozen grandchildren, and if I get one weasel out of the whole pack whose company I can bear for more than an hour, I figure I've come off better than most American married men.

Yet I love 'em all, whole-heartedly, idiotically, and irrationally.

Well, hell. I also used to personalize and speak calmingly to the lab rats and rabbits we worked on in medical school.

No accounting for sentiment.


Thus I can recognize and accept the need of even more heavily flawed human beings for fantastical figures of supernatural "authority" supposedly accessible by way of direct (i.e., charismatic Pentecostalist-style hallucination) or indirect (through massively-redacted and "politically corrected" Holy Writ of one form or another) divine afflatus.

But your religious beliefs - like your sexual preferences - are very personal.

Aren't they? I mean, do you believe as you do because someone else has *told* you to believe that way?

And like your sexual preferences, I really don't want to hear about your religious beliefs.

I mean, unless I'm called upon to advise you professionally about matters of gastroenterology, I don't want to hear about your bowel movements, either.


If you say that you make your political decisions on the basis of your religious beliefs, fine.

What that means is that you're as much a friggin' idiot as the stupid sonofabitch who votes on the basis of which candidate parts his hair on the left.

--

SJ Doc, on the contrary, every time
you post I think of you making mud pies, bringing class into it again, discussing how the castle up there is governed in turns.

And yes, I'm aware that you are agorist, not an anarcho-syndicalist. But you anarchists all look the same to me. ;-)


A few of questions for you: do you believe the planet Neptune exists? Do you believe a man named Urbain Le Verrier existed, and accurately predicted its location? If so, why?

chris - Who has to ''believe''?
--
Asks chris:

"...do you believe the planet Neptune exists?"


(Obviously in the expectation that I'll use the word "believe" in some way.)

Nah. If nothing else, there's data from Voyager 2 (closest approach to Neptune on 25 August 1989), which enabled a recalculation of the planetary mass. Further follow-up by way of Hubble Space Telescope (HST) observation. All published in referee'd scientific journals, subject to editorial as well as peer review, with confirmation based upon other sources of data, similarly gathered and evaluated.

As for Urbain Le Verrier, we've got ample documentation (his own publications as well as the comments of his contemporaries) and a grave in Cimetiere Montparnasse.

You could look him up. Or dig him up.

Be sure to check with the appropriate authorities in the 14th arrondissement before you do that, though.

Slicing briskly with Occam's razor, we get to the reliably test-able supposition (acceptable as true until demonstrated otherwise) that the dude did, indeed, exist, and did truly predict the existence and orbit of the planet Neptune.

And you've got something resembling a point buried in your bullpuckey?






=====
"The idea, therefore, that religious faith is somehow a sacred human convention — distinguished, as it is, both by the extravagance of its claims and by the paucity of its evidence — is really too great a monstrosity to be appreciated in all its glory. Religious faith represents so uncompromising a misuse of the power of our minds that it forms a kind of perverse, cultural singularity — a vanishing point beyond which rational discourse proves impossible."

-- Sam Harris

point? accepting authority.
Most of what we know is learned from other authorities, not from personal discovery.

We all have to decide who we think is reliable enough to believe their claims.

Neither of us have directly seen Le Verrier or the planet Neptune, but we agree that the authorities telling us about them are trustworthy.

We've also got ample evidence that a man named Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead. I choose to believe those sources and you don't (at least the rising from the dead part).

I choose to believe authorities that claim there is more to people than their physical bodies; you choose to believe materialist authorities.

Neither choice is any more rational than the other.

SJ sam Doc in NJ
I am fairly certain that you perceive yourself brilliant and clever and even a bit amusing in your narcissistic arrogance as you attempt to insult Chris, just because he is a Christian and has his faith.

You favor science to explain all. Well, science is a highly overrated endeavor for the most part. And, many scientists, have wasted otherwise great intelligence questioning and looking into things that are better left along to begin with. And, this is okay too, as long as you revered Scientists, do not use My Tax Dollars to fund your weird curiosities.

The government wastes so much money on pork spending to all sorts of outrageous science endeavaors at universities, individuals, agencies, and foundations..

Mankind spends far too much time and government money on worthless scientific endeavors. Even your little exposition of Venus, the Hubbel Telescope, etc. What is the point, except some scientists want to do it, because they have a theory and expect government to fund their curiosity adventures. We have absolutely no business as a nation trying to figure out what other planets are like, when they refuse to use the science we already know and all the research has been done, to do some things on this planet that need to be done.

So, you ateistic scientist, save your pompous insults to Chris or any other decent citizen by your sarcastic attempt at showing how clever you are. You are an insignificant and irrelevant pissant and for your own sake, you best hope that the hell some believe in, does not exist. But, I am sure you already live in your own hell, as I am sure that an arrogant and pompous narcissist such as yourself have no friends, except maybe a Petrey Dish Of Aids Virus or some other Killer Virus or Bacteria. Hope they keep you warm at night.

chris - Yeah, and the plumbing...
--
...in my house was installed by other people, too.

Says chris:

"Most of what we know is learned from other authorities, not from personal discovery."


Savvy "division of labor economy," chris?

We got into this exchange on religious belief by way of a comment I'd made about the Consitution Party being nothing more than a religious traditionalist effort to mask a theocratic political agenda under the illusion of restroring constitutional (i.e., lawful) government to these United States, and now we've got chris fumbling arouond like a sophomore-year Liberal Arts major who hasn't quite grasped the basic elements of his Introduction to Philosophy course.

The point of scientific method, chris, is that whatever these so-called "authorities" assert is subject to *PROOF*.

You get that?

If you don't want to read Feynman's popular writing on the subject (and I recommend it strongly), Wiki up "Cargo Cult Science."

There's also a click-able link to "scientific method" that's worth examining.

As for the historical Jesus (and, yeah, I had this course in college; the Jesuits made sure that whatever your major, you *minored* in theology and philosophy), the "ample evidence" of which you speak has been worked over like the proverbial sonofabitch by succeeding religious authoritarians to weed out whatever information said authoritarians have found inconvenient.

What you keep missing is the fact that Christianity is *POLITICAL* and has therefore in both doctrine and detail has been heavily politicized (by way of expedient censorship) throughout history

With regard to the historical reality of Jesus Christ, even some of the central facts about his teachings have been redacted and re-redacted so heavily that it's something of a running joke in academic circles.

There's a difference between "authority" and "authoritarianism," chris.

--

I'm an engineer, not a philosopher.
SJ Doc, I wiki'ed "cargo cult science" like you said. I still think you're missing my point. I'm not trying to couch Christianity in scientific terms. My "hypothesis" several posts ago was - as Rush says - to illustrate absurdity by being absurd. My point is there are limits to what science can test.

SJ Doc: "The point of scientific method, chris, is that whatever these so-called 'authorities' assert is subject to *PROOF*."

I cannot prove there is a God. Can you prove there isn't? Can you use the scientific method to do so?



To completely change the subject, are you a hard core agorist, or are you planning to vote this year?

Greyhawk - Not much time in the lab...
--
...eh, buddy? I'm not much on picking over proofreading errors, but lack of familiarity with the eponym "Petri dish" does serve to betray the fact that you've got pretty much zero experience in (or knowledge of) the sciences.

This being understood, I've gotta say that I really love your "Things Man Was Not Meant to Know!" line of bullpuckey, to wit:

"..science is a highly overrated endeavor for the most part. And, many scientists, have wasted otherwise great intelligence questioning and looking into things that are better left along to begin with."


So how the puck do you judge science to be "highly overrated" if you know precisely zero about what it is, how it's done, what's its purpose, or what its effects really are?

(As opposed, in the last case, to what you idiotically *suppose* its effects have been, and might yet be.)


Oh, yeah. "AIDS" is an acronym, and to the best of my immediate knowledge, we don't run cell cultures on native HIV-1. It's a fastidious little bastich. More reliable clinical information is gained by treating a plasma sample with reverse transcriptase (RT) and then undertaking a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process for amplification and subsequent analysis. That enables monitoring of viral load (important for the assessment of antiretroviral drug therapy) and both genotyping and phenotyping of the predominant strain to get a resistance profile on the little sumbitch.

Phenotypic resistance testing does involve culturing. A *part* of the patient's predominant HIV-1 strain is used to construct a new virus that is then grown in the lab and tested with varying concentrations of ARV drugs. It's prohibitively difficult to grow the patient's unchanged (whole) virus in a laboratory.


Kid, it's not that I'm particularly "brilliant and clever."

It's just that you're so pucking *STUPID*.

--

chris - An engineer? Cool!
--
The problem is that I don't know if your major requirements included anything in philosophy, particularly logic. If they did, I don't think much actually hit and stuck.

Else you wouldn't *ever* have posted something like this:

"I cannot prove there is a God. Can you prove there isn't? Can you use the scientific method to do so?"


Ach, Gott! Demanding of an opponent the support of a negative proposition!

The fallacy of appealing to lack of proof of the negative.

Let's skip consideration of your college years; you didn't make the debate team in high school, either, didja? (I was only an alternate; they had me in extemp, and I did impromptu in college.)

The Jesuits would've had you on toast, engineering major or not.



As for me being "a hard core agorist," you oblige me to remember my first encounter with the late Samuel Edward Konkin III at the first Noreascon (the world science fiction convention held in Boston back in '71). It was one of those "lapel-grabbing moments."

Yeah, I vote. SEK3 to the contrary, I've always been of the sentiment that the guys who are holding you down and screwing you can't be properly accused of rape unless you scream and struggle at least a *little* bit.





=====
"Thanks to guys like Boss Tweed, famous for saying, 'I don't give a damn who does the voting, as long as I do the nominating,' there hasn't been an honest election in the USA since sometime around the War Between the States."

-- L. Neil Smith

If I was trying to prove there is a God
by demanding you prove there isn't, that would be a fallacy, and you would - as you say - have me on toast.

But that's not what I'm after - I'm trying to show that it is not irrational to believe in a God because His existance is not provable or disprovable. If you can disprove there is a God, my belief in Him would be irrational; thus the demand to prove a negative is relevant and not fallacious.

To support my believe in the rationality of believing the unprovable, I showed that you also believe some unprovable things on faith. Neptune's existance and orbital path are certainly provable with time, a decent telescope, and calculus.

But the story of Le Verrier's accurate prediction of Neptune's orbit is no more provable (by the scientific method) than the story of Christ's resurrection. You have to take someone's word for it.



We had no philosophy requirement at GA Tech. I roomed with a several of Catholics, though, and got an earful of Kierkegaard and Kant. Don't remember much about that. I prefer to study the ancient Jewish philosophers. GA Tech required a bunch of English classes - there was certainly no logic in those complete wastes of time.



Care to say for whom you plan to vote for POTUS this time around?

chris - On Le Verrier...
--
...(especially for an engineer!) you don't understand *DICK* about how he calculated the existence and orbit of Neptune, do you? He was working off data gathered on the orbital mechanics of the planet Uranus along principles defined by Newton. Without that specific information and the robust theoretical underpinning of Newtonian mechanics, Le Verrier would've been utterly SOL.

He was working *ENTIRELY* "by the scientific method," and taking nobody's "word for it" in any way whatsoever. Moreover, he got it more accurately than did his contemporary, John Couch Adams, who was investigating the same phenomena independently.

That's what made his achievement so resoundingly impressive, you goof.


As for your ignorance of logic....

Oh, my. You're "trying to show that it is not irrational to believe in a God because His existance is not provable or disprovable" when you know (or bloody well ought to know) that belief is itself intrinsically irrational.

Not that it doesn't exist, or that people don't act - sometimes quite effectively - on the basis of their beliefs, but that there's nothing of substantive rationality about that which *must* be taken on faith.

Nobody *has* to "disprove [the proposition that] there is a God" because there's no proof that any sort of god exists.

Therefore your "belief in Him" *HAS* to be irrational, and your "demand to prove a negative" is not only irrelevant and fallacious but also bordering on the psychotic.

Perhaps a well-compensated psychotic, but a psychotic nevertheless.

All religionists are, though you can hardly take comfort from the fact that you've got plenty of company.

*Mass* delusions are far more dangerous than individual cranks and crotchets.

See "Islam" for more on that.

--

chris - Addendum
--
The fact that you were never required to take a formal course in philosophy (and that what little you've confusedly got was gained in bull sessions with fellow students who themselves apparently didn't have much of a grip on plain logic or scientific method; "Kierkegaard and Kant" - Borjemoi!) doesn't excuse you the responsibility to get grounded *now*. If you're going to sling the lingo, you've got to soak up the usage thereof, or accept the fact that you're going to be taken as ridiculous.

Look at your hapless position right now.

1) You admit that "[God's] existance is not provable or disprovable."

2) You say that *ONLY* if I (or somebody else) can disprove the existence of God, your "belief in Him would be irrational."

3) Therefore, you're insisting that your belief in God *IS* rational because your interlocutor (me) can't do that which you yourself have stipulated to be impossible.


Kee-rist! I've got a three-year-old granddaughter, and except for the fact that you can spell (and can probably pronounce words more lucidly than she), it's like I'm dickering with her.

You're an engineer. Got a copy of the rubber handbook anywhere in reach?

How did all that information get in there?

Answer: by dint of observation and experiment, verified through independent confirmation, and always subject to revision on the basis of new information that rises to levels of statistical significance necessitating consideration.

That's why the rubber book is in its 89th edition. New information keeps showing up all the time.

Kid, you can no more "believe in the rationality of believing the unprovable" than you can substitute marshmallow for molybdenum trioxide to get an enamel to stick to a metal surface.

IRL, you've got to think and act like an engineer.

Why the hell aren't you doing the same thing here?

--

Le Verrier used the SM to find Neptune -
it's a classic example. I wasn't disputing that. I am saying that we know of his work only from letters and journals and such, which could be forgeries or have been misinterpreted.

We can repeat his work - looking at the irregularities in the orbit of Uranus - and find Neptune and scientifically prove that Neptune is there and has the orbit Le Verrier predicted. That is an example of using the scientific method.

We cannot prove that it was actually Le Verrier's work - we have to rely on the words written by men long dead in their journals and published works.

The fact that you and I have agreed that those documents are reliable does not constitute proof - only agreement on authority. We agree to believe the story of Le Verrier's work.

I dispute that "belief is itself intrinsically irrational" - that's what I've been disputing for this whole conversation, yet you persist in using the statement as a premise.

I agree that believing in something that can be disproved is irrational - but believing in something that is neither provable nor disprovable is a choice made based on one's perception of the reliability of the authority.

Go back and read your 2:15 post, which says in part:

"... when you know (or bloody well ought to know) that belief is itself intrinsically irrational. ...
... Therefore your "belief in Him" *HAS* to be irrational"

Circular Reasoning.

chris - Theater of the absurd...
--
...but without any sense of humor on your part, right?

On Le Verrier, we've now got your premise that because:

"...we know of his work only from letters and journals and such, which could be forgeries or have been misinterpreted...."

and:

"We cannot prove that it was actually Le Verrier's work - we have to rely on the words written by men long dead in their journals and published works...."

then it is only because:

"We agree to believe the story of Le Verrier's work...."

that you or I - or anyone - can accept the proposition that Le Verrier existed, did the work, and was recognized by his contemporaries as the author thereof.


Hoo, boy. Reminds me of a schizophrenic I used to manage.

Sabe usted "Occam's razor," chris?


A fairly useful form of medical literature (especially for us primary care grunts) is the review article. Instead of reporting original research, a good review article digs through the clinical literature on a particular diagnosti