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
Sunday, July 05, 2009
David R. Stokes :: Townhall.com Columnist
Which Revolution?
by David R. Stokes
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
 
Poll
Was the Copenhagen Global Warming Summit Walk-Out a Win for the U.S.?


In my opinion, the best part of John F. Kennedy’s inaugural address on January 20, 1961, had nothing to do with asking anyone anything. The moment to remember was when he said:

“The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe - the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God. We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution.”

It is interesting, even sadly ironic that what is going on in our nation right now does resemble an old revolutionary spirit, but not necessarily that of Lexington, Concord, or Philadelphia. In fact, a case can be made – if one looks closely – that the spirit of 2009 is more like the spirit of 1789 than 1776.

The American and French Revolutions are linked in our minds because of chronology; but they were vastly different affairs. One led to a new birth of freedom; the other to terror and tyranny. That one also became the model for horrors to come.

As our nation morphs its way along, en route to becoming what some liberal diehards very much want it to be, a significant number of people would seemingly prefer “Liberty – Equality – Fraternity” over “Life – Liberty – and the Pursuit of Happiness.” And it is in the parsing of those vitally important words that we find the keys to understanding where we came from, where we are, and where we are going.

One revolution was about individual rights and dreams. The other was about “the people” as a group and the highest virtue being “the greater good.” Can you guess which one is which?

When Thomas Jefferson wrote about “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in the Declaration of Independence, he was borrowing from 17th century English philosopher, John Locke, whose triad was “life, liberty, and the pursuit of property.” Jefferson’s use of this language was clearly designed to describe the rights of individual people to live free, be free, and freely pursue their dreams in a free marketplace. Those thoughts were very much in presence in that Philadelphia birthing room.

The French Revolution, on the other hand – though similar to what happened here in the sense of changing things and breaking free from an old order – had little to do with individual rights. It was all about collectivism. And in many ways, the French Revolution is the ancestor of all totalitarian systems to follow. Hitler, Mussolini, Pol Pot Lenin, and all other political gangsters were heirs of Robespierre and later, Napoleon. Those tyrannical manifestations were not misguided aberrations – distortions of something that started out good (like Lenin was cool, too bad Stalin messed it all up) – the seeds of the horror were present at the beginning.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, 18th century Enlightenment philosopher, had written about volonté générale or “general will” and the Jacobins, followed by others, ran with it insisting that voice of “the people” could best, actually only, be expressed by so-called “enlightened” leaders.

Our revolution indeed drew a measure of strength from the Enlightenment, but it was of the earlier Locke variety. And America’s use of Enlightenment concepts was tempered by something else; something that set it apart from what happened in France - a spiritual foundation.

Vive la revolution - Vive la difference.

The French not only declared war on the monarchy, they also attacked Christianity, replacing it with a religion of the state, introducing the worship of secularism. Sound familiar?

In America, it was very different. Now, I am not one of those who spends a lot of time trying to prove the Christian bona fides of our founding fathers, but I do believe that the influence of The Great Awakening, which ended about 20 years before the shot heard around the world was fired, was still very much a part of our national fabric at the time. And another such movement, usually referred to as The Second Great Awakening began while the French were unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to be free. To ignore those religious and cultural movements in America is to miss an important piece of the puzzle.

You see, the very concepts of liberty, equality, and fraternity sound nice and make for great propaganda. But in the end, without virtue born of something deeper and greater, it all ends up looking the same. This is why all totalitarian regimes like to call their realms The Peoples’ this or that – like The Peoples Republic of China, or Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or The Peoples Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Fast-forward 200 plus years and here we are remembering our revolutionary beginning. As we do so, let us beware of those who share our vocabulary, but use a different dictionary.

Are we still about the individual, personal, hard-fought-for rights: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, or does the cry: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity seem to increasingly be the spirit of this age?

The reason it has all worked and endured so well in this land is because we are a nation “under God.” There I said it. There is no real liberty without that. All attempts at actual freedom end up moving toward tyranny without some sense of higher purpose and power.

I believe firmly in the separation of church and state. But minus positive religious influence, a nation cannot long remain free.

Thomas Paine’s story should be a cautionary tale. He, of course, wrote Common Sense in early 1776, and it was by all accounts vital to shaping public opinion in support of our patriotic ancestors. He was a revolutionary. In fact, there is a new book out by Glenn Beck, bearing the title Common Sense, using Mr. Paine’s ideas as a springboard for his own thoughts about what is wrong with America and how to fix it. I have read Beck’s book and like it. But I certainly hope he doesn’t write a sequel, or at least delve further into Thomas Paine’s bag of literary tricks to make future points about saving America.

Mr. Paine helped us early on, but as he moved on and shared more of his thinking via his acerbic pen, he expressed ideas that, while probably resonating with some today, would in no way mesh with the spirit of 1776.

While Common Sense supported the ideas of freedom, small government, and even low taxes – all very much part of that old revolutionary spirit – by the time the French were acting out his writings became increasingly more radical. When parts one and two of his work, The Rights of Man, appeared in 1791 and 1792, he became a pariah in England and fled to France like where he was treated like a hero, being made an honorary citizen of the republic. But by this time, his writings advocated a progressive income tax, public works for the unemployed, and guaranteed minimum incomes.

And don’t even get me started on his next bestseller, The Age Of Reason; a rant against revealed religion. Paine died virtually alone and penniless in 1809. Only six people attended his funeral.

This of course, brings us back full circle to the thesis of this article – that concepts of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, expressed individually (the intent of our founders), can only keep from drifting toward collectivism when there is a spiritual impulse – or at least a spiritual pulse.

C. S. Lewis said it very well in The Screwtape Letters more than 65 years ago:

“Hidden in the heart of this striving for Liberty there was also a deep hatred of personal freedom. That invaluable man Rousseau first revealed it. In his perfect democracy, only the state religion is permitted, slavery is restored, and the individual is told that he has really willed (though he didn't know it) whatever the Government tells him to do. From that starting point, via Hegel (another indispensable propagandist on our side), we easily contrived both the Nazi and the Communist state. Even in England we were pretty successful. I heard the other day that in that country a man could not, without a permit, cut down his own tree with his own axe, make it into planks with his own saw, and use the planks to build a tool shed in his own garden.”

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
David R. Stokes is a minister, writer, and broadcaster. His weekly talks at Fair Oaks Church in Fairfax, Virginia and host of Loud on Purpose, heard Monday to Friday in Washington, D.C. on WAVA 105.1 fm.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Good article.
Freedom from God.
Our revolution drew it's freedom from God.
The French wanted to be free from God. The policies of the corrupt Catholic church at that time certainly pushed the people that way. But the issue there was still about individual liberty. The church wanted to tell people what scripture said. Rather than revolting against the Catholic church alone (like Luther) the French revolted against God, thus elevating man to god-like status. Left to his own devices man will always abuse power, hence Robsspierre, Napoleon etc.

Rubbish!

"The reason it has all worked and endured so well in this land is because we are a nation “under God.” ... There is no real liberty without that."

Nice Article

I wonder why these concepts of Freedom, Liberty, and equality escape Liberals?

Vision of the Self-Anointed
The arrogance and narcissism of leftists knows no bounds. Their core principles are all built on a belief that the “voice of the people” can only be expressed by so-called “enlightened” leaders - the truly elite members of society – “The Anointed Ones”. ....and of course they all count themselves among this small group of privileged saviors.

JOHN IN NY
Are you serious? This GOD created the universe and all that is therein. If you are atheistic or agnostic that is understandable. But deny it or not, deep down inside you know there is a God. Those who come to God must believe that HE is. IF you donot believe, doesn't change the fact that God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in truth and Spirit.
It is through His guiding Spirit that led our forefathers to come and form this nation and write documents to protect the freedom of men from tyranical rule of other men who choose to be unGodly. UnGodly produces lack of morals and domination of others. In other words "Power to control."
While you have been given the right to choose or deny God, you have not been given the right to persecute those who do Choose Him.
Our country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and only those who do not follow them are the destroyers, not the believers.

Aetheistic Negativity
Many who believe have no interest in converting aetheists, agnostics or their ilk. We are puzzled by their bitter, acidic negativity.

Unfortunately, the old axiom is as true as ever - If you stand for nothing, you'll fall for anything.

This is what the current resident of the White House wants. He wants more ignorant, arrogant fools who believe in nothing other than their pitiful selves.

You don't have to believe, we don't care whether you believe or not, you are entirely irrelevant. What we don't want is you and your kind to try to persecute those of us who do believe,by advancing the agenda of the maggot currently occupying the Offal/Awful/Oaf-full Office.

Humans are nothing more than appetites
outside of the submission to God and His order. Appetites become voracious; the voracity of the appetites compel people to assume they are indicative of personal rights; personal rights then lead to entitlements; entitlement gives license to pillage others to feed the appetite/right/entitlement.

Everyone is now doing what is right in his own eyes; meanwhile, we are inherently blind and beastly.

The usual suspects...
...will always jump in and ruin the spirit of a good discussion with their acidic humor.

It is as the Scriptures say... it is not enough for the wicked to behave the way they do, they want to pull down the righteous and make them wicked as well.

The day will come when they will have tested me to my limits, however... I'm no saint.

Unsupported asssertions from the godots

Lots of them. As usual.

We are toast
Let's face it. This Congress and this administration is working to have total control over everything we do, and they are doing it in record time. They are rushing to implement this garbage before people realize what is going on, before mainstream media finally wakes up and actually starts reporting this assault on our freedom. Once (IF) MSM wakes up, Obama and his agenda will be toast.

In the Cap & Tax bill as passed by the House last week, they have a section that will etablish an agency that will tell you how far away from one another specific species of trees have to be planted, how far from homes, air conditioning units and other outdoor obstacles they have to be. They will "suggest" which trees you should plant based on you location. And I'm sure they will have inspectors come out and verify that you have complied with these rules. Bet you won't be able to cut one down without permission. You will lose control of your own property. You can't make up crap like this, I wish I had such an active imagination. But then again, I'm not looking to control people--they are.

Unsupported, Mellor?
What assertions are "unsupported"? Support your assertion.

To Marie
re "You can't make up crap like this"---but you say that right after "making up crap like this". You imagine things that MIGHT happen in the future then react to them as if they were reality. You invent a boogey man, and then fear him. We see this all the time on townhall.

You have no evidence that Obama will tell you what kind of trees to plant. For decades the government has put out literature suggesting what kind of trees might do well in what areas of the country, and how to kill the tent worms that infest your trees, and how farmers may improve their alfalfa crop. THAT IS NOT TYRANNY. Your fear of government has turned into paranoia.

Yesterday FOX attacked a program in Virginia in which drivers are ticketed for running a red light. The anchor said, "This is another example of government tyranny". Nonsense. It is drivers getting ticketed for illegal driving behavior, as they always have been and should be. Do you want chaos at every intersection?

Health care reform? I have read on townhall that Obama is building gulags where he will send the elderly to die without medical care. Posters claim that he is forcing Americans into indentured servitude by suggesting that they volunteer to drive for Meals on Wheels. Also that he is forcing our youth into a Hitler Youth Corps by suggesting something like Vista and the Peace Corps, which have existed for forty years. Just last night Matlock TX posted that Obama is training UN troops on US soil so he can declare martial law and force everybody to get vaccinations.

The job of government is to govern, and government does not equal tyranny. When industries (or doctors and insurance companies) put profits so far ahead of people that they hurt people then it's time for government to exercise control and protect PEOPLE. Have some sense.

lilly
You are hopeless

jax:
lilly is not just hopeless--she's also an ACORN troll who is paid to pollute conservative websites.

Lilly
Obama did make the statement about letting older people die because of the cost of medical care. He uttered those words just a few days ago.

Your BS about running red lights in Va. was taken out of context.

And he does have troops, 80,000 in training to inforce martial law. They have been called
Brown Shirts.

Other things in Obama's list:
size of house you can build
surcharge if you travel over limit of miles he sets
the temperature of your house
and several more besides that!

Yes, oldsocialworker, unsupported
From John in OR: "Our revolution drew it's freedom from God. The French wanted to be free from God."

From Icedog: "Our revolution drew it's freedom from God. The French wanted to be free from God."

From Darrell (a right barrel of nonsense): "This GOD created the universe and all that is therein. ... But deny it or not, deep down inside you know there is a God. ... IF you donot believe, doesn't change the fact that God is a Spirit and they that worship Him must worship Him in truth and Spirit. It is through His guiding Spirit that led our forefathers to come and form this nation and write documents to protect the freedom of men from tyranical rule of other men who choose to be unGodly. UnGodly produces lack of morals and domination of others. ... Our country was founded on Judeo/Christian principles and only those who do not follow them are the destroyers, not the believers."

etc etc

And from LouLouise: "[lilly is] an ACORN troll who is paid to pollute conservative websites."



The KEY to Winning in 2010
Check out this blogger, and you will be HOOKED. http://www.theblacksphere.net He is refreshing, and his book is AWESOME! Talk about changing the conservative and Republican landscape!

Another founding principle.

David Stokes, truly well said.

Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are indeed given to us by our Creator.

Which, therefore, makes them unalienable... or NON-transferrable.

Think about that.

Because any government large enough or strong enough or "enlightened" enough to "give" us our rights... is also (insert own word) enough to take them away.

And that is the world we WILL HAVE - if we follow the destructive path of the far left. More specificlly, of secular-progressives.

And in particular, of people like MellorSJ2.

True wisdom and just plain basic common sense asks that they ALL should be put on permanent ignore. Here, and elsewhere.

Because tragically, the far left are who they are... and will most surely remain so.

God bless America.




Mellor
If you had a child in a hospital and near death, who would you call on....Satan??

Leftist Authoritarians
The phrase from this article which describes the leftist utopia best was about
Rousseau, the Jacobins and others who believe that the will of the people could "best, actually only be expressed by so-called "enlightened" leaders." Fast forward to today and the worshipful adoration heaped on "the annointed one" who knows far better than we plebians what our problems are and how to solve them. We've turned our country over to a slick talking snake oil salesman who'se never run anything bigger than a koolade stand.

LD35

A doctor. Obviously.

More unsupported assertions and
bad logic this time from ScottK.

"Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are indeed given to us by our Creator."

But then, in a fine example of the fallacy of the undistributed middle, a true statement: "Because any government large enough or strong enough or "enlightened" enough to "give" us our rights... is also (insert own word) enough to take them away."

Then back to wild assertions: "And that is the world we WILL HAVE - if we follow the destructive path of the far left. More specificlly, of secular-progressives.

And in particular, of people like MellorSJ2."

Awww. Isn't that sweet? A special mention.

Mellor
So you disagree with the opinions of some posters using your own opinion as the arbiter. That's not "unsupported", that's a difference of opinion. Your own opinion, in your eyes, is the template by which others ought to be measured against to verify correctness. You see nothing icky about that?

On Whether Government is Tyranny
After checking out townhall while having a morning mug of tea, I proceeded to the breakfast table where I scanned our two daily papers, as is my practice. Today I carried in the back of my mind what I had just been reading on townhall, all the statements about government intervention being evidence of tyranny, and I read the news through that prism.

Here is what I read in the Chicago Tribune: the Taste of Chicago, a huge annual 10-day festival over the 4th of July, in recent years has been the scene of several shootings, including last year a fatal one. In the hope of preventing more, this year there was a HUGE police presence patrolling on foot, horseback, and Segway. Security cameras were everywhere. A 50-foot security lookout tower was installed so that police could monitor the crowd. Lingering groups were broken up. 31 people were arrested, including a 15 year-old who carried a loaded sawed-off shotgun sticking out of his back pocket.

I guess that, theoretically, someone could argue that all of those cops were evidence of jackbooted thuggish tyranny. And, except that the sawed-off shotgun guy was underage, the free-to-carry folks would applaud him. So my question is, does anyone on townhall see the point of the government trying to maintain the public order? Or is it all just intrusion on people's rights? And what would be the alternative to having all those cops at the Taste?

More idiocy from oldsocialworker

This is an excellent example of why godbots are so easily fooled. Or perhaps, why, since they are easily fooled, they become godbots.

"So you disagree with the opinions of some posters using your own opinion as the arbiter."

Nope. That's not what I said. I said there were unsupported statements from godbots.

"That's not "unsupported", that's a difference of opinion."

Nope, it's unsupported. "• not borne out by evidence or facts : the assumption was unsupported by evidence."

"Your own opinion, in your eyes, is the template by which others ought to be measured against to verify correctness. You see nothing icky about that?"

If it were true, I might. But I said that the claims that goddidit are, in these posts unsupported. And I copied the unsupported statements for your reading pleasure.

If you can find any support for them in these posts, please provide. We shall all be enlightened.

To LouLouise
Honey, Lilly is an old lady in Chicago who would like to know where to apply if she can get paid for doing this. Do tell. (Although your fellow posters have already assumed that if I live in Chicago then I must work for ACORN and know Obama personally.) Thanks for providing yet another laugh to my 84 year-old ailing husband and me.

have you noticed...
"...One revolution was about individual rights and dreams. The other was about “the people” as a group and the highest virtue being “the greater good.” Can you guess which one is which? ..."

The constitution is fading as the reactionary touchstone? They are all declaration types now LOL. We are governed by the Constitution not the Declaration of Independence or the Articles of Confederation. That tricky preamble keeps getting in the way:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

This is about building the country and community TOGETHER. Individuals do not have a successful revolt. The conservative cult of the individual has damaged the nation and its social structure. It is unworkable and the primary reason they were completely unable to govern. To heck with family, friends or fellow citizens; what is best for ME. Yup that worked look around you...LOL

To LD35
I googled "obama brownshirts" and found nothing but the usual unfounded paranoic raving. Excuse me, I've been around a while. I remember the "they are all Commies" from 50 years ago, the "they won't tell us the truth about UFOs" from 40 years ago, the "they are arming the blacks to invade our homes" from 30 years ago, the " Clinton's black helicopters" from 20 years ago, and the "we must form militias so we can fight the government when they come for us" from 10 years ago. Now we have the NRA sending out mailers saying that Obama (represented by brownshirts) is going to take away your guns. Has that happened yet?

The election of a President who is a) black b) a Northerner c) urban and d) an intellectual has scared the hell out of the good ole boys, who fear that unless one of their own is in power they will be the object of the same vengeance that they themselves plan. Not true? Townhallers write in detail about what they hope to do to Democrats, liberals, gays (arrest, gas, shoot, incarcerate behind barbed wire, spear on bayonets, feed to dogs) once they get the chance---all that is happening here is that folks are projecting their own rage onto others then reacting to it as if it were reality.

I am fascinated by how townhallers think. A while back I quoted back to posters their exact words. They quickly concluded that the government (which they believed to be represented by yours truly) is keeping records on them. Their whole construct clicked into place immediately.

I agree with every word, lilly

Except one. The last word of the first sentence of the last paragraph.

Hal
Ummm did you read any of our forefather's works? You are being extraordinary disengenous if you think this is what they wanted. Our first government was kind of the one they wanted, but it was too much of an anarchy so they put together the Constitution massively limiting Federal power.

Can you name one that wanted centralized authority to what we have? Jefferson. Not even close. Hamilton maybe. Adams no. Again name one.

You're argument on the individual is crazy. It wasn't Hobbiesan world the forefounders (or conservatives)were talking about it when they talked of the individual. It was property rights and individual giving. They didn't want to force people at gunpoint to donate their time and or money.

If you think conservatives are so bad just look at the donating rates and the donating time. Liberals and liberal nations are horrible. Look at volunteer work in France. It's nonexistent. No one does it. Forcing people to give and forcing people to build a community does the opposite of its intent (please find one example where this isn't so).

Also how does welfare build a community? LBJ's great society did the opposite of building a community. Can you even name anything that has anything to do with building a community in welfare?

But here's the real honest difference between conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives want local and state govt, and community to build a community. Liberals want Federal government to build (mandate) a community. The difference is not in their intentions, but their strategy. You want top heavy bureaucratic manadates. Conservatives want you to get off their throats so they can do it. Think Jeffersonian not your insane misguided belief in conservatives.

Jason for President!
.

It's Our Nation Too
Most of us can see where this Liberal push is headed, we just are unsure how to derail it. Nothing created with hype, and hype alone, can sustain itself. Obama's constantly trying to appease his major supporters may be his own undoing. Since we still have little evidence of any of the claimed accomplishments by Obama in the past and don't even know where he was born, it seems almost impossible to figure out how this individual was able to fool an entire nation, or at least enough to be elected. If the American people will open their eyes and use their heads for something other than a hat rack, they may see the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats. If you haven't noticed, questions they don't want to answer, they simply ignore, just like Nancy Pelosi saying that the CIA lied. The mainstream media let it go at that, yet did a whale of a hatchet job on Sarah Palin. You can't do a good job at anything when you are being attacked from all sides. I wonder how Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Schumer, Murtha and the rest of the wolf pack would react if they were subjected to the same treatment? All we have had from the Liberals for the past six years is theater and we may regret the final curtain!

Clifton L. West

President Zelaya-Obama
When the King starts handing down PEOs, dictating to us things that would be more appropriate for a dimwit like Ahmadinejad or the guy with bad skin from Venezuela, we may see our own government turning upside down,
inside-out. The looting of the national treasure by Zelaya-Obama is going to bankrupt us - and after the impending medical depression closes dozens (or hundreds) of hospitals, we'll see if our Constitution survives.

From the SC to the POTUS, they did vow an oath to the Constitution - but it's a near certainty that they never meant a word of it. And while the fat posterboys for a nouveau French Revolution (Al "The Incorruptible" Glore, Al Shlupton and Michael "the Pig" Moore) all smirk at the idea of a National Razor, and they may find that they're treated to the same, as Robespierre.


Jason
"Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 12:56 PM EST
Hal
Ummm did you read any of our forefather's works? You are being extraordinary disengenous if you think this is what they wanted. Our first government was kind of the one they wanted, but it was too much of an anarchy so they put together the Constitution massively limiting Federal power."

LMAO of course I did. Our first government was incompetent for the very same reasons conservatives are incompetent; they could not function together. It was clear that our founders wanted a nation for the ages. Their very admission of error in the Articles was an admission of error. The constitution was and is an evolving document to meet the needs of the people. The constitution strengthened central government and that was the reason for it.

"...Can you name one that wanted centralized authority to what we have? Jefferson. Not even close. Hamilton maybe. Adams no. Again name one."

Heck I don't want "centralized authority" whatever that is. Congress is where the power lies. The days of slavery and state sponsored segregation are over. The civil war and segregation put paid to those and settled the "states rights" issue.

"...You're argument on the individual is crazy. It wasn't Hobbiesan world the forefounders (or conservatives)were talking about it when they talked of the individual..."

Don't try that. Conservatives and founders in the same sentence as an entity. The founders were indeed liberals. Conservatives as defined today do indeed talk a Hobbiesan world. Listen to limbawl or just hang around TownHall a while if you don't believe me.

"...It was property rights and individual giving. They didn't want to force people at gunpoint to donate their time and or money..."

They supported taxes might I mention the whiskey rebellion. They stole Indian land to sell remember the trail of tears?


Jason II
"...If you think conservatives are so bad just look at the donating rates and the donating time..."

LOL OK Do look at them AFTER you remove religious donations. I wish I could deduct advertising and my club dues. FYI they are the same

"... Liberals and liberal nations are horrible. Look at volunteer work in France. It's nonexistent. No one does it. Forcing people to give and forcing people to build a community does the opposite of its intent (please find one example where this isn't so)."

Look at all the "fund raisers" to help out troops. Why should our troops and their families EVER need fund raising? Society should pay and chooses not to. How much charity is needed in France? I know in the UK my wife volunteered quite a bit and their were numerous volunteers

"...Also how does welfare build a community? LBJ's great society did the opposite of building a community. Can you even name anything that has anything to do with building a community in welfare?"

Call welfare what it really is investing in people and infrastructure. We most likely would not have remained a world power after WWII except for the the community building WWII GI Bill the largest welfare program in at least US history.


Jason III
"...But here's the real honest difference between conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives want local and state govt, and community to build a community..."

No you don't I have seen the results like the public school with part of the roof caving in off I-95 in your state. Sorry you cannot oppress your community and state while the rest prosper. There are or should be limits.

"...You want top heavy bureaucratic manadates. Conservatives want you to get off their throats so they can do it. Think Jeffersonian not your insane misguided belief in conservatives."

You had your chance and failed. We want national guidelines and standards. How you get there is your choice. Sorry this guy here saw state sponsored segregation and separate but equal all I can say is never again.

collectivism vs. individualism
Political systems can be boiled down to two: collectivism and individualism. The collectivist believes in the greatest good for the greatest number, and if a few individuals must be sacrificed for this “greatest good”, well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs. And if the number of broken eggs reaches into the hundreds of millions, as they did under the combined efforts of Robespierre, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and will continue to do under all of their ideological brethren, that’s just too bad.

The United States was founded upon belief in individualism, which is based on the concept that we are “endowed by our Creator” with rights which cannot be abrogated by any earthly power.

The collectivist naturally has a problem with this, interfering as it does with the conviction that some must be sacrificed so that his Preferred Others may benefit. The trick, then, is to work at eliminating the belief in a Creator, and if that’s not possible, to instill in the believers the notion that they have a duty to sacrifice themselves to what the “majority” defines as “good”.

The collectivist's ideal world is one in which this “majority” is composed of the least accomplished members of society, who have been conditioned to view excellence of any stripe as a threat.

The above-mentioned Screwtape, C.S. Lewis’s Demon Emeritus, gleefully points out to his students (in Screwtape Proposes a Toast) the success they’ve had in changing the meaning of the word “democracy”. He explains that the word is no longer used to express the political ideal that people should be equally treated, but instead to express the idiotic notion that all people are factually equal—essentially endowing envy with the status of a virtue. People who labor under the impression that “I’m as good as you” have a vested interest in assuring that nobody rises above their own level.

OBAMA'S STRASBOUG BLUNDER
A good piece of writing by Rev. Stokes contrasting the American and French Revolutions.

When Obama was at Strasbourg, France in April addressing a crowd of French students his teleprompter failed as he was reciting the famous motto of the French Revolution: Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. Ironically he got through the word Liberty okay, it was Equality that caused him to stumble.

Click my name and read my piece: "The Meaning of Obama's Stausbourg Blunder" found in featured posts.

I am under the impression that the motto
of the French Revolution was abbreviated in this essay. I haven't checked it out to be sure, but I remember it as, "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity, or Death!"

I suspect the medical plan being proposed currently is being formulated to effect the last on that list.

Mellor
All information is processed,tried and prosecuted in the court of your head based only upon your subjective opinion of what constitutes supportive information. "Support" is as YOU define it, and you even have created your own mocking names for people who believe in God as if that makes their arguments inherently invalid. It won't matter what sort of "support" anyone offers- you will simply redefine whatever the feedback is as filtered through your assumed truths and reject the information.

I correctly pointed out that you disagree with other posters, and your response was, "That's not what I said". I KNOW thats not what you said- -I am pointing this reality out to YOU; I am saying it. Your issue is one of fundamental disagreement rather than any handle you imagine to possess on superior information that makes it incumbent upon others to justify their position to you.

How about you go off and prove there is no God and provide supportive information?

codgerelle
"Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 3:03 PM EST
collectivism vs. individualism
Political systems can be boiled down to two: collectivism and individualism. The collectivist believes in the greatest good for the greatest number, and if a few individuals must be sacrificed for this “greatest good”, well, you can’t make an omelet without breaking a few eggs..."

Thank you so much for opening my eyes to the fact that conservatives are collectivists. You know when they say it is OK to torture a few to keep the many safe. Or capital punishment is OK even if we do occasionally kill innocents. This is a great point. That is exactly how the failed Bush Regime acted.

"...collectivist naturally has a problem with this, interfering as it does with the conviction that some must be sacrificed so that his Preferred Others may benefit..."

Oh I see here you mean or soldiers had to die in Iraq so that the many folks at Halliburton et al may benefit. You are good and here I thought you were a conservative, sorry I made that mistake

"... The collectivist's ideal world is one in which this “majority” is composed of the least accomplished members of society, who have been conditioned to view excellence of any stripe as a threat."

WOW again you nailed it - loyalty over competence i.e. you are doing a great job Brownie

"... People who labor under the impression that “I’m as good as you” have a vested interest in assuring that nobody rises above their own level."

Like the uneducated limbawl is every bit as "good" (I guess meaning qualified?) as President Obama. Education means nothing nor work especially manual work this is why conservative work so hard to crush wages

decrepitsocialworker
"All information is processed,tried and prosecuted in the court of your head based only upon your subjective opinion of what constitutes supportive information."

All you have to do is provide ANY supporting evidence.

Or, more accurately, all you have to do is to provide supporting evidence for any of the unsupported assertions I quoted.

But you can't. Too bad for you.

"How about you go off and prove there is no God and provide supportive information?'

I never made that claim.



Education Does Not Mean Much
if you're an affirmative action student like Baraka and Michelle. Michelle still sounds like she lives in the ghetto--Princeton and Harvard couldn't purge her of her ghetto intonations.

Hal
Read C.S. Lewis's "The Screwtape Letters"; most of the current editions include "Screwtape Proposes a Toast", which Lewis wrote for (I think) Collier's magazine in 1961. Lewis is the best I've ever encountered at describing the ways in which well-meaning people can be seduced via their own egos into some pretty ugly actions and attitudes.

And yes, conservatives CAN be collectivists--as are many now serving in Congress--the two are by no means mutually exclusive. Nazism is generally viewed as conservative, but it's just as dismissive of individual rights as Marxism. And let's not overlook radical Islam, whose proponents are said to be "conservative" and whose regard for individual rights is also negligible.

And I'd venture a guess that the one-world government proponents--collectivists all--are probably quite content to see the liberals and the conservatives bickering with each other. Such bickering effectively masks the real issue, which is that individualism as envisioned by the founders is incompatible with their agenda.

Two Kinds of Democracy
Mark Amagi made similar points in a post at GM's Place: "Two Kinds of Democracy: Majority Rule vs. Rule of Law
http://www.gmsplace.com/?p=1944
Unfortunately, historical literacy is so lacking in this country that I do not think most Americans are aware of this difference, or care to inform themselves. We can thank our educational system and mass media, along with apathy.

The
voters backing Marxist Barry Soetoro are well known do be the ignorant & stupids of this Country, but Hal, Mellor, Lilly & etc. Jesus, i cannot understand a level of stupidity that the cockroaches have attained.



Go on, LD35. Amuse us all.

Kindly explain this blather, in English, if you please. "The voters backing Marxist Barry Soetoro are well known do be the ignorant & stupids of this Country, but Hal, Mellor, Lilly & etc. Jesus, i cannot understand a level of stupidity that the cockroaches have attained."

My, my, my! The levels of illiteracy to which the godbotherers descend!

Cretin.

Man’s false hope…

Mr. Stokes, you have said it, but they will not listen. Thomas Paine lived through the great contrast between the American and French Revolutions and couldn’t see it. The age of autonomous wisdom is still with us because men do not change. They continue to suppress the truth in unrighteousness hoping this time things will turn out differently.

Liberty, equality, and fraternity
are actually contrary to each other.

There can never be liberty where there is forced equality. Men and women are simply not equal in their talents, abilities and ambitions. This is a fact of the human condition.

Humans may be equal before God and we may be able to initiate a republic where we are all equal before the law, but that’s where it ends. In the effort to legislate equal outcomes for all people, the government works contrary to natural law. What is contrary to natural law is always doomed to failure. Free enterprise works so well because it works WITH natural law to provide the best outcome for all.

Forced fraternity is also contrary to liberty. With so many diverse people having different values and cultures, trying to force fraternity on people who don’t want it is the ultimate tyranny. True fraternity can only exist where all participants WILLINGLY engage with each other. Just look at our public schools and what has happened there when government attempted to force people of different backgrounds to interact socially. It has been a dismal failure.

In the animal world, most species keep to themselves and only interact when there exists a mutual benefit. If we tried to force different animals into social structures with each other, we would no doubt see anarchy.

For people who claim to embrace Darwin, one would expect liberals to have a bit more respect for the natural order of things.

EARTH TO BLOGGERS
I have been involved in and with organizations, committees, and policy-makers for nearly all of my 20+ years in the public sector. The one inescapable conclusion is that the USA has gone the way of the Roman Republic. We have been in the empire stages since WWI. Nobody in our massive executive branch bureaucracy cares about due process or rights. It is all about money and power, and power and money. So-called procedural rule-making authority has turned our executive branch into a substantive law-maker, appropriator, and judge of their own decisions.
Suffice it to say, we are way beyond the principals of the founders. There is not enough space or time to teach the blogosphere constitutional law history.
What has kept tyranny at bay for many years has been the dispersion of power amongst many players. But, the number of players is narrowing (and I don't mean the control of Congress and Presidency by the Democrats). Wall Street, Big Energy (oil is just one player), Unions, Insurers, Health Care, and those middle managers (Gietner, Burnanke, etc.) are now all on the same page. The issue is not the preservation of the founders' principals, it is whether these power players will bankrupt all of us while they sail away on golden parachutes.
Oh well, the earth had its last polarity switch (north becomes south and south becomes north) about 780,000 years ago and polarity has weakened significantly in the past 2000 years. The Earth will be aligned with our galactic center in 2012, and scientists have proved there is a black-hole at the center of our galaxy. The Mayan Calendar runs out 12/21/12, and those Mayans knew the galaxy and time better than anyone. Global Warming is yesterday's news, so chew on that bloggers.

Mellor
So, you can't read. Gee we didn't know.

If and when you get smarter you can become a Republican and Conservative.
Until then.....play with Willy!


Collectivism vs. individualism
These two terms are discussed in great detail in the above article, and they seem to be a core issue for Mr. Stokes, who also details the need for God.

What I find interesting is that the posts from apparent liberals are less interested in the facts than they are about inventing alleged insults (per lily: McCain told this joke at a GOP dinner," etc.) or acerbic and irrelevent comments (Hal Donahue) attacking sincere posters in an attempt to divert thought. Now why is that? Could it be they don't know history?

For instance, calling the Founders "liberal" trying to link them to modern liberalism is a joke. The Founders definition of "liberal" meant "open-minded" and "nonjudgmental." It also, on a political level, meant "the recognition of individual rights. Under no circumstances did it ever lean to include ANY application of collectivism. Oh, and I loved the hilarious comparison of selfish "donations" like club dues and advertisement to charitable donations such as to a church or the Red Cross. Typical of modern liberalism.

The Poor
From the article that says this is a good speech by JFK

"For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty"

Republicans don't want to abolish all forms of poverty: they hate poor people and people who haven't managed to get jobs.

They call anyone who doesn't have a job perverted and evil. Despite the fact that their own states are full of poor people. In fact desperately poor people.

Does Jesus agree with them? Obviously not. Just read the New Testament and you'll know it.

Who would Jesus torture?

Who would Jesus spy on?

Who would Jesus bomb?

France vs US
" a significant number of people would seemingly prefer “Liberty – Equality – Fraternity” over “Life – Liberty – and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

Uhm can you tell me how you could have liberty, equality and fraternity WITHOUT life?

It's impossible. Life is ASSUMED when talking about equality and so no.

And of course the US Constitution also demands equality:

"all men are created EQUAL", although that isn't often the case in America.

As for "pursuing happiness" far too many Americans interpret that to mean buying all kinds of stuff.

Getting more than your neighbor. Buying violence video games. Buying a hummer you can't afford and is too big to fit on a road.

And other anti-Jesus desires of the flesh.

Article
"The Peoples Republic of China"

Ah, yes, the commies that the Republican party send the jobs of some million American jobs so the heads of companies like Walmart could make megabucks.

Thanks to the Republican party and their coziness with commies, the Walton Family now has $90 BILLION.

Thanks to the love between commies and corporate shills, America doesn't make much of anything REAL now. Just hallucinations from financial gurus that have turned $90 trillion dollars around the world into smoke.


And the Republicans borrowed so many trillions of dollars from comme China that they are now balking at lending us more.

Why do Republicans love commies in China and hate American workers?


Ms. Kelly
Liberty and equality work well together when the controlling principle is justice. Justice limits the amount of liberty it allows; justice limits the amount of equality it demands.

That is why Jefferson can use both ideas in the Declaration of Independence.

Now when you change the topic to FORCED equality, etc.,you have a different story to tell. . .

collectivism
Collectivism vs. individualism

The only collectivist I know of in America are nuns, and there aren't that many of them left now.

Nuns that were killed when Ronnie illegally and secretly ran his IRAN/Contra war.

What a guy!

As for the rest of the world, we know that Israel has collectivism in its kibbutzes.

Definition:

kib·butz [ ki b?ts, ki b?ts ] (plural kib·but·zim [ ki b?t s?m, ki b?t s?m ])

A collective in Israel: a communal farm or factory in Israel run collectively and dedicated to the principle that production work and domestic work are of equal value"

Uh oh - against everyting that the Republicans want!

So how should Republicans do about the socialist Israel?

Bomb it?


all men are created equal?
"The Second Great Awakening began while the French were unsuccessfully trying to figure out how to be free."

While America were successfully dragging some 10 million slaves from Africa, many of who died en route.

Free in America then was free work from stolen black slaves.

Even, sad to say in New England. There Indians were rounded up and taken to Africa and traded for black Africans who had a harder time escaping than the Indians who had lived in "America" for 10,000 years.

Fortunately New England early on let all the slaves be FREE to the horror of southern states.

A tale of two revolutions
I do not remember the French Revolution about collectivism. I do know some differences between the two that might explain why they turned out differently:

1. American Revolution was a war of colonial independence fought far from British homeland; French Revolution was fought in the homeland and on immediate borders.
2. Many Americans loyal to the king left the colonies (100,000 fled to Canada);French loyalists stayed and fought against the revolution.
3. Spain, France, and Holland declared war on Britain and fought on our side; European countries attacked the French revolutionary regime.

All these things help turn the French revolution into a very nasty affair.

Revolutions
"secularsquare
Location: GA
Reply # 1
Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 10:12 PM EST A tale of two revolutions "

Great post! Good sense and facts!

Revolution and relgion
In y and aristocratic classes. That made them an enemy of the masses of the French people. Because dissenting religious groups had been all but persecuted out of France, no dissenting religious tradition existed to flavor the revolution with religion.It was very secular.They seized Catholic church properties.
In the United States, we were largely a nation of religious dissenters from the established Church of England. Relgious traditions infused virtually all revolutionary thought. But we did take some anti-religious actions. after the revolution,the Virginia state government seized properties of the Church of England (Episcopal). Quite revolutionary!

Kirby nice try
"Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 9:35 PM EST...For instance, calling the Founders "liberal" trying to link them to modern liberalism is a joke. The Founders definition of "liberal" meant "open-minded" and "nonjudgmental." It also, on a political level, meant "the recognition of individual rights..."

Thus it is still

"...Under no circumstances did it ever lean to include ANY application of collectivism..."

OH? They ran a successful revolution. Guess what? They did "include ANY application of collectivism".

"...Oh, and I loved the hilarious comparison of selfish "donations" like club dues and advertisement to charitable donations such as to a church or the Red Cross. Typical of modern liberalism."

You pay you preacher and choir director and call it charity??? Clearly you have no shame

puritans
"In the United States, we were largely a nation of religious dissenters from the established Church of England. "

If you don't count the Indians, the African slaves, the Catholics, all of which had their own religions.

In fact the "Puritans" were nasty people who tortured each other and kicked out any other sect, and even killed a Quaker woman for not agreeing with their bizarre ideas, like putting people in stocks in public, puuting "A" on women (only women) for adultery, killing "witches" by drowning them or piling up rocks on them. They also started the slavery of Indians. AFter realizing that Indians could escape to easily they rounded up male Indians and sent them in their slave trading ships and bartered for black slaves in Africa.

Also the Catholics were forced out of Massachusetts by that crazy bunch. That's why Rhode Island exists today.


" Relgious traditions infused virtually all revolutionary thought."

Unfortunately. Governments shouldn't be based on some particular religion. It's corrupting and divisive.


" But we did take some anti-religious actions. after the revolution,the Virginia state government seized properties of the Church of England (Episcopal). Quite revolutionary! "

was that a GOOD thing? "religious" people STEALING? Isn't that against the 10 commandments?

By the way, Georgia was a PRISON COLONY. Those sent there went against their will.

Lilly
lilly
Location: IL
Reply # 54
Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 10:10 AM EST

Dear lilly. Fantastic post, with lots of facts and figures.

Unfortunately Republicans don't like facts and figures.

AS one Republican said during the whole ramp up to the IRaq war that was based on lies, "We make our own reality".

There were no WMD's in Iraq, yet many Repubs still think there were, even after Bush admitted there were none.

They think Obama, who just allowed guns to be used in National Parks, is going to take away all their guns.

So now there is a rash of murder by the really far crazies like the man who killed a black security officer in the Holocaust Museum. WHICH party is really anti-semitic to the point of attacking that Museum?

How can we convince Republicans with facts when they say they can make up their own personal "facts"?


Why So Serious?
Give the people what they clamor for....it's for the collective good....hee hee hee hee...

Foundling Fathers
The Founders definition of "liberal" meant "open-minded" and "nonjudgmental." It also, on a political level, meant "the recognition of individual rights..."


Sure they did. That's why most of the early presidents had slaves. That's why they said only white men could vote. That a slave owner should get another 2/3rds of a vote for each slave they owned.

That's why they said that women are "chattel" who are owned by their husbands. Just like pigs and cows.

Even now Repubs like Coulter say women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Except for her of course.

And now for the first time in our history a Latino woman has a shot at becoming a USSC judge.

Republicans say that is evil 'cause she doesn't believe exactly what our slaver presidents believed!

Reality is hard for Republicans do deal with. So they make stuff up that sounds good. Or at least good for each other.

Marcia Contrarian at 10:35
"if you don't count Indians, et. al."

That's why I said "largely" a nation of dissenters.

"the puritans were nasty . . ."

Not germane to anything in my post.

"Governments shouldn't be based. . ."

I agree. But Puritan governments were in fact based on religious ideas. And in an era where few cities had newspapers and these only came out weekly, Americans got most revolutionary ideas from pulpits or pamphlets.

"Religious people stealing" The Church of England properties were purchased with public money when it was the colonial established religion. Virginia officials thought it only appropriate to seize it, sell it, and return the proceeds to the publix treasury.

"prison colony"

They were freed from British prisons to get a new start here. Once the arrive here they did not consist of chain-gangs on tobacco road.

Don't let the past be the source of so much angst for you.




Counter revolution
What is happening in government today is not in the footsteps of a different revolution, it is a counter revolution against the revolutionary ideals of 1776.

1 star
This column has it exactly backwards. The American Founding represented the *removal* of religion from political life. It was the first formal mass secularization of politics in the modern world. To argue otherwise is to argue perversely against known, documented history. The Enlightenment in the Anglo-Saxon world and the American Founding were based on reason, not religion.

Read all the provisions in the Constitution. These are secular concepts. They derived from a study of past systems and scientific, cause-and-effect analysis. They are not religious documents. To say that they are religious is to obliterate the meaning of "religious," to attach the word to anything you feel like, without regard to meaning, logic, or truth. It is a desire for the unearned, to steal the accomplishments of human reason for the sake of preserving religion, which is by its nature ineffectual. In practice, religion is a parasite on reason.

And while the French Revolution was admittedly anti-theocratic, it was nevertheless a mystical movement. It treated "society" as some sort of magical super-organism. Reason was discarded, and faith--not in a divinity, but in the collective--formed its basis. This is also a documented historical fact. The French Revolution was very explicitly anti-reason.

Although reason is secular, not all that which is secular is in accordance with reason. Religion vs. subjectivism is a false dichotomy, and both the religionists and the subjectivists purposely espouse it, because they would rather mangle young minds than lose control over them. And it is hard to control people who have adopted reason as their method.

Bottom line: America=founded on reason, not religion.

1 star for the subjectivists, too
The attempt to portray the Founders--the actual Founders, not some yokel cohorts, who exist in any time period--as pro-slavery and indifferent to the concept of individual rights is not only historically inaccurate, it is despicable. It is an act of gross injustice. The very people who smear them like this owe their very existence and their freedom to the Founders and their unfathomable hard work and bravery.

At least the religionists, for all their obstinate perversity, are grateful. The multicultural, America-hating, Founding Father haters are despicable.

Wendy on Secular Concepts
is absolutely correct. The Founding Fathers believed that their study of the past and their analysis of cause-effect relationships in the years leading up to the revolution and in the years of constitution making was part of the new SCIENCE of politics. Religious dogma had little to do with it.

Unfortunately, many conservatives fail to distinguish between a Christian nation/culture and a secular national government.

Additional confusion
remains in some peoples minds, however, because many state governments, particularly in New England,retained established churches or religious qualifications for office. Virginia decided on complete separation of church and state. This is the model that the United States federal constitution followed.

But even the particular structure of state governments and of the federal government were inherited from England and modified slightly for a republican government. They owed little to religious dogma.

Deism and the Framers
America was founded on the religion of reason, as opposed to the spiritual voodoo known as Christianity. Christianity was fine for the drooling inbred, but could not hope to satisfy in the eyes of America's most prominent intellectual lights.

That having been said, this is neither 1776 nor 1789, and the "Lockean wilderness" no longer exists. Any revolution or evolution we devise must take this into account. The Earth's resources are not limitless, and we have to share the planet.

Americans want to be free from your sadistic ancient tribal sky-daddy, Rev. Stokes. The policies of *your* corrupt Church certainly have pushed us this way. That is why Europe is described as a mission field, and we have joined the post-Christian age.

Revolution
GOOD job Preacher.

Control of the language and grammar
We are evolving as a nation in which we have freedon "of" religion into one in which we have freedom "from" religion.

The preposition makes a difference. Think about that.

Lilly and a grain of salt
Lilly wrote:
"The election of a President who is a) black b) a Northerner c) urban and d) an intellectual has scared the hell out of the good ole boys..."

Lilly, ma'am, I appreciate the sage wisdom that comes with age. I have the utmost respect. But having grown up in Illinois myself, I can't help but look at your writing and "wisdom" with a bit of scepticism and more than a grain of salt.

The People's Republic of Illinois is an economic sh*t-hole. I know. I lived there nearly 30 years of my life. It's literally an "economic Beirut," littered with the broken pieces of businesses that have fled the state over the past 35 years. It's a state run by Democrat after liberal, after socialist after Democrat. And the result? Generations of populist-driven, union thug supported, economic blight that rivals all of South and Central America.

I now live in the great Republic of Texas, what in the next ten years we shall soon call "New America." You remember Texas, right? You know, the state that created more jobs last year than all other states combined? A fluke? An accident? Merely coincidental? Think again.

You deride those "good old boys." Who exactly do you think wears the uniform of our nation's military? You guessed it... those eeeeevil good old boys.

Granted, you are correct in that surely some who oppose Obama are indeed racist. However, most are not. If Obama was white, I'd oppose his policies every bit as much and would STILL consider him a socialist. Bush was a socialist, no doubt. Obama is picking up the socialist ball and running with it like he's on fire. He's making Bush look like a piker.

Freedom FROM religion is more valuable
tibby: "We are evolving as a nation in which we have freedon "of" religion into one in which we have freedom "from" religion."

They are one in the same, separated only by one's perspective. Freedom FROM religion -- keeping drooling nut-jobs like the Townhall crowd from shoving their beliefs down others' throats through the sledgehammer of government -- is what preserves freedom OF religion.

Jack Napier
Thanks for your contributions to the debate on the value of religion. Your obvious psychotic hatred of religion confirms the belief of many about the nature of opposition to Christianity and Judaism. Every time you post, you make your cause look bad and cancel out dozens of posters who display rational and polite opposition to religion.

When your enemy is busy hanging himself, give him all the rope he needs.

Robert - AZ
Hear, hear!

The fact Christianity guided our founding, makes rapid liberals react - like a vampire from a cross.

Truth is -- we were founded on Biblical ideology -- primarily Christian -- with the influence of European enlightenment. Not the other way around.

Thank you, psychotic religious nutters!
Robert: "Thanks for your contributions to the debate on the value of religion."

I didn't comment on it. I'm of the opinion that the matter is one that is between a man and his god(s).

Robert: "Your obvious psychotic hatred of religion"

Looks like you've cornered the market on straw, Robert. I don't hate *religion* at all. Rather, I take exception to those who use government to promote their religion.

Jo: "The fact Christianity guided our founding...."

dictates the separation of church and state. It is impolitic to remind Townhall religious nutters about the application of Matt. 7:12 to government: Just as you would object (and rightly) to having your children coerced into participating in Satanic rituals at school, it is equally immoral from a true Christian standpoint to employ the public schools as a vehicle for promoting your own peculiar brand of objectively ludicrous (see, 1 Cor. 1:18) superstition.

When you get down to it, most religions are objectively weird.

I don't have problems with Christianity, as much as I do with psychotic Christian fascists.

Jack Napier
Jack: dictates the separation of church and state.

Jo: There is no such thing. Read the first admendment. ...freedom OF religion *and the free exercise thereof*...

Jack: It is impolitic to remind Townhall religious nutters about the application of Matt. 7:12 to government: Just as you would object (and rightly) to having your children coerced into participating in Satanic rituals at school...

Jo: Free exercise of religion means -- you can't tell people when where or what deity to pray to. Not allowing this freedom in school is UN-constitutional.

You want **your** children to pray to Satan (figures...) - great. Long as I have *EQUAL time* - for my kids to pray to our deity. (Or for atheists to "reflect" or sit and stare -- whatever.)

The only religious nutters here are those who are anti-religion, who rabidly accost Christianity and DENY them their constitutional rights of prayer.

BTW - YOU would do well to take your OWN advice and read Matt 7:12. It means treat people with EQUAL rights and treat them with respect -- as you would expect to be treated.

You sir are doing the POLAR opposite by denying religion in schools.

May the Goats see the Light:
It is hard to understand how people blindly accept the erosion of their liberties, and just ignore what's happening and look the other way; but one thing that still remains the same throughout the ages is the leftist stream who oppose everything that is evidently right. From the beginning they were previously known as the “children of Belial” - meaning worthless and good for nothing - where their own thinking was concerned, and so they continue today as did their predecessors. However, may they be ever thankful that they live under the age of grace and the ground does not swallow them as before.

bullpucky!
"Truth is -- we were founded on Biblical ideology -- primarily Christian -- with the influence of European enlightenment. Not the other way around.
"

Precisely, Jack Napier!

"America was founded on the religion of reason, as opposed to the spiritual voodoo known as Christianity. Christianity was fine for the drooling inbred, but could not hope to satisfy in the eyes of America's most prominent intellectual lights.

That having been said, this is neither 1776 nor 1789, and the "Lockean wilderness" no longer exists. Any revolution or evolution we devise must take this into account. The Earth's resources are not limitless, and we have to share the planet.

Americans want to be free from your sadistic ancient tribal sky-daddy, Rev. Stokes. The policies of *your* corrupt Church certainly have pushed us this way. That is why Europe is described as a mission field, and we have joined the post-Christian age."

So many true words....

Well said!

First Amendment religion jurisprudence
Jo: "You want **your** children to pray to Satan (figures...) - great. Long as I have *EQUAL time* - for my kids to pray to our deity. (Or for atheists to "reflect" or sit and stare -- whatever.)"

It figures that a Christian like Jo would be dishonest (that's not what I said, which is patently obvious); the short definition of a Christian is one whose "word" is meant for preaching, as opposed to KEEPING. I am not advocating any such thing, but lies is what a Christian is.

"Jo: Free exercise of religion means -- you can't tell people when where or what deity to pray to. Not allowing this freedom in school is UN-constitutional."

Uh, they HAVE that time -- if someone were to stop your child from saying grace over lunch in the school cafeteria, I would be the first to object. What is not permissible is having a specific school time set aside for prayer, no matter what deity you wish to honor. The reason for this is obvious: school attendance is mandatory, and children are impressionable.

The whole idea is to avoid peer pressure, so that the parents' right to raise their kids in the faith they choose is respected. We are a nation of religious dissenters and as such, consciously chose to avoid unnecessary church-state entanglements. And as history has shown, that wise decision has done more to preserve religious observance in America than has been achieved in any Western state.

What is the educational benefit gained from setting ten valuable class minutes aside for Mohammed abu-Haidar to pray aloud to Mecca?

inalienable rights and reason
Something to think about here, if there is not an inalienable right to life and liberty(also property, but not germane here) then the freedom to pursue one's happiness is also not an inalienable right, as it is not granted by God. If it is granted only at the behest of one's fellow man (majority rule/democracy), then it can also be taken away( omitting force in this regard). So I can only wonder how those who discount God from government(no not forced religion) derive rights.
A people might then say that they are superior to others and on that basis deprive another people of their rights - slavery.
A people might then say they are more fit by virtue of breeding to rule - aristocracy.
Please for those who deny God, tell me the source of your rights. If it is man who determines rights, who is it among man that determines who is to be the determiner? One could not do this without an absolute, unalterable standard that exists outside of man, otherwise it is only my opinion vs. your opinion. Thus as Jefferson said "self-evident". It is so simple that it needs no argument.

Admit that you want to shove it down
the throats of a captive audience, Jo. Be honest for once in your life.

Jo: "The only religious nutters here are those who are anti-religion, who rabidly accost Christianity and DENY them their constitutional rights of prayer.

BTW - YOU would do well to take your OWN advice and read Matt 7:12. It means treat people with EQUAL rights and treat them with respect -- as you would expect to be treated.

You sir are doing the POLAR opposite by denying religion in schools."

I don't know what kind of drugs you are on, but there is a decent chance that you broke into Drugs Limbaugh's medicine cabinet. A child is free to practice his or her religion at any time during the 138 hours per week or so that class is not in session.

Back when I was raised as a Christian, I was always taught to pray in the closet, so that it not be seen as a pompous show before men. "Verily, verily, I say unto you, they have their reward." The Christians that I know considered it an offense to pray outside the congregation.

Unless you are trying to employ our public school as a tool for proselytization -- and we all know that you are -- your position makes no earthly sense, and even less in the way of spiritual sense.

Rights without God
Lenard: "Please for those who deny God, tell me the source of your rights."

Go stand on a desert island. Whatever you can do, constitutes the whole of your portfolio of natural rights. Whether you accept or deny the existence of a supreme being is irrelevant.

desert island answer
Jack either be a man and answer the question or don't, but your response is only evasive in nature.

more desert island
I initially wasn't going to respond to such an inane comment, but the discussion here centers on a society compoesed of more than one person. In isolation such as the intellectually dishonest comment(dishonest in that it does not deal with the topic at hand)suggests my natural rights would not be relevant as there would be no one else around that I need to have an agreement(whether formal or informal) with so as to ensure that no one's rights are violated.
The question of the purpose of government, and rights only comes into play when more than one individual is present. If the purpose of government is arbitrarily defined, then a government may coerce, because it is not formed to protect rights, but to carry out the agenda of those who have power, whether a better equippped minority or a tyrannical majority. To rely on either one to do right would be dependendent on them having a concept of what right is that does not change,thus bringing us back to the need for unalterable, inalienable rights, that are granted by God and not capricious, flawed, tempermental men.

Wendy is correct [#15, 16 above]
The reality is that BOTH Religionists and Statists are anti-individual & anti-Reason.

Ayn Rand correctly identified them both as mystics:

* Mystics of muscle: Statists
* Mystics of spirit: Religionists

Many of the Founding Fathers were deists -- so, they wrote that man's inalienable rights came from God. Clearly, some of them believed that sincerely - and others probably thought that it was good PR to invoke God, to engage the masses in such a monumental undertaking.

Religious conservatives take comfort in this aspect, ignoring that it is the fact it is the fact that man's rights are considered INALIENABLE (in America) that make this country great -- not the SOURCE of those rights.

Secular Conservatives focus on keeping those rights inalienable, knowing that there is always a risk that the mystics [of either pursuasion] can gain ascendancy long enough to erode those rights.

After all, if it was the 'Godliness' of a country that mattered, then other religious countries should have fared equally well.

The fact is that Religious countries AND Socialist countries fail as often as Secular countries.

Countries that consider rights (freedom) to be INALIENABLE succeed, irrespective of whether their citizens believe that those rights come from God or from Extra Terrestrial creatures.

[Contd]
Our deism-inspired founding documents, protect individual citizens' rights -- from the clutches of Government AND Religion!

I'm all for praising deist Founding Fathers, for getting it mostly right. To some extent, as long as Religionists are in favor of keeping individual rights INALIENABLE, their personal beliefs regarding the source of those rights are nobody's business but their own.

However, most Religionists extrapolate the somewhat accidental fact that Deists 'got rights right' and insist on bringing anti-individual (and anti-reason) sentiments into political and economic discussions.

If you don't think that Religionists are that fickle, ask yourself how many Religious Conservatives would switch parties if the (D) and the (R) party switched their positions on Gay Marriage and Abortion, but left everything else in place.

Liberty
John
Location: NY
Reply # 8
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 3:25 PM EST May the Goats see the Light:
"It is hard to understand how people blindly accept the erosion of their liberties"

Yes it is. So when is your party going to stop spying on Americans, creating the biggest prison population in the world to benefit the CEO's of privatized prisons, preside over the poorest states in America, be against the right of people to join together in unions, hate homosexuals, stand up for total isolation of prisoners, a crime against Humanity, keep suspects in Gitmo for years with no charges against them, wage a war based on lies that has killed a minimum of 95,000 (DoD document), give huge power to the few richest, eliminate all anti-usury laws, kill abortion providers, invade the Holocaust Museum and kill a guard, allow people to have guns who are mentally ill, for example?

And don't forget that after the CRA was passed with the help of some good oldfashioned Republicans racist Democrats became racist Republicans. As LBJ predicted when he signed the CRA.

It's not the left that do all that.

It's YOUR PARTY.

What happened to Republicans like Eisenhower who warned us of the military/industrial complex that after 28 years of Republican rule, now grabs 1/2 of all the income of the US?

What happened to Goldwater who at least was sane?

And now you are pushing your own moderates under the bus.

You seem to think the fewer voters you have the better.


Aynus Rand
voice_of_reason
Location: TX
Reply # 3
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 5:51 PM EST Wendy is correct [#15, 16 above]
The reality is that BOTH Religionists and Statists are anti-individual & anti-Reason.

Ayn Rand"

The woman who thought that selfishness was ideal.

Fits well with the ratwingers all right.

Did you enjoy the rape scene in which this "woman" said that women love being raped? How sick is that?

Did it turn you on?


Errata .. my 5:52PM post
Sorry, I didn't realize that the 'Reply#' were subject to change.

I was referring to Wendy's posts at 11:37AM and 11:46AM.

Also, I mis-spelt 'persuasion'.

Jesus
MellorSJ2
Location: AL
Reply # 93
Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 1:48 AM EST Rubbish!

"The reason it has all worked and endured so well in this land is because we are a nation “under God.” ... There is no real liberty without that."

I'm sure Jesus agrees with you that dropping huge numbers of 1000 pound bombs on Baghdad, a city full of civilians based on lies was His Will.

As is your party's belief that the few richest at the top are the only worthwhile people, and workers should bow down to them for paying us anything for our work.

That wealth is the only important thing and those without it are lazy scum.

That torture is good, that stealing the continent of America and slaughtering the natives, enslaving black Africans is like a prayer, that controlling the oil and other assets of other poeple's countries to yet wealthier is holy and that polluting his earth gives him goosebumps.

You wouldn't recognize Jesus - cause he looked poor and humble and loved everyone.






Freedom

Useful Idiots
Location: PA
Reply # 94
Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 2:18 AM EST Nice Article

I wonder why these concepts of Freedom, Liberty, and equality escape Liberals? "

The concepts of freedom, liberty and equality are totally anathema to the right.

You "liberated" more than 95,000 IRaqis into mass graves. You forced 4 million Iraqis to flee their homes and/or the country in fear of death.

usaid.gov, under Bush could only find 2000 mass graves from SAddam's era - your party has killed 40 times that. And you refuse to even help the 4 million refugees who fled the looting and ethnic cleansing you allowed along with inviting terrorists into the country where there had been none.

Freedom for what? Dropping bombs on innocents, torturing suspects, sicko sexual torture as in Abu Graib, creating the biggest prison population in the world, aimed at low level drug dealers, basing your lives on how much wealth you have, tryhing to eliminate the right of workers to join together to be able to stand up to the corporate officers, handing hundreds of billions of dollars of NOBID contracts to war profiteers like Blackwater that has a license to kill innocents, using the cheap labor of commies in China to make the Walton family get $90 BILLION while they pay their workers nothing.

That's your idea of "freedom" - freedom for megarich white males including those who recently were so greedy and ignorant that they killed their own banks, mortgage companies and insurance companies, thus killing that economy, while spitting on the vast majority of workers in America.

You wouldn't recognize freedom and liberty if it hit you in the head.

Marcia: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.

Do you have anything to say about Rights, inalienable or otherwise? Surely you have an opinion on whether your rights come from your Creator, or from your fellow-man.

Please feel free to disagree with my viewpoint, but try to FOCUS .. try not to drift into lurid, knee-jerk fantasyland, OKAY?


Creator?
voice_of_reason
Location: TX
Reply # 99
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 6:23 PM EST Marcia: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?
It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."

Thanks for your ranting,hateful hallucination.


" Do you have anything to say about Rights, inalienable or otherwise? Surely you have an opinion on whether your rights come from your Creator, or from your fellow-man."

I described to you what the "Creator" and the real Messiah (if there was one) belived in. And I pointed out how Republicans believe in none of them.

Since I am an agnostic, I have no idea if there is a creator but I sure do know it wouldn't be a HE. I'd say that most religions make up their religion in a way that supports there pre-existing beliefs.

But I do admire Jesus who as against everything your party stands for.

Freedom and life
voice_of_reason
Location: TX
Reply # 99
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 6:23 PM EST Marcia: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot?


It is difficult to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person."

My belief in that has tripled since I've been reading the half-wits like you.

"Please feel free to disagree with my viewpoint, but try to FOCUS .. try not to drift into lurid, knee-jerk fantasyland, OKAY?"

I'm surprised that you would define as "lurid, knee-jerk, fantasyland" the agenda of your party. I'm sorry if you think it was God who told you that bombing Iraq based on false claims and killing , as the Department of Defense just announced.


As for the refugees I got the number from the Voice of America website.
As for "god" I'm an agnostic. Unlike most people I do not automatically believe in a "god" that has had many many interpretations starting from back when our ancestors became humans, millions of years ago.

As with any religion each person picks and chooses the ideas that THEY LIKE and reject the others. Thus your party loves dropping bombs on Iraq and killing lots of innocents based on falsehoods while calling yourself "prolife". Who would Jesus bomb?

You stand up for torture a crime against humanity. Who would Jesus torture?

You do stand up for the richest - you say that the megarich like Cindy McCain ,who never worked a day in her life, shouldn't have to pay taxes on the $100 million and yet at the same time you say you are for "merit"! The merit of being lucky enough to have a rich daddy or a rich grandaddy!

YOu have allowed our corporate shills to charge up to SEVEN HUNDRED PERCENT for "payday loans"!

YOu hate unions because it means average Americans can have the FREEDOM to work together to get a decent wage so they can have a decent LIFE!

Marcia, I refer you to your post ..
.. in which you say [a DIRECT quote]:

"Did you enjoy the rape scene in which this "woman" said that women love being raped? How sick is that?

Did it turn you on?"

This was YOUR response to my post which was about the inalienable rights that we enjoy as Americans - it had nothing to do with rape.

So, dear lady, do the words 'Ranting and Hateful' apply to your post, or to mine?


marcia's coherence
"Since I am an agnostic, I have no idea if there is a creator but I sure do know it wouldn't be a HE. I'd say that most religions make up their religion in a way that supports there pre-existing beliefs."
"I have no idea".."but I sure do know". Marcia if your only purpose is to rant then please stay out. You avoided voice of reason's question, which is really what the dialogue is about, and you contradict yourself in your response.
No on here is(well, other than yourself) is arguing democrat or republican, but purpose of government. Either be a grown-up and join in the discussion, or please leave.
Also, try to realize that just because we essentially have "two" parties here in the US doesn't mean everyone emerges from the womb with some fully formed R or D ideology.
Most importantly are you such a coward that you cannot answer as to whence spring one's rights? Do you hate God that much? Is it not of great importance as to what form government should take? I understand that in acknowledging a God who has created man and granted rights naturally leads to the next step of just who is God?, but if you cannot say as an absolute what the purpose of government is, then how can you have any opinion on government period? Further if you don't know what the purpose of government is how do you know that you aren't choosing what is bad for man? That is why we are and why we discuss.

Wow, Marcia ..
.. your diatribe seems to be addressed to me, but you are bringing up points that are unrelated to my post.

FYI, I hold a Secular Conservative viewpoint and am opposed to many things that Republicans typically advocate. Please direct your anti-Republican venom elsewhere.

That said - and, while this must be incredibly cathartic for you - I can't waste my time on such unfocused, incoherent drivel.

Marcia
1. Nothing you say is objectively true.

2. Nothing you say is even coherent.

3. Given 1. and 2., my advice is to say nothing.

Freedom
Robert
Location: AZ
Reply # 105
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 8:38 PM EST Marcia
1. Nothing you say is objectively true.

2. Nothing you say is even coherent.

3. Given 1. and 2., my advice is to say nothing.


1) you're lying

2) I'm sure it isn't coherent to you because you've never believed in the truth and like Bush, have a hard time speaking or understanding the English language.

3) you are the usual rightwinger who doesn't believe in free speech at all. I'm supposed to shut my mouth because you don't like what I say - that's the opposite of free speech. That's how all of you far right screamers feel: free speech is only for you.

Your party now has 23% or so percent of AMerican voters. You're lucky that any Democrat will even discuss the issues with you. Palin just dumped a stink bomb on Alaskans and lots of Alaskans are disgusted with her. Another constituency you just shoved under the bus. You sure did do a great job of alienating Latinos who used to vote for you. Now even the Cubans, who have always been on your side are disgusted. Keep it up and you and Nader will get the same number of votes.

Tough luck: I'm not going away. Deal with it. Maybe you might learn something, and maybe you can learn to read, although I doubt it.


Apololgy

voice_of_reason
Location: TX
Reply # 104
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 8:09 PM EST

TO voice-of-reason

I apologize that I cut and pasted the wrong person.

I find this method of posting here incoherent and difficult to deal with.

I will not make that mistake again.

grammar lesson
Lenard
Location: MD
Reply # 103
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 8:05 PM EST marcia's coherence
"Since I am an agnostic, I have no idea if there is a creator but I sure do know it wouldn't be a HE. I'd say that most religions make up their religion in a way that supports there pre-existing beliefs."



"I have no idea".."but I sure do know". Marcia if your only purpose is to rant then please stay out."

Do you understand the word "wouldn't"?

Obviously not. As I said rightwingers have a hard time understand their own language, just like Bush.

Here's the definition - if you can understand it:


Definition:

"would" used with "if" clauses: used in stating what will or suggesting WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN under the circumstances described in the conditional clause

Do you know what a conditional clause is? No? You could look that up all on your own - if you can manage it.

Otherwise I'll help you out with more explanations about grammar.


Meanwhile, here a little exercise in knowing the difference between "will" and "would".

Can you pass it?

http://www.usingenglish.com/quizzes/443.html

marcia
"1) you're lying" Nope. I never lie. And you can't identify a single lie I ever told. Strike one.

"2) I'm sure it isn't coherent to you because you've never believed in the truth and like Bush, have a hard time speaking or understanding the English language." Oooh! Another strike! I used to teach Freshmen English in college, and I made an excellent living with my skill in English. I reserve the word truth for something that can be empirically confirmed.

"3) you are the usual rightwinger who doesn't believe in free speech at all." Strike three, and you are out.

I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me. However, when they just rave on with a lot of personal insults and unsupported allegations, I have no respect for their rhetorical skills or ability to discern fact, let alone the more ambiguous truth.

My advice is for you to give up rational argument until you are capable of it.

Marcia
We lost the election. Tell us something we don't know. The people were panicked at the economic problems and wanted a change. They wanted change, they surely got it, and now they're less and less pleased by it. Obama's positives are dropping, especially on his policies. Gallup says that about 40% of Americans are conservative and about 21% liberal. As soon as the misery that is coming from quadrupling the deficit, monetizing the national debt, and radically increasing taxes through cap and trade and other hidden taxes start to cut into people's income, they will vote the rascals out-- or do you think the Democrats have a permanent majority?

Robert - hypocrite?
Robert
Location: AZ
Reply # 109
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 9:53 PM EST marcia
"1) you're lying"


" Nope. I never lie. And you can't identify a single lie I ever told. Strike one."

YOu SAY you never lie, just like Bush!!! There really were WMD's in Iraq, right? Mission really was accomplished years ago in IRaq, right? Slavery was okay Cause the FF'ers said so! ONly white men should vote cause the FF'ers said so!

"2) I'm sure it isn't coherent to you because you've never believed in the truth and like Bush, have a hard time speaking or understanding the English language."

"Oooh! Another strike! I used to teach Freshmen English in college, and I made an excellent living with my skill in English."

How do I know that's true? I don't.


"I reserve the word truth for something that can be empirically confirmed."

Yeah like saying its the truth that my allegations are bogus without producing any proof!

"3) you are the usual rightwinger who doesn't believe in free speech at all."

"Strike three, and you are out.

I have no trouble with people disagreeing with me. "

Then why did you tell me to shut up and go away because of what YOU THINK?

And I ain't leaving 'cause you don't like what I say, hypocrite who pretends to be for free speech.

Marcia - MA
But I do admire Jesus who as against everything your party stands for. Marcia

----------------------------

Would Jesus applaud theft by the government? (wealth redistribution)
No -- he'd ask for *voluntary* charitable giving.


Would Jesus stand by and allow genocide?
No - he would risk his life to defend the people of tyrannical abusive gov't.(our troops in the middle east)


Would Jesus abort babies?
No he believed in life.


The list is vast. You my dear Marcia, are on the wrong side, if you wish to emulate Jesus.

who's arrogant?
Icedog
Location: TX
Reply # 4
Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 4:11 AM EST Vision of the Self-Anointed
" The arrogance and narcissism of leftists knows no bounds."

CAn you give us a concrete example not based on far right ideology?

No?

I didn't think so.

It's not lefties who say that we deserve megabucks for running a bank into the ground. It's not lefties who cynically backdated their options to just a few days after 9/11, USING 9/11 to get more money falselly.

(Do you know what an option is? I'll just have to assume so)

It's not lefties who say that the dim children and grandchildren should suck off the teat of Daddy's or Granpa's wealth wihtout having to pay any taxes on money THEY DID NOT EARN.

There are plenty of children of the rich who spend their lives running around the world getting drunk and taking drugs, and then cry to Mommy and Daddy when they end up in a hellhole jail in a 3rd world country because they were so stupid and to bring drugs them. Including Cindy McCain who is married to gigolo John who dumped his first wife 'cause she had been in a car accident and wasn't pretty enough for Gigolo John anymore. Nice guy, huh?

Bush got into Harvard after the far less prestigious University of Texas, where he wanted to go, told him to get lost since he couldn't even speak English and was a drunk and a druggie.

How did he do it? Affirmative Action for the dim white children of megarich Daddies and Mommies who BUY them the slot. Research shows that up to 15% of slots in prestige universities are sold to the those incompetent boobs who can't get into nonprestigious universities BECAUSE THEY DON'T TAKE BRIBES.

Add in that all those white males get extra point for "legacies" - ie because their parents or grandparents went there using the same method they use for the kiddies.


Marcia
First, let me say that your post contained unsubstantiated allegations, easily disproved solecisms, and a lot of personal insults, which always entertain me. One statement you made stands out.

"Then why did you tell me to shut up and go away because of what YOU THINK?" Not at all, I'm telling you to go away because you don't think. You're obviously an angry, rather disorganized people who thinks you can replace facts with slogans and thought with personal insults. I just don't want you to continue embarrassing yourself.

Just for an example, every intelligence service in the world thought Iraq had WMD's. Bush didn't lie-- the intelligence was wrong. The phrase "Mission accomplished" was posted by the crew of the aircraft carrier that Bush was visiting because they had completed their mission and were returning home. Try reading actual news, not libbie blogs on it.

As far as slavery goes, the North was against it in 1776, but there would be no independence without the votes of the South. Independence came first, and they hoped to solve the slavery problem later. They did. Also, women voted NOWHERE in the world in 1789. Why would you expect the Constitutional Convention to be prescient and see what the future development of their ideas would be. In fact, America established womens' suffrage before any major country, beginning in the 1830's when women of property were allowed to vote in New Jersey for awhile, and beginning in 1869 with the first state. Many more, chiefly in the west, soon followed. Go ahead-- rave away. Just try to use actual facts instead of cliches and slogans.

lie or die?
LD35
Location: IN
Reply # 15
Date: Jul 5, 2009 - 11:11 AM EST Lilly
Obama did make the statement

about letting older people die

because of the cost of medical care.

He uttered those words just a few days ago.

LINK?

I just googled what you said he said and I got NOTHING.

Couldn't be you're makin' stuff up could it?


Marcia - MA

Marcia: YOu SAY you never lie, just like Bush!!!

Jo: Please answer - has Obama ever lied?

Marcia, no POTUS is perfect, but I ask you do you hold the SAME standard for Obama as Bush? He's lied multiple times and he's only been in office for 6 months.

Seems to me, we could all be on the same side, if we were honest about our politicians.

Lies
Jo
Location: FL
Reply # 116
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 10:34 PM EST Marcia - MA

Marcia: YOu SAY you never lie, just like Bush!!!

Jo: Please answer - has Obama ever lied?

Marcia, no POTUS is perfect, but I ask you do you hold the SAME standard for Obama as Bush? He's lied multiple times and he's only been in office for 6 months."

Funny after 8 months of Bush being president, you said that 9/11 was Clinton's fault. And after 6 months you are blaming him for what Bush did.

Let me know when Obama lies us into a war that has killed, according to the Department of Defense, more than 95,000 Iraqis, most of them innocent, including women, pregnant women and babies.

So please try to find a "lie" that Obama told, that is at that level.

I do know your party claimed that he lied about not taxing people because he raised the tax on cigarettes, not federal taxes, which is the only taxes he can raise.

As for socialism, Palin, who just quit as governor, takes money from the oil companies and gives them to every resident of Alaska, rich or poor. She is "spreading the wealth" to rich and poor. Now THAT is real socialism. And you love her!





Seems to me, we could all be on the same side, if we were honest about our politicians.

all men are created equal?
Robert
Location: AZ
Reply # 114
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 10:21 PM EST Marcia
First, let me say that your post contained unsubstantiated allegations blah blah blah"

If that is the case, you should be able to prove I unsubstanriated allegations but you DON'T.

" I'm telling you to go away because you don't think. "

YOu "think" I'm braindead like the embryos you love so much?

" You're obviously an angry, rather disorganized people "

I'm plural????

" who thinks" YOU just said I CAN'T think. Your logic is non-existent.

" can replace facts with slogans and thought with personal insults. "

Wow what an angry disogranized attack on me, full of slogans and personal insults.

" I just don't want you to continue embarrassing yourself."

Yeah sure - you pretend to worry about me while INSULTING me. You really aren't very smart, are you, to think I'd fall for the guff?

(I am runing out of room - see next post)


who's who?

Jo
Location: FL
Reply # 112
Date: Jul 6, 2009 - 10:15 PM EST Marcia - MA
But I do admire Jesus who as against everything your party stands for. Marcia

" Would Jesus applaud theft by the government? (wealth redistribution)"

Yes. Not only that but the whole POINT of capitalism is to spread the wealth.

Paying taxes is NOT THEFT. YOu must have missed this from OUR CONSTITUTION - on the list of the list of thing that are basic:

TO PROVIDE FOR THE GENERAL WELFARE

Not to provide mostly for the ceo's of megarich corporations and the heck with the rest of us.

That's why the FF'ers revolted: In Britain there were royal families who had most of the weath and inherited it without paying any taxes.

You are on the side of the monarchs - you believe most of the money should be for the few richest, and the children and grandchildren should get a free ride from the money Daddy or Grandaddy made.

Thus we see all kinds of the children of the rich spending their lives in watering holes and casions IN EUROPE! Many of them are drug addicts who are shocked when they are caught in countries that are vicious about drug possession and mommy and daddy can't buy their freedom, as happens to often in the US. Cindy McCain who inherited $100 million from Daddy was addicted to Vicodin, a Big Pharma name for HEROIN.

If the Revolution was today, you would be the tories.

" Would Jesus stand by and allow genocide?"

No and slavery was genocide - millions of AFricans died in the hull of slave ships, and slaveowners has a RIGHT to kill their slaves (and rape them!) Almost all the Indians in what is now called America where slaughtered and their property stolen. MIllions of them. Jesus approved of THAT?



cont'd


continued

NO and the deaths caused by Bush's war based on lies has gone a long way to commiting genocide in Iraq. Why did Bush INVITE THE TERRORISTS in to the most secularist country in the ME? There were none before he invaded. He said "Bring 'em on

"
" No - he would risk his life to defend the people of tyrannical abusive gov't.(our troops in the middle east)"

Bush wasn't QUITE that bad despite the mass deaths he cause in Iraq.

"Would Jesus abort babies?
No he believed in life."

I do not think that Jesus would want women to die for a fertilzed egg or embryo. In fact back then nobody even knew they existed. 500,000 women die each year from pregancy ever year around the world. That is SEVENTEEN MILLION since RvW. You, a woman, don't care that so many women die for embryos and fetuses who can't even think?

And something else you don't know: the abortion laws beginng with the FF'ers and continuing until the last 19th century the laws about abortions were much more on the side of the women.

As the USSC judge said when standing up for RvW. Apparently you haven't

" The list is vast. You my dear Marcia, are on the wrong side, if you wish to emulate Jesus."

The party of segregation, support for richie rich ceo's of often corrupt companies., that loves big banks that charge huge amounts of interest, and worse, has PayDay loan companies that charge between 200% and 700% interest on loans to desperate lower middle class families, that loves guns and shooting people with them, that loves wars and bombing people, says torture is good, that says raped women should be forced to produce a child for the rapist, and die rather than abort, even if the real baby has zero chance of survival is what JESUS wants?

I'm sure that Jesus would just loooooooooooooove gun owners like the far right man who invaded the Holocaust Museum and killed a black man.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.