Woman to Woman

By Patrick

July 11, 2005 07:42 AM | Link to this

Ooh, I never thought of that when I heard about the ruling. Now, I almost like it. Too bad we will probably never see this get used against a church. Politicians are just too scared. I have always thought that churches should not be tax exempt. That would be one way to weed out all the scammers that just do it for the tax-free money.

By Pat

July 11, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

I don’t think the government should have the right to force anyone to move from their location. That includes residents, businesses, and churches. Not every church is a megachurch with millions as some think. Mine certainly is not. As far as tax-exempt, Patrick, all offerings and tithes have already been taxed. The pastor and all church workers also pay taxes on what they earn. There will always be Creflo Dollar’s out there, they will have to account for themselves to God. There are some like Scientologists who call themselves a church and are not. The only true churches are the body of Jesus Christ, not Ron Hubbard or Buddha, etc. If some politicians are afraid of anything, I think it would be the minority groups that are doing their best to take over the country with their agendas. I think the only ones afraid of the church are the ACLU, atheists, etc. God alone has the power over all these groups.

By Bobb

July 11, 2005 08:22 AM | Link to this

I imagine God will weed out all the scammers, Patrick, so don’t fret.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

Spoken like a true narrow-minded fanatic, Pat. Hey, I’ve got an idea…let’s go to all the Buddhist temples, the Mosques, the Synagogues, and other various Shrines and go ahead and knock them down, since they are all “false” churches.

I don’t know what Shaunti is going on about - has there been some threat from Eminent Domain to a church somewhere? Sounds like this is just another example of conservative Christians in this country with a persecution complex.

By Gil Gibson

July 11, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

I am certainly glad that Diane believes in the Constitutional right of free exercise of religion….. so long as churches meet certain guidelines limiting budgets, size of membership and net worth. I wonder whom she has in mind to set those guidelines…. could it be…. the government? And those churches which take a position on political issues…. away with them!! Of course churches of whatever size and budget would be exempt so long as they keep inviting Democrat candidates to give political speeches from their pulpits during Sunday morning worship services.

By Lyrazel

July 11, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

Pray, ask me about what happens to a beleaguered property owner who faces eviction from his home for the building of a mega-church! Or what happens to property values when a church goes—huge! Or what happens when a church going mega—gets only 1/2 built and the clergy are arrested for misappropriation of funds and a neighborhood suddenly has a construction blight to deal with? This is Georgia at its holy-roller holiest! I happen to know several displaced citizens evicted at a substantial financial loss—so churches could grow mega parking lots for their holy fold. Now, granted perhaps 60,000 is a lot of money for a plot of land—but people lived on the land and built a house—and the city allowed the mega-church to buy established homes for just the price buying the land because they were just paving—not building. Godly, wasnt it. As someone who now lives next to a parking lot of a mega-church and seen her property value drop over 180%, I just have no sympathy. These mega-malls of godly blight always seem closed to their neighbors stuck picking up dropped bulletins and trash every sunday after church. Yes mam churches should loose tax exempt status!

By zach demential

July 11, 2005 08:55 AM | Link to this

Not only should government be able to confiscate church property, it should be required to do so. Religion is the product of diseased minds and corrupt morals. It has done immense harm to the human spirit. The wasting of precious resources on the construction of buildings for the perpetuation of superstition and the dissemination of nonsense is not in the interest of the general welfare. The clergy should be disposessed and put into the army where they could perhaps peel potatoes, something more useful than saving souls through their nonsensical rantings and ravings.

By Chet Thomas

July 11, 2005 09:00 AM | Link to this

has there been some threat from Eminent Domain to a church somewhere?

The concern is that the Kel vs New London case could be used as a precedent. In it, the Supreme Court ruled that a state or local government could seize property if they think that they can get more tax revenue if someone else owned it. As churches do not pay property taxes, they are especially vulnerable.

Diane implies that churches are rolling in dough, and that they all have more money than they really need. She then quotes the most extreme example possible to support her position. Trust me, 99.99% of ministers do not make anywhere near as much money as she implies.

1) The $210,000 that diane quoted is an average, meaning that there are as many people in churches that are below that number as above it.

2) While the average person may attend a church with a $210k budget, the budget for the average church is lower than that. (More and more people are attending larger churches, which throws the numbers off.)

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

This is really two separate issues folded together.

By E. Lewis

July 11, 2005 09:01 AM | Link to this

As far as eminent domain and churches are concerned, the government should show no more or less preference for land seizure than they would for any other citizen.

By George P. Burdell

July 11, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Diane’s argument doesn’t make sense. She claims church’s should not be exempt from eminent domain because of the rise of mega-churches and other churches with extensive resources. The argument fails because these are not the churches that would be seized; rather, the small churches with little money or land and no political influence would suffer.

Her argument is akin to saying that the New London court ruling is correct because there happen to be rich people living somewhere in America.

By Judy Reidinger

July 11, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

Diane, must you use such a crucial topic as primarily an opportunity in church-bashing? Do you agree with government seizure of private property - homes, small businesses, farms, as well as churches - for private gain? Even if it yields more taxes - what about the rights of the individual? As Shaunti says, it’s beginning to look a lot like China. Certainly, it would be the many smaller churches, not the mega-churches that would be affected. And Shaunti is certainly right about churches contributing far more to their community than their tax dollars. Where did “I was hungry, and you gave me food…” come from?

I would love to see liberals and conservatives, Christians and non-Christians, hash out important issues, and work together to tackle our huge problems, in respectful, on-target, open-minded, and creative ways, without bashing each other and their convictions. Not making our polarities and divisions worse, and energizing the extremes. Here’s my challenge - Ladies, how about setting an example to your audiences of working together to tackle issues from your different perspectives?
One of my favorite bits (don’t remember whose): “He drew a circle that shut me out - Heretic, rebel, a thing to flout; But love and I had the wit to win - We drew a circle that took him in!”

Judy Reidinger

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 09:26 AM | Link to this

Agreed. Diane is on the right side of the eminent-domain question, but for the wrong reason. Her argument that “many churches are rich” has nothing to do with the underlying principle: seizure of private assets for private (not public) use.

I agree with Diane that churches should have no special-status exemption from the laws governing private establishments. However, the expansion of eminent-domain powers is itself a bad idea, regardless of whether it’s applied to churches, stores, or private homes.

By Chet Thomas

July 11, 2005 09:31 AM | Link to this

Brian Curtis:

I (mostly) agree with your posting. The concept of eminent domain and whether churches should be subject to them are two different issues. Also, this ruling was very very bad.

However, on the subject of taxing, I have to disagree. If you remove the tax exempt status of churches, not only are you going to cripple a large number of organizations that contribute to their communities (churches are not the only ones that would be effected by the change), but you are also going to open the door to preachers telling their flocks how to vote. The possibility of the IRS paying them a visit is the only thing that is preventing a lot of people (on both sides) from jumping into that. When that happens, everybody loses.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 09:36 AM | Link to this

I find it funny that when someone suggests that the Patriot Act could lead to an abrading of civil liberties, that person is accused of having a “The sky is falling” mentality, but when Shaunti suggests that one Supreme Court rulling has turned us into Communist China, the conservatives all start nodding in agreement so fast you can almost hear their necks snap from the effort.

I understand that there is concern about the Eminent Domain decision, but I think much of it is unwarranted. The Court stated that the public use standard was met in the New London case. Despite my own anxieties about the power of big corporations in this country, I don’t think that this precedent will be used to level neighborhoods to build a Wal-mart.

That said - as I mentioned earlier, this strikes me as a non-issue. There has been no run on taking Church lands through Eminent Domain. This strikes me as being nothing more than another over-emotional attempt to whip people up into a religious frenzy to distract them from real issues. “Get the Democrats, they’re after your churches!”

Does it escape everyone that the Republican party and the Conservatives are the ones out there making this a so-called “liberal” issue? You know, that same Republican party that is almost entirely bankrolled by the very corporations people are now concerned about? Yeah…they’re making a big public stink about property rights, etc. but you can bet that behind closed doors they’re high-fiving each other because their portfolios have gone up another notch.

Hypocrisy and Mendacity.

By Mike Steele

July 11, 2005 09:48 AM | Link to this

I find Diane’s religion frightening. Those who bow down at the altar of big government think that they can decide what to do with your personal property better than you can. Now, instead of Walmart paying top dollar for real estate in good locations, they can grease the local politicians and have it stolen.

The only difference between street gang members and businesses who use eminent domain is that the street gang member has the guts to rob me face to face.

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 09:49 AM | Link to this

Chet: I agree that the loss of tax-exemption would be a shame, but listen to the proponents of curches preaching politics! They’re outraged that the government would dare to interfere with the way their preacher discusses social and political issues (overlooking the fact that political neutrality is vitally necessary to maintain church/state separation).

And if you don’t want that inteference, you have to submit to taxation. The political-religious folks want it both ways: tax exemption, like other eleemosynaries, but the “freedom” to advocate and interfere in politics like any other (taxable) private enterprise. It’s either-or, folks; choose one and stick with it.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 10:00 AM | Link to this

The wal-mart scenario is just not going to happen…the development in the Supreme Court decision was created to revitalize a dying town that had lost its major industry. The building of a Wal-mart would never meet the standard for public use, because the building of a Wal-mart would never revitalize a town economy. If anything, Wal-mart wouldn’t WANT to build in a depressed economy.

I would recommend that anyone overly concerned about this decision find Nina Totenberg’s very reasoned critique of the decision on NPR.ORG and have a listen. I was as concerned as the next person until I listened to her.

By Archie

July 11, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

This is a topic where some of the atheists are letting their bias come into play,but I agree with this statement:

“However, the expansion of eminent-domain powers is itself a bad idea, regardless of whether it’s applied to churches, stores, or private homes.”

I am one of those people that does not attend a mega-church so I think Diane’s bias comes into play with her opinion but I am not angered by her opinion. I kinda with Eaton that there won’t be any church-grapping going on in big numbers. Also I don’t think churches should lose their tax-exempt status because of a few speeches. Again not every church is a megachurch and I can’t remember when I heard a political speech at church. Heck no one is running for anything right now in my hometown and Shanti is right that churches do perform some good work. There are many churches that don’t cater to the far right or far left and they shouldn’t be punished.

By Jack

July 11, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

Eaton you are just like a diaper.

By Jack

July 11, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

Oh. I meant a dirty diaper.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

A) I’m not an athiest, Archie, I just don’t believe that churches should have anything resembling a role in government. It’s possible to be strongly, strongly opposed to the interaction of church and state and not be an atheist. People like Shaunti and Sadi Fields would like to have you believe otherwise, but it just isn’t true.

B) Churches, on both sides, but more on the Conservative side - have VERY much been playing politics lately. The entire Catholic church declared that those who supported pro-choice candidates couldn’t receive communion. As far as I’m concerned, they should have lost their tax-exempt status right there. Other churches banned members who voted Democratic, or passed out “voting guides”.

C) I restate that this is nothing more than another attempt to whip up moderate voters who happen to be religious into an anti-liberal frenzy. It’s like the Republicans who passed out the pamphlets in West Virginia, claiming that Democrats would burn their bibles if elected.

By Tim

July 11, 2005 10:24 AM | Link to this

I have a problem with anyone being forced to see their property… but if I am not exempt I don’t believe places such as churches should be either… but I also must admit I do not have much knowledge purtaining to this topic

Jack… shouldn’t you be busy running Munchkin Land?

By Tim

July 11, 2005 10:27 AM | Link to this

sorry… ‘see’ should be ‘sell’

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Eaton: That’s the funny thing… all the far-right talk-radio jocks are whining about this as “another example of liberalism in action.” Yet, I haven’t heard one liberal voice in support of the new eminent-domain ruling. So far, it seems that everyone on BOTH sides (or rather, ALL sides) is against it.

So where does the cry of “liberal activism” come from, if not the paranoid and fevered imaginations of the radio drones?

By Chaling

July 11, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Why are churches exempt NOW from things like property taxes, etc? Aren’t they just another business, in this case the business of collecting ‘souls’, or at least the administering to souls? If church-goers tithe at 10 percent, is that not INCOME to the church?

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 10:34 AM | Link to this

Jack, you have serious issues, dude. You need to grow up.

By Archie

July 11, 2005 10:49 AM | Link to this

Eaton I too am opposed to the interaction of church and state and I wasn’t hinting that you are an atheist but I was hinting that Diane is an atheist. Churches do a lot of good work and they shouldn’t be beat up so much.

By JohnR

July 11, 2005 10:53 AM | Link to this

Nobody likes the Supreme Court decision, but it’s ridiculous to assume that this will lead to the seizure of church property. That is a leap in logic, Typical of of the “fundies”

churches should not be tax-exempt and it has nothing to do with the first amendment. at the very least they should be made to account for the distribution of all the funds they recieve. maybe they do, I don’t know. Do they pay taxes on those Christian indoctrination centers they call “schools:”? Are they run for profit? What is the real dollar contribution that churches make to the community? Would it not be responsible government to find out?

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Archie, you’re assuming Diane is an atheist because she doesn’t like religious conservatism?

I don’t know if she is or isn’t, but I think you’re making a huge assumption based on little information.

If you read carefully, you’ll see that Diane has never “beat up” religion. She has criticized fundamentalism, defended Church/State separation, and criticized the deep politicalization of religion by the RR, but she has never criticized religion as an institution.

You’re buying into the rhetoric, I’m afraid, Archie. The fundies want you to believe that an attack on fundamentalism, or an attack on church interference with government and peoples private lives is an attack on religion and churches. It just ain’t so. Don’t buy it.

By Ken

July 11, 2005 11:03 AM | Link to this

for the first time, in a long time, Diane is correct, but like many people stated before, for the entirely wrong reason. Any church, regardless of religion, is private property. Based on the Supreme Court decision, a local government could seize that property. Case closed. In the case of churches, politicians would need to show extreme prejudice b/c in virtually all cases it would mean their job. Not very many folks would stand for the seizing of church property except under extreme circumstances.

BTW… The reasons churches get tax-exempt status is due to their charitable nature (at least I believe that is reasoning) and the fact that do not turn a profit. Some folks may not agree that churches are charitable, but many are.

And if I remember correctly, weren’t some churches here in the metro area threatened with loss of the tax-exempt status for sermons that were deemed political???

By Sean Lanoue

July 11, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

This seems like a crazy exemption just for Churchs. The recent Supreme Court ruling was a very bad one. What we really need is just a STATE law or STATE constitution amendment that says that eminent domain can ONLY be used for public use and not for profit. That way everyone and every business and non-profit is safer.

By Vince

July 11, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

This is absurdity people. Gas prices are up and going higher; 10,000 more children will die from AIDS today in this world; female circumcision is still rampant; and (brace yourself) Karl Rove’s name is NOT TO BE FOUND on the homepage of AJC.com. So, Clinton’s cigar is morally bad - the second most powerful man in The White House breaks a very sensitive federal law (2nd time too folks, he was fired for leaking information to the same reporter by Reagan)and exposes the identity of a double secret CIA Agent. Clinton’s cigar or putting at risk a person’s life, their family’s life, and risking enemies capturing and taking US secrets…? Naw, the cigar is worse.

By Paul

July 11, 2005 11:27 AM | Link to this

Eminent Domain can only be used for the purpose of building something public, like a road, right????? I don’t think that it can be used to build a private business??? I may be way off-base here.

By kimberly

July 11, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Tax the churches! Tax the preachers! Our national deficit is now in the trillions, isn’t it? The middle class are being hit with the tax burden while the churches that ask us to tithe get off paying nothing. If we have any hope of bringing the runaway deficit under control before China owns everything we hold dear, then we have to TAX somebody to pay for it. The churches spend their money on landscaping, building improvements and ADVERTISING anyway. God does not require you to hang out in a fancy building in your “Sundee best” to pray. Oh yes, and let’s enact legislation making it “treason punishable by death” for the American corporate executives who funnel their money through the Cayman Islands to avoid paying taxes.

By kimberly

July 11, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

Sic’em, Vince! Yeah! Happy Monday! Please write to the editor and ask them why you were unable to find Rove’s name in their newspaper, when CLEARLY he has committed a serious breach of trust within the federal government. Dare I say it? TREASON!

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 11:40 AM | Link to this

Paul: You’re correct. As written, eminent domain is only for the government taking of private property for PUBLIC use. Examples include widening roads, building public utilities, clearing ground for transmission and electrical towers, etc.

However, the Supreme Court (not just recently, but over the past few decades) has been broadening the definition of “public use” to the point that they now use the eminent-domain clause to justify taking property for entirely private enterprises, such as Wal-Mart, a hotel, a housing development, or other efforts. This interpretation is what so many folks find disagreeable.

As noted, the question of whether such a rule should apply to church properties is entirely separate.

By Archie

July 11, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

Diane has beaten up religion often. I have read her columns before they turned this into a blog. Going back 4 years or more. Diane has described her beliefs and her degrees in the past. I do like most of Diane’s opinions but it is not a blind stamp of approval. People get prostate cancer screenings,blood pressure checks, and other health screenings at the church. I know of some that have caught cancer early because of screenings. What the religious conservatives do is what they do. They use black churches as justification for the speeches in these fundie churches,etc. but it is not justification to remove their tax exempt status. Church folk should handle their conservative brethren from within. Black churches have advocated for the democratic party as a matter of survival not just for political power and it is partly why some conservative(republican) churches have become more overt about their political leanings. Neither side should be beat up since as has been said on this blog many times religion is a matter of faith. A person can always go to another church and in my city that may mean walking a few hundred yards. Anyway my feelings about Diane have not given way to any rhethoric.

By Paul

July 11, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Brian,

I have not seen anything on that yet! I can see the eminent domain law being thrown out if a company was trying to take the land from a church, homeowner, or landowner. I do not think local governments would allow that to happen.

I am not sure if the rule should apply to a church. I have noticed alot of churches are getting way out of control on the financial side. Seems they are having “church wars” in some areas of the country. Larger churches are buying smaller, poor churches and using them for expansion of their ministeries!

By Shannon

July 11, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

What Diane neglects to mention is the reason for the growth of “megachurches”: more and more small churches are being forced to close due to lack of funding. Using Creflo Dollar’s church as an example of how things are in most churches is ludicrous. The fact is that the majority of churches, especially smaller ones, are barely keeping their doors open.

My father pastors a small United Methodist church in south Georgia that was only able to retain him on a full-time basis this year because of a donation from a local business. Tax exemptions only go so far toward paying the bills as small towns lose population and people become ever more mobile. People in my parents’ town are willing to drive an hour or more to attend larger churches that have the staff and resources to offer more programs. It’s no different from schools in affluent areas taking students and money away from schools in poorer areas (with a great deal of help from “No Child Left Behind”).

As for some churches having large budgets, well, of course they do. If you have 2,500 members (plus young children, who generally aren’t counted as full members), you need a big church and a lot of services, and that means it takes a lot of money to pay the bills, including the staff necessary to support your programs. Those churches return a large amount of money to the community in the form of outreach such as food banks, emergency funds, and scholarship programs. The community almost certainly gets more money from the churches through outreach programs than what they’d get in taxes if the churches weren’t exempt.

None of this is to say that churches deserve any more protection from the new eminent domain interpretation than anyone else, of course — not that any politician is likely to be stupid enough to suggest it!

By Ken

July 11, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

I think Kimberly may need to cut her caffeine… Or, maybe she would advocate taxing the likes of The United Way, Hand on Atlanta and any other organization that provides charitable services to various portions of society.

The reason we have tax-exempt organizations, and get tax deductions for giving to these organizations, is to encourage folks to give. Like anything else, there will always be groups that take advantage of the rules, but we should not be punishing the vast majority who provide a great deal of service to our communities.

By Archie

July 11, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

I like your 12:14 post Shannon. I agree Ken that we should not punish the vast majority of groups that do provide a service to the community.

By lozen

July 11, 2005 12:34 PM | Link to this

Why does this forum keep presenting us with non issues and trivial questions like this? There are many burning issues (Rove being one) and this forum seems to come up with fluff almost every week. I read the first few pages this weekend of Michael Savages’ The Enemy Within. I was appalled at his characterization of liberals as such evil people who hate this country. Anyone who criticizes the gov’t at all, about anything, is evil in his mind. Liberals have ruined the schools, the courts, the family, morals! He blames every problem in the country on liberals. I think of liberals as people who care about this country but do not see it as perfect. I see liberals as being in favor of change that includes good things for everyone. Liberals care about education. Liberals care about people, the poor, the disadvantaged. But to Savage and the people he influences, liberals are evil personified. It really was eye opening. The Communists are no longer our big enemy; the enemy now is liberals! How long before they start burning liberals at the stake? It is crazy and it’s frightening to see such division in this country and think of where it could lead.

By David

July 11, 2005 01:01 PM | Link to this

The real issue in this whole debate is not should churches be excluded from eminent domain, in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling. The real issue is did the Supreme Court err in its decision by stating that the state could seize private property for private development, which could boost the tax base, is okay?

And in light of a clear reading of the Constution, one has to state it did. Those who don’t believe that the Court erred must then believe that the court didn’t err in Dred Scott, or Plessy vs. Ferguson. The Court later reversed course one both issues. Dred Scott with the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, and Plessy vs. Ferguson with the Brown vs. Board of Education ruling. Until recently, the Court long held that eminent domain didn’t include seizure of private property for private purposes.

As to tax exclusions for houses of worship, that has long been government’s recognition that religion has an important role in society, which should be nutured and fostered, and excluding church’s from taxes is reasonable accomodation of the church’s role in society. If you are going to tax churches, particularly those who provide valuable social services, then let’s tax Planned Parenthood, Hands on Atlanta, the Atlanta Union Mission, Meals on Wheels, Goodwill, and any number of other tax exempt organizations providing social services.

As to Diane’s citation of Creflo Dollar, Diane please find a more appropriate example. Creflo Dollar is the exception, not the rule, just as the Bakker’s, Jimmy Swaggart, and the countless other “big name tele-vangelists,” who live in ostentatious lifestyles. If you are going to cite a pastor of mega-church, consider the lifestyles of Charles Stanley, Adrian Rogers, Page Patterson, David Cooper, Michael Yousef, and others around the country don’t seek to fleece their church of the tithes and offerings for personal comfort. In some of these men’s cases, there is a TV ministry organized as a separate entity from the church and these individuals main salary come of the TV ministry rather than the church. In such cases they take minimal or no salary from the church budget.

By Bobb

July 11, 2005 01:14 PM | Link to this

Eaton, somewhere above you said that this issue is nothing more than “another attempt” by Republicans to whip up moderate, religious voters into an “anti-liberal frenzy”. Last week in the student information/recruitment forum I said that Diane and Democrats were trying to incite those of draft age and their parents against the administration by scaring them with thoughts of a pending draft. Subsequently, you claimed I was using code words for speaking out against “the (Bush)party line”, which makes anyone who does so a…” traitor, a godless heathen, and a terrorist all rolled up into one.”

Okay, so why is Diane’s proposition that the Bush administration is gathering student data for a coming draft any more credible than Shaunti’s theory that elected officials who are not disposed towards religion might use the expanded definition of eminent domain to target churches? Both imply a misuse of power by the government. Why is one believable and the other not?
Secondly, how is it that you can accuse Shaunti and Republicans of “..whip(ping).. up anti-liberal behavior..” with a false issue, but I’m wrong to accuse Diane and the Left of doing the same against the President and the Right? I can’t say Diane and left are creating a false issue for their own purposes, but it’s okay for you to accuse the Right of doing that very thing. Why the double-standard?

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

I can’t believe it, but I agree with Bobb on that point. We should be wary of ANY govt. initiatives that are ripe for abuse, whether collecting info on students or arrogating themselves the power to seize property (even churches, much as I have no personal interest in them).

The question’s been raised of “Why should churches be tax-exempt?”, with the inevitable comparison to other charitable organizations. But we should remember, tax-exempt status is a privilege, not a right. And to qualify for that privileged status, organizations need to meet specific requirements, including staying out of politics. A church that hands out Voting Guides or refuses services to Democrats, pro-choice parishoners, etc., is clearly crossing the line and deserves to be stripped of that privileged status.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

It’s not a double-standard, Bobb. Members of both parties have discussed with great concern the shrinking numbers of the military and the difficulty recruiters are having meeting recruitment goals. Both sides have discussed the draft, whether pro or con. That makes the draft an issue of concern. There were no proclamations of imminent conscription…just a mention of the possibility in the future.

Shaunti’s “proposition” as you call it, is a non-issue because there are no pending church reposessions. She brings it up in typical fundy fashion, playing the persecuted little Christian. If there were churches about to be taken over by the state for the purposes of private development, then she might have an issue. But there aren’t, and she doesn’t.

Besides, I think your characterization of Diane’s collumn is a little narrow. As I remember she mentioned a draft in one sentence. Her primary concern was with privacy of minors. Shaunti has devoted an entire collumn to her persecution complex.

By Zack

July 11, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

To say “yes” to this blog’s most recent insane question is to take the most recent false step in the belief of separation of church and state, which, by the way, isn’t found in any of our founding fathers’ documents.

No, what we need to do is seize the property of the ACLU and shut down its attacks on our nation’s core values. Unfortunately, the people who side with this sick organization have a tendency to speak up quite a bit, and their bigoted agenda gets pushed quite effectively.

To anyone who really believes that God should not be acknowledged in our society, I encourage you to test this belief. After seeking the truth, you will find it before long.

We need not to monitor churches preaching against controversial issues but instead schools lying to kids and telling them that, for example, evolution is truthful and that condoms are the answer to STDs. My, our school system is a farce, and the assist goes greatly to the, yep, ACLU.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

I have found truth, and that truth is that Zack is a complete, unmitigated, and total idiot.

By kimberly

July 11, 2005 02:21 PM | Link to this

Zack, I got an email the other day with huge font, telling me that the ACLU was protesting the Marines for praying. There have been others. Your mention of the ACLU with such venom leads me to believe you have also received this type of “information.” Next time you get an email saying that some Godless libruls are trying to separate you and the rest of America from “God and Family,” or asking you to sign your name and forward it to EVERYBODY right now, do me a favor, huh? Go to www.snopes.com and look it up. Most of this stuff is made-up crap designed to keep mainstream Americans in the dark by whipping them into a frezny about a non-existent threat. Snopes is the “urban legend” site that will verify or de-bunk that latest informative email. I’ll bet the ACLU hasn’t done a fraction of the things you THINK they have. BTW, some of those freaky photographs ARE real!

By JB

July 11, 2005 02:31 PM | Link to this

I think I have a real world example of where this ruling might be applied. Hwy 20 goes thru Cherokee Co. It is for the most part a 2 lane hwy, but is overcrowded with trucks and other traffic. I read recently that they hope to widen it to a four lane hwy between I-575 and the intersection of Hwy 369. Along that stretch there is a redlight at an area called Macedonia. At this red light there sits on one corner, a Church that is about 30 feet off the road. And on the opposite side is a cemetary. Both the church and cemetary would be in the road were it widened to 4 lanes. Because both sides of the road have obstacles there’s no way to shift the road left or right to save them. I wonder what will happen in this case. I imagine that some of the churchgoers might welcome the opportunity to build a new church that’s not as dangerously close to a major hwy, but some may be less happy to move the dead in the cemetery. The hwy needs to be widened badly. Obviously this is not a case of a Wal-Mart replacing homes or whatever, but it might be interesting to see what happens.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

JB, that’s just plain ole eminent domain. Nothing new there.

By JB

July 11, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Yes it is eminent domain. But the question above was should the government be able to seize church property.

By taboga

July 11, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

You all didn’t see this coming, did ya? You bought into all this nonsense about “Separation of Church and State”…? You really thought that they just wanted prayer out of schools and that was it? You thought they really meant it when they claimed to have *respect for your religion, but just wanted religious monuments and the like removed from public buildings? They even attacked Christmas of all things - then made you think it was out of some respect for the First Amendment.

And i’ve no doubt they’ll close your church and tell you again how much respect they have for your religion! And no doubt you’ll believe it.

You let them. You let them again. And you continue to let them.

Now, they’re coming after the church itself! What lie are they going to tell you this time - so that you can gobble it down!

By Randy

July 11, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

In my opinion let’s get rid of the tax exemption for churches! Why, because it creates false prophets who say that they are a church to get the exemption(scientology). I’m not knocking scientology but call it what it is, (mind over matter thinking). Also, some churches don’t take a stand on political issues because they fear that they will lose their status. Bull, again stand up for what is right and sacred if you are a church. Stand up stand up for Jesus.

By Randy

July 11, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, It’s easy to see what the ACLU is doing go to their website. They are attacking Christians and what is right and sacred about this country left and right. Their is a defense it’s the ACLJ. They argue Christian views in the supreme court and do extremely well.

By JB

July 11, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Taboga, who exactly is they? The Government? Last time I checked the President, the Senate, the House of Reps, Governor of GA and the state legislature were all controlled by Republicans or conservatives or right wingers or people who believe in things like God, Santa Claus, Easter Bunny and the Boogyman. The Supreme Court (made of 9 justices) has 4 right leaning justices and the one swing justice (O’Connor) is retiring, leaving the aforementioned Jesus freaks in a position to replace her with a fifth right leaning justice. So all this “they” talk seems ridiculous to me. You are they, and they are you.

By Brian Curtis

July 11, 2005 02:58 PM | Link to this

Taboga: Attacked Christmas? When did this happen? I know it’s one of O’Reilly’s favorite rants, but exactly how is forcing the government to stay out of religion an “attack” on religion itself? What you seem to be missing is that Christians down OWN public buildings—we all do. And there’s no reason, in this great and democratically diverse land of ours, to pretend that Christianity and ONLY Christianity deserves special recognition in our government buildings and programs (i.e., schools and courthouses).

Separation of church and state is an established constitutional principle, right alongside the right to privacy, checks and balances, and many others.

I agree that the specter of government confiscating church lands for private-enterprise use is troubling… but not because there’s anything sacred (rim shot) about churches. It’s because confiscation of property for ANY private-enterprise use is a bad idea. I’d be just as concerned if the government granted itself the power to take over a 7-Eleven or a family farm and hand them over to big business in the name of increased tax revenue.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Randy, the ACLU represents Church congregations as much as anyone else. The ACLU defends the right of every American to be treated equally under the law. For you religious fanatics, not allowing you to force your religion on everyone else qualifies as “attacking Christians”. Bull. Stand up, stand up for Freedom.

See what I mean? Randy and Taboga actually expect us to believe that they are PERSECUTED as Christians. Get a grip, get a clue, and get off the cross. Someone needs the wood.

By kimberly

July 11, 2005 03:26 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you rock! Hahaha! Someone needs the wood. Hahaha!

By SC Young

July 11, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

Never before has a leftist’ anti-religious fervor been so thinly veiled.

Enter Diane Glass, the self avowed liberal is something of an expert on religion, having majored in comparative religions. Some Liberals are firm adherents to the principle of “know your enemy� and to Diane Glass faith is clearly the enemy. She argues that not only should individual private property owners not be exempt from eminent domain, but the same holds true for churches as well. In her argument she not only reveals her contempt for people of faith, but also her venomous wealth envy as well. Ms. Glass argues that churches have power in numbers, and thus don’t need protection. She argues that many churches have major operating budgets. Translation: their rich they can afford to move. Ms. Glass argues that modest churches are a thing of the past and that they are being replaced by mega-churches. Apparently if people of faith meet in large numbers, they are somehow less spiritual or are no longer entitled to the protections of the 1st amendment. To add weight to her argument, she sites a couple of examples of churches where the ministers live extremely well. That’s a case for that churches’ parishioners. Because a few churches may or may not be led by unscrupulous men, does that mean that people of faith should be attacked wholesale? Because churches own property or run schools or have print shops or engage in other activities, which help them to fulfill their great commission does that mean that freedom of religion can be safely abolished? In Ms. Glass’s mind, the church is only tolerable so long as the churches are small, poor and have few members, because if they are small and poor they have limited influence and won’t interfere with the left and their grand designs for religious extermination.

By Randy

July 11, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

Eaton, The ACLU will occasionally represent a church so that they can claim not to be bias. However, if you look at their agenda, they are attacking churches in every way they can think of. Look at the court cases. They have an agenda and it’s not pro Christian or even neutral.

By Randy

July 11, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

May this country fall back on the principals and morals that has made it strong. Let’s be winners not liberal losers.

By Randy

July 11, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

When it comes right down to it, I want what is best for my family and my country and liberals and the liberal agenda aren’t in that formula for success. Never have been.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

I know that nothing I say will convince you of how wrong you are Randy. The ACLU is the last true bastion of freedom in this country, but you won’t acknowledge that. Because why? Because you hate freedom. Yup. Just like Shrub says about the terrorists. You hate freedom.

Your idea of freedom is everyone being Christian, or shutting up and pretending. That’s it. You and SC Young and Taliban or whatever her name was can rant and rave about the attack of religion by the left all you want, but the real truth is that you are the enemies of freedom. You are the Taliban in America.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 04:01 PM | Link to this

Randy, please take this with all the love and caring with which it is intended, from this liberal loser. F*** you.

By Ken

July 11, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

JB…

Who are the four “right-leaning” justices? I count three, and actually only two since one considers himself an advocate for State’s Rights more than anything else. The other two you are referring to are moderates. In fact the four “left-leaning” justices vote as a block far more often than the others.

Brian…

Where does the Constitution make the “Separation of Church and State” an established principal? The only place I know of the Constitution even coming close to mentioning this issue is the First Ammendment which is a clause saying that the government shall not establish any religion. But I am not a Constitutional scholar so I’ll let others make corrections if necessary.

As for anyone talking about “pushing religion” on someone else, I wonder what that means? If I thank God for my lunch while at work, is that “pushing religion”? If I have rosary beads hanging in my cube, is that “pushing religion”? Like everything else in life, those bounds will change with the individual.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Do you really need “pushing religion” spelled out for you?

How about someone at work telling you you’re going to Hell? Does that qualify? Or how about laws that discriminate based on religion? How about standing on a street corner in the heart of the Pride festival with a loudspeaker shouting out to all of the people there trying to have a good time that every single one of them is going to hell?

Does that qualify? Surely you know it when you see it.

By Ken

July 11, 2005 04:41 PM | Link to this

Actually what I described in my post has been deemed “pushing religion”. You obviously do not see it that way, but those actions have not crossed your line.

I would, work actively to get a co-worker fired for saying that to you or anyone for that matter. That crosses the bounds of professional etiquette and create a hostile working environement that should never, EVER be tolerated.

However, much of what you described has also been considered free speech. What is the difference between protests at the Pride parade and protests of a political motorcade? Both are groups of people speaking out against someone or something they did not agree with.

I am ashamed of some actions b/c I wrongly get lumped in with them. However, I would never take that right from them. In addition to free speech, they have the right to acting stupid. Just b/c they base their protest on religious beliefs does not make it more or less legal in the eyes of the law.

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

We weren’t discussing free speech - you asked what pushing religion was and I answered. Just because you legally CAN do something doesn’t make it ethically right to do so, or polite, or the decent, human thing to do. Besides, there is a substantial difference between protesting a political figure and standing in front of a large group of people and telling them how evil they personally are.

I don’t walk into a fundy church, stand dead center in their sanctuary, and start shouting about how they are all bigots. I save that for this blog…

By Eaton

July 11, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Oh and by the way Ken, in George Bush’s America, the protests of HIS political motorcade are forced to stand so far away that they can barely see the car. Georgie doesn’t want anything but cheering crowds on the network news…the same way that his flunkies weed out any disenting voices from his so-called town meetings.

The person I referenced had no such constraint on him.

By Blablabla

July 11, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

should the gov’t be allowed to seize church property? if it meets the definition for “public use”, absolutely. i don’t think the church should be treated any differently than any other private owner where eminent domain is concerned.

shaunti is a little off her rocker to compare the decision to takings in communist china. as a homeowner, i don’t like the broadening definition of public use that this ruling seems to identify. but before i freak out about churches being unfairly singled out, i’m going to need to see a year or more worth of “takings” data to support that churches are indeed in trouble and worthy of special status.

the broadening of the public use definition, as interpreted by the court, has me most concerned. i’m of the opinion that previously when there was a taking, we knew what it was for and what the definitive public good would be. we’re going to put a youth center here, we’re going to expand a highway there, over here will be a library, etc. this new interpretation, in my mind, opens the door to gov’t takings on the IDEA that what the gov’t does with the property after taking it COULD be better than things are today. we’re going to take the houses and build a new commercial center that SHOULD, or MIGHT create new jobs. but what if it doesn’t? when you take somebody’s land to widen a road, you know what you get. you get a wider road. when you take somebody’s house to build a commercial complex, it doesn’t necessarily yield jobs and a reviatlized economy. all the planning in the world by the local gov’t doesn’t ensure that. look at the calibre of people we have running around our local city and county gov’t. would you turn over the future of your property to their “plans”? me neither. unfortunately, to me, this ruling has created a newer, lower standard for eminent domain - if gov’t thinks they can do something better, that qualifies as public use.

By Ken

July 11, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

Then I have to assume anything where a person makes a public display about their religion is deemed pushing it?

Or do the bounds get crossed when the person or group of people turn vulgar?

Can a group have public demonstrations of faith without you deeming it “pushing”? When my church set up our picnic in Piedmont park, passing out water bottles to joggers, bikers and others passing by, that was “pushing religion.” Should that be stopped as well? Is that morally or ethically wrong since the bottle had a label with our contact information on it?

By Bobb

July 11, 2005 05:12 PM | Link to this

Why is it that the left swallows every right-wing conspiracy theory that comes down the pike, but it is beyond comprehension to them that some in government may want to use its powers to curtail or eliminate the influence of the Church in our society? If the Republicans shamelessly use the Church to spread their own “gospel” as many claim daily in this forum, then why is it so far-fetched to think the Democrats would like to curtail or eliminate that conduit? Maybe it’s the same reason they have tried so hard to kill talk the radio format that isn’t working for them either: if you can’t beat it, kill it.

By Paul

July 11, 2005 05:28 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I see your point and Ken’s point. It is not right for someone to stand on the corner and shout things like that. But what makes it right for someone to stand up and tell the President he is a War-monger and kills babies with “his WAR”???? What is the differnece of telling a group of people they are wrong and telling the President he is wrong?

Its legal, but neither of them are right! Not all may support the President! The next vote is in 4 years! Telling gay people they are going to Hell is not right either. If you do not like their lifestyle, then keep your mouth shut!

The problem here is that EVERYone tries to push their lifestyle and beliefs onto the whole country! I do not care if you are Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Gay, Straight, Democrat, Republican, Left Wing, Right Wing, Conservative, etc……

I think we should worry about ourselves and leave others to believe what they want….

I do not want to turn on my TV, pick up a newspaper, look at the Internet and see support my Gay Rights, Bush is a pinhead, feed the hungry, christian children’s fund, stamp out aids in Africa, NAACP, KKK, PETA, help the Tsunami victims, etc…. crap all over the place!

The problem here is that we have all become too concerned that if everyone is not like me, then I must change them!

By SC Young

July 12, 2005 07:08 AM | Link to this

Eaton, what are you talking about? Why are you using the “F� word? Why are you talking about people on street corners with loudspeakers and pride festivals? What does that have to do with eminent domain and the right of people to own property and the Constitutionally protected right of people to worship as they please.

If the state is actively involved in taking the land of people of faith and the only argument tendered is: “they have money� or “it’s a mega-church, they can afford it� then that is an affront to religious freedom in America. Your contention that I represent the Taliban in America is so much nonsense. I represent the Taliban, because I feel the left is threatening property rights and religious expression? Well I’m sorry when I was in school public use, wasn’t defined as a shopping mall, which the left contends is an example of public use. How utterly preposterous. As a libertarian, I couldn’t care less if you are gay or an atheist and frankly I don’t see what that has to do with eminent domain in the first place.

By the way Ken, the Constitution says more than Congress can establish a religion, it also says it cannot prevent the free exercise of religion. As a libertarian I certainly would oppose state sanctioned proselytizing or pushing religion, but if a person is going to their place of worship to commune with people of like mind, how is that pushing religion? Its not. Now if the state moves to seize that church. That does indeed interfere with one’s right to freely exercise that religion.

That is fascism and no amount of emotional arguments or derisive curses will change that fact.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 07:25 AM | Link to this

JB,

Let’s see.

If it wasn’t Conservatives that pushed to have prayer removed from schools…

If it isn’t Conservatives who object to a harmless nativity scene being displayed…

If it isn’t Conservatives who run to court every time a religious display is spotted somewhere…

And if it isn’t Conservatives who are proposing that the churches need to be subject to higher taxation and possible confiscation of property as a result of the latest SCOTUS ruling…

If it’s not Conservatives who are doing these things, then who do you think I might have been referring to as: They…?

You have three hours to answer the question. And no, it’s not an open-book test. Thanks.

By vince

July 12, 2005 07:29 AM | Link to this

How about debate on serious issues facing American’s today: Here’s a short list:

“Desperate Housewives” - I don’t think any other network should be able to operate when DH is on the air. (TiVo, and all that other stuff is too technical)

Six Flags Over Georgia experienced a flooded parking lot yesterday. At 12.00 per car to park, it’s obvious the management there hasn’t a clue. Parking should be 120.00 per car.

Salsa’s “heat” labels are long over due for updating. I suggest salsa follow Homeland Security’s system. Instead of mild (what does that really mean anyway?), medium and hot… Safe - Safe but bland (go about dipping, just keep an eye out for double dippers) - Bland - Kinda spicy (no immediate beverage needed, but be cautious) - Spicy (traditional) - Tad Hot (burning levels are subject to individual peppers added) - Hot (cold beverage needed) - Getting Hotter (Not recommended for church going folk, as the American Salsa Society is currently investigating this recipe may contain satanic messages if cooked backwards) - Way Hottest (The F.D.A. approves this for Americans to eat. Wait. No, no, the F.D.A. says it may lead to taste bud failure, so they are recalling - Huh? Oh, no, no, the F.D.A. changed its mind. This is safe)

By taboga

July 12, 2005 07:47 AM | Link to this

Separation of church and state is an established constitutional principle, right alongside the right to privacy, checks and balances, and many others

Brian,

The “Separation of Church and State” is an established constitutional lie. The lie was “established” by activist political hacks (SCOTUS) as a means of circumventing the First Amendment.

The First Amendment was supposed to prevent the Federal Government from dictating the religious affairs of the States. The states were have the right to display 495 statues of Jesus Christ in every public building and require all who enter to recite the 23rd Psalm - IF that’s what the individual states chose to do!

It was never intended to be a question of what is “fair” to this religion or the next. It was never intended to be an issue of “fairness” to one individual or another.

It doesn’t matter that you think that all religions must be represented if one is. It doesn’t matter how you feel about religion and when and where you think it can be displayed. The First Amendment was supposed to have guaranteed that the Federal Government would have no authority in deciding the religious matters of the States.

But, as there are those who believe that the Federal Government should dictate religious affairs to the States, they created the mythical notion of “Separation of Church and State” which they pretend gives them the authority to do exactly that!

The Founders were not in the least bit concerned about “fairness”. They were though, bound and determined that the States have the right to govern themselves as they see fit - without interference from the Federal Government!

You, obviously, see it just the opposite.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 08:07 AM | Link to this

SC, welcome to the blog where we get off topic. Deal with it.

Tobogan or whatever your name is - pray at home, keep your religious displays off of public property, and we’ll all be happy. Why do you have to have Jesus on every street corner if he lives in your heart.

Blablabla - you are correct to be concerned about the expansion of public use. I, myself, am concerned by the expansion. However, as I said before, a review of the specific case suggests to me that the Court acted properly in the specific ruling. The community involved was, unquestionably, dying. The major industries of the community had been closed, either through outsourcing or government closure - a naval shipyards, specifically. A small number of homeowners refused to accept the fair-market value offer of the municipal government; the vast majority of affected property owners had agreed to sell. In that specific case, the alternatives were A) A few people preventing the city’s plan going forward, or B) the city having the ability to continue with a carefully thought out plan to revitalize a dying city.

I HOPE that our courts have the good sense to continue to weigh future eminent domain cases with the same care and discrimination. I HOPE that this ruling won’t be abused to allow a developer to bribe or otherwise coerce city officials to make moves beneficial only to the developers purse. This is not, as some have tried to paint it, a no-recourse-availble zero-sum game. It’s merely an expansion of what constitutes “public use”. Future challenges will still have to meet the apropriate standard.

Ken - no, your church holding a gathering and handing out water to passers-by does not constitute “forcing” religion on others. Were you in a public place? Were you being overly agressive? Did you verbally assault or otherwise ostracize those who weren’t interested in your message? I doubt it. It’s the old saw about pornography - “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”. We know when a point of view is being forced on us…we feel assaulted, violated, offended. Some may say that gays are “forcing” their lifestyle on others…but ask yourself this. Does a gay couple holding hands walking down the street run up to you and say “We’re GAY! DEAL WITH IT!”? No…when people claim that gays are “forcing” their lifestyles on others, it just means they are going about their daily lives without fear.

I have absolutely no objections to anyone going about their daily lives. If you want to pray 24/7, that’s your business. If you want to handle snakes, that’s your business. If you want to dance naked under the moonlight, that’s your business…as long as I don’t have to see it. It becomes “forcing” when you try to tell others that they SHOULD be doing it your way, or attack them or criticize them for NOT doing it “your” way.

Bobb - it’s interesting that you ask your question. The determining factor is intent; if you polled the liberal members of the House and Senate, I suspect that you would find that the vast majority of them are religious people. Polls show that MOST of the people in this country ascribe to some sort of faith. The key difference between the religious right and the religious left is that the religious right wants to create a theocratic state, with laws based on strict Judeo-Christian interpretations, while the left believes that the practice of religion MUST remain seperate from the functioning of government, and vice-versa. The right DOES want to write fundamentalist Christian tenants into law. One need only look at the web sites of many of the leading conservative Christian organizations to see that.

The various anti-gay marriage initiatives are indicative of this - gay marriage affects NO ONE but those who benefit from it. Heterosexual marriages are not undermined. The rights of heterosexual couples are not abbrogated. There is no effect to you, to me, or to anyone but Adam and Steve if they get married. Yet, the Religious Right, the current driving force of the Republican party, seeks to ban it, and in many states not just ban the absolute legal status of marriage, but to write laws that prevent same-sex partners from forming independently those contracts that mimic the rights and responsibilities of a commited partnership. That is vile. It is hateful. It is bigotry in its purest form.

The ACLU, frequently targeted by the Religious Right for standing in the way of that movement’s unceasing march to turn this country into a theocracy, defends to the end the idea of religion as a private exercise. They have defended the rights of many persons of faith to practice that faith, but have also contested any attempts to inject that practice into law. So, I apologize if you think I am buying into “conspiracy theories”. I only have to read the writings of groups like the American Family Association or the Christian Coalition to know that there IS a right-wing Christian fundamentalist assault on the rights of free Americans. I challenge you to find a mainstream liberal organization that supports the wholesale destruction of religion in this, or any other, country.

By Lyrazel

July 12, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

When it comes down to it, I believe all American property owners—regardless of religious beliefs are seriously concerned their homes and land can be taken from them. When big institutions want land even colleges and churches become inconsiderate to people who stand in the way of their expansions. I am reminded of recent GA bidding for the GM plant to be built in Pooler. The state bought land cheap and razed it, Pooler, a tiny community started developing a major sewer and other progressive undertakings it could not really (given its tax base) afford. GM pulled out—and now there is a broad swatch of dirt—a pit of broken promises of dreams. We are ALL under duress when states tell land owners they have to sell out for a new tire plant—but if it does not get built—the state will sell the land to developers cheap in recouping cash. Is this the way you want America to be controlled? Is using religion just to polarize arguments only causing inaction from Americans? What would it take for people to work together to STOP these laws? Anyone?

By Ken

July 12, 2005 08:38 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

I don’t agree with that old saw about pornography b/c those definitions change all of the time. Marilyn Monroe in a skimpy bikini was one of the first “centerfolds” ever sold, where now anything less than full penetration is OK for network TV.

And yes, my church was on public property (Piedmont Park) and we were being agressive (actively reaching out to everyone passing by). We simply didn’t demean individuals b/c they were obviously different from us. However, the Constitution protects even people who act like idiots, use vulgar language and like to stir the pot, just so long as they do not harm your person.

BTW… There are many people who look at the events like the Gay Pride parade in the exact same light you described… “We’re Gay, deal with it.” I tell folks those folks if you don’t like it, then don’t go to the parade or stay away from that part of town. But if they live nearby they do have to deal with it. That’s the beauty of this country. We don’t have to like or accept or appreciate or endorse the way any of us live. We do however do have to respect the right of the individual to choose their lifestyle.

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 08:44 AM | Link to this

Someone suggested that we listen to Nina Totenberg’s “critique� of the Supreme Court’s expansion of eminent domain on NPR. This is what you will learn:

• Justice Kennedy’s heart was heavy over the hardship private property owners will endure as he voted against them
• The New London city council was presented with a once in a lifetime opportunity to turn the town around and make it economically viable again
• The New London city council was “democratically” elected
• The property rights advocacy group that supported the property owners against the city council is “conservative”.
• The city council members are apparently independents because their political leanings or party affiliations were not mentioned
• Justice O’Connor stood tall against big business which has a greater influence over government decisions than individuals - a/k/a, registered voters. This might remind you of Diane’s stirring defense of the “average individual” against the tyranny of the mega-churches that blight our landscape much like Wal-Marts.
• The other dissenting justices (Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia) opinions were apparently superfluous because Nina did not dwell on them, then again, they aren’t “moderates” or retiring soon. So remember to tell your senator it was a moderate who stood for us, the little people
• The majority justices also generously ruled that there is nothing to prevent the individual states from enacting legislation that puts limits on the use of eminent domain. How they might rule when these new state laws invariably come before them was not made clear. Apparently there were no Democratic members of the Senate Judiciary Committee there to grill them about their core values or how they might rule in future cases.

But all we really need to understand is that our property rights have been reduced for our own good, and that good will be determined by enlightened government officials and charitable private developers who contribute to their campaigns. Feel better now?

By Ken

July 12, 2005 08:46 AM | Link to this

Lyrazel…

Amen to that post… I have heard of similar stories when it comes to MARTA. The city worked acquired land for MARTA then decided not to build and subsequently sold to developers who threw up infill housing.

As for a solution, I beleive the best thing to do is to hold or elected officials accountable for their actions. Vote them out if they overstep their bounds. This is an issue that reaches every single person and is the very foundation of our country. Unfortunately, we make other pet, personal issues far more important and vote based on those instead.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 08:50 AM | Link to this

Bobb, you are obviously a happy Republican, so I find it almost ludicrous that you mention “private developers who contribute to their campaigns”. Let’s face it, the Republican party is run by two groups - religious fanatics and big corporattions who ensure favorable treatment by making huge contributions to political campaigns.

Make up your mind, Bobb…

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 08:54 AM | Link to this

How about another perspective, Eaton: the Church is finally standing up to the ACLU which for years has been relentlessly trying to eliminate all traces of Christianity from public life and expression. Small comfort to know that the ACLU defends our right to practice our faith hiding in our homes. And that is from someone who hasn’t attended Church in 40 years, has never been baptized, and doesn’t claim to be a Christian because he hasn’t earned the right.

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 09:05 AM | Link to this

Democrats don’t get huge contributions from big corporations, Eaton? Who is being ludicrous now?

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:06 AM | Link to this

Oh, and Bobb, I guess you were trying to imply some kind of bias in Totenburg’s reporting. I realize that the term “liberal media” is applied to any news source that isn’t blatantly conservative, but your judgement of Ms. Totenburg is quite flawed.

If she used the word “conservative” its because the group she mentions is, in fact, conservative, just like any group she refers to as “liberal” is in fact, liberal. If she didn’t spend any time on the other dissenting justices, it’s not because they are conservative, or because they are not retiring, it’s because she generally only spends time focusing on the primary author of a majority or dissenting opinion. She has many a time discussed the writings of Thomas and Scalia in detail.

NPR is probably the most objective news source left in the country, despite the criticism of some on the far right. A substantial HOUSE majority voted to restore significant funding to the CPB because of its value to the country. Don’t mistake true objectivism for bias because you don’t like the facts when looked at objectively.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:09 AM | Link to this

Actually Bobb, the substantial portion of the Democratic party’s fund during the last campaign came from individual, middle class donors, in amounts under $200. The same can’t be said of the Republicans.

The ACLU hasn’t been trying to eliminate religion from public life, by the way. It seeks to keep religion out of government and publicly funded (as in taxpayer funded) government facilities. As it should be.

By Blablabla

July 12, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

eaton - i too hope the same high standard of care that was used in this case is used in the future. and i do agree that in this specific case, the town had very few choices of what to do. my problem is that i don’t believe the gov’t will adhere to the same high standard going forward. i’ve lived too long to trust the gov’t, have seen them screw up too many simple things. i just don’t believe that there aren’t gov’t officials in other states, maybe even georgia, looking at this decision and trying to figure out how they can distort it to suit their needs. not everyone is going to battle it out in court like the folks from new london did and give the court a chance to hold the gov’t to the high standard. i’ll of course wait to see what happens in the future, but i’m not hopeful. i am fearful that this ruling is something that various local gov’ts will abuse.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:25 AM | Link to this

Candidate No. of $200+ Contributors No. of $2,000+ Contributors % from Donors of $2,000+ % from Donors of $200 or less

Some numbers for you, Bobb. 2004 Election donation numbers.

Kerry, John 171,154 (Under $200) 35,891 ($2000+)

Bush, George W 160,952 (Under $200) 61,714 ($2000+)

By Harbinger

July 12, 2005 09:28 AM | Link to this

First of all, freedom of religious expression has nothing to do with property ownership. People can pray and worship when ever and where ever they want (so long as they aren’t breaking the laws). Any building can be used as a church but, just because a building is built and decorated for the sole purpose of worship by the people of a particular religion should not entitle the owners of that property to any unjust favoritism by the government. They are a business like any other and should be treated as such. The one and only interest that our government should have is in protect liberty and justice for all. That means the law must apply to everyone equally. The government should never discriminate or make special exemption for or against anyone for any reason. Such special interest legislation only leads to a conflict of interest and anything that conflicts with the interest of protecting liberty and justice is a threat to liberty and justice. Exempting churches from eminent domain laws was unjust in the first place. Retracting this exemption is not an attack on the freedom of religious expression. It is merely the elimination of a past injustice.

On the other hand, eminent domain laws are completely bogus. The government should have no right what so ever to trespass and take control of privately owned land.

Taxes are likewise a sham upon a sham upon a sham. The only reason why the government needs to collect taxes at all is to pay back it’s debt- the federal deficit. The only reason why the government has any debt is because it has to borrow money to pay for everything. But, as any creditor will tell you, you can’t borrow money unless you have collateral or a reliable source of income. The passage of the income Tax Act of 1909 was necessary to secure a reliable source of federal income and the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in 1913, just four years later, “allowed” for the creation of the Federal Reserve which operates as the central bank of America and exists mainly to loan money to Congress but also to monopolize and manipulate the banking industry.

But, if you do a little research, you’ll discover that the Constitution gave Congress the sole and inalienable power to create our money. Thus the transfer of this power to the Fed was totally unconstitutional. Now Congress operates like a corporation instead of a government. It needlessly borrows it’s money from the Fed and other third parties and forcibly taxes everything under the sun to pay back it’s debt. All the money in our economy is now borrowed from either the Fed or from a Fed controlled private commercial bank (Wells Fargo, BofA etc.). When money is borrowed, it always creates more debt then credit so, America’s money supply is therefore entirely debt based. There will always be more debt then money. That is why Republicans were sweating bullets back when Bill Clinton balanced the Federal budget. It took a lot more money out of the money supply to neutralize that debt then was represented by that debt.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 09:30 AM | Link to this

Quick question… For anyone who believes that courts do not legislate from the bench, can I please get an explanation how the Supreme Court could interpret the Constitution in a way that allows the government to forcibly acquire private property…?

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:38 AM | Link to this

“legislate from the bench” is a derogatory phrase created by conservatives to undermine the Courts when they made some decisions the conservatives didn’t like.

Here’s a quick question for YOU Ken…what do you think the purpose of the Supreme Court is? How does Common - as opposed to statutory - law function?

BTW - a breakdown in the AJC this weekend showed that the far-right conservatives on the court have “legislated from the bench”, that is - overrulled a law passed by congress - more than any of the liberal or moderate justices. I believe Thomas led the pack with 66 majority decisions overrulling Congress. Add one more 6 in there and…well. You see where I’m going.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 09:39 AM | Link to this

Interesting facts Harbinger… I like anything that even implies we should cut taxes and/or spending. And if Clinton did anything I approve of, it was balancing the federal budget.

Can you please enlighten us how that made Republicans sweat bullets vs. politicians in general? I believe all politicans want as much tax revenue as possible regardless of the political party. They either want to spend on pet projects or forcibly redistribute wealth.

By Ray

July 12, 2005 09:44 AM | Link to this

I have one question for all the so-called “enlightened” who are posting here. Why is it that if someone proclaims Jesus Christ as Lord they are immediately labled a “religious fanatic,” “closed-minded,” or a believer in “superstition?” I thought you folks were supposed to be “tolerant” and “open-minded?”

Perhaps it’s simply difficult for you to hear the truth since you then might have to change your ways. Much easier to attack the message then to heed it.

Sorry to tell you, but Jesus Christ IS LORD. There is no other path to salvation but by belief in Him and His Church. All the “close-minded” name calling in the world will not change those facts. Best for you all to repent now while you still can.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:45 AM | Link to this

Oh, and Ken, the Constitution ALREADY allows Government to forcibly acquire public property.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 09:47 AM | Link to this

Eaton… I don’t care who is legislating from the bench, it should not be done.

The primary role of the Supreme Court is to protect individual citizens from laws created by the government. In other words, it’s role is to decide whether or not a law passed by our government is Constitutional. Period. Yes or No.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

BTW… Overrulling a law passed by Congress is not legislating from the bench. That is ensuring that Congress does not overstep it’s bounds.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 09:51 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Please enlighten me where the Constitution allows the government to forcibly acquire private property.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Ken: Actually, the government’s power to seize private property has been written into the Constitution from the beginning. That’s what ‘eminent domain’ means. The problem arises from recent expansions of the purpose for which property can legitimately be seized, i.e., private enterprise vs. public use such as roads and utilities.

Taboga & Bobb: You both seem to buy into the notion that “keeping religion separate from government” is somehow the same as “trying to keep religion out of all public places.” A moment’s reflection will show that to be a mistaken impression. The ACLU is a staunch defender of freedom to practice and preach any religious views, or none at all, as a private citizen or assembly of private citizens (including churches).

What they DON’T forgive is attempts to enshrine one particular religion in publicly owned buildings and properties such as courthouses and schools. Do you see the distinction? Christianity does not “OWN” our government buildings, and Christians have no special right to use government facilities to promote their religious faith. That would be showing preferential treatment to one religion over another, which the Establishment clause forbids.

Taboga: Yes, the Establishment Clause is where “separation of church and state” comes from. Go read the Supreme Court decisions explaining what that principle means and you’ll have a better understanding. It has nothing to do with “fairness,” as you protest. It has to do with preserving freedom by restricting what government can do—which I could’ve sworn was something conservatives used to favor.

By zach dementia

July 12, 2005 09:54 AM | Link to this

Ray: someone who proclaims Jesus as Lord is indeed a fanatic, since there is no evidence for this belief whatsoever.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

“Sorry to tell you, but Jesus Christ IS LORD. There is no other path to salvation but by belief in Him and His Church. All the “close-mindedâ€? name calling in the world will not change those facts. Best for you all to repent now while you still can”

Anyone else want to pick out the ironies in this paragraph? Ray, being a Christian doesn’t make you a religious fanatic, but making statements like the one above DOES. Go fly a plane into a building or something.

Ken, then what exactly IS “legislating from the bench” if it’s not overrulling laws dully passed by Congress? I’m all ears.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Ray: No one here (well, possibly norman) would call all believers in Jesus fanatics or narrow-minded. Any attempt to push or enforce that faith on others, however, is anti-freedom and anti-American, and will most likely be condemned as such.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 09:57 AM | Link to this

Here ya go Ken.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment05/14.html

By Harbinger

July 12, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

You have a good point Ken and I totally agree. The federal deficit was a hot issue at the time. I think Clinton balanced the budget not because it would do any real good but because the American people though it was a good idea. It was purely political. Perhaps intended to give the Democratic party something to brag about during the 1999 presidential election campaigns. But, it could have also impacted the economy and a lot of Republicans are wealthy people who stand to loose a lot of money from the unexpected repercussions.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Funny. Up until the recent court ruling - I can’t recall any distress over land ownership being batted about.

Now, suddenly, from some of the posts i’ve been reading - our nation is in peril from all the land owned by churches and corporations!

And while the crisis may change from week to week, month to month, the solution never does: Government needs to take control!

I want to go on record, before the next crisis hits the streets, and state that I am fully aware and deeply concerned about the lack of availability and affordability of Disposable Diapers!

Jump and ask how high - on the way up!

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 10:20 AM | Link to this

No, Eaton, the Constitution does not already allow government to “..forcibly acquire public property”. It allows governments to aquire private property for public use as long as there is fair compensation. What it now allows, according to the Supreme Court, is the use of eminent domain to force property owners to sell out for private development if the local government deems it for the public good, such as an increased tax base. Giving up your home for an overpass is one thing; giving it up for a marina and harbor front condos is something else.

By Vince

July 12, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Boy, no matter what the crisis, I am so blessed to have this weekly reminder that some people in the Atlanta area have actually met and spoken with the Lord. I wish I knew how you guys did it. Next time, take a camera with you. \

The level of arrogance amazes me. News flash - Christianity is not the only religion on this planet.

I’ve said it before, but nobody seems to hear it…

You don’t believe in abortion? Go to a clinic and adopt an unborn baby from a woman in the waiting area.

Are you a man who doesn’t believe in abortion? Shut up. You have no say in this issue. The only people who have any rights to discuss legislation are women.

Don’t think gay people were born gay? If you are a heterosexual, how would you know? Let it go. Chances are none of the gay people out there find you attractive anyway.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 10:25 AM | Link to this

Bobb, I’m pretty sure Ken meant Private property, aren’t you? And, while I appreciate the run-down, I think it should be apparent to you that I am fully aware of what the Supreme Court said. I’ve written enough on the topic. And, seriously, I don’t think that “increased tax base” would meet the standard of public use, do you Bobb?

By Ken

July 12, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Thanks for the link. It was very informative and has done a couple of things.

First, it gave me a better understanding of eminent domain and how it could relate to me and my property.

Secondly, it gave me an example of what I consider legislating from the bench. Virtually every single footnote used to put that article together references the opinion written by the presiding court. Those opinions have essentially become law, therefore the courts have created legislation.

I will readily admit that I am an engineer and not lawyer, so our legal friends will undoubtedly be able to provide more insight. However, it appears to me that the judiciary that has shaped and created eminent domain law, rather than determine if law passed by legislators meets the eminent domain criteria as set forth in the Constitution.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

The only way for the Supreme Court to interpret ANY law is to refer to past rulings and written opinions… how else could they do their jobs?

I don’t agree with their finding in this particular case, but I don’t consider a review of prior cases to be “legislating from the bench.” Let’s face it, that’s a buzzphrase coined by the far right to whine about judges who protect minority rights or otherwise don’t rule in their favor every time.

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 11:10 AM | Link to this

Eaton, I wasn’t quoting Ken. I was quoting your 9:45 post. You say lots of things. We can only take them at face value.

I can not speak to how full of awareness you are regarding a topic, but in your writings on eminent domain you generally imply - as you did at 9:45 - that no new ground was broken by the Supreme Court in its recent decision.

No, I don’t think that an increased tax base meets the standard of public use - an overpass doesn’t pay property taxes. However, under this latest ruling it could be argued by governments that a private development increases the tax base over that of its previous owner(s) and therefore is in the public good. Everyone knows that wealthy town home owners who live next to a marina pay more taxes than the owners of 3 bedroom/2 bath, ranch style homes. More tax revenue means more good for everyone, right?

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Bobb: Which is precisely why so many people are, belatedly, concerned by this new expanded definition of “public use.”

Side note: This ruling is neither brand-new nor unprecedented. The Court has been making similar rulings in favor of private enterprise, using eminent domain to justify it, for about two decades now. It’s only this latest verdict that has somehow caught the public eye. But this process has been going on for some time beneath the radar. If you disagree with it, you need to speak up and get involved in challenging the ruling.

By paul

July 12, 2005 11:23 AM | Link to this

WHO CARES

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 11:24 AM | Link to this

Sorry Bobb, it was a typo…gasp. And my 9:45 post does not imply that the Supreme Court didn’t break new ground…did or did not Eminent Domain exist prior to the decision? I think so…Ken asked how the Supreme Court could create legislation allowing lands to be seized (note that there was no mention of “for private development”) and I was pointing out that they didn’t create anything of the kind.

And just for the record, I have never implied that no new ground was broken - I have merely said that it seems like a lot of people are getting incredibly upset by this decision with no real reason. Yet. Until we see that this ruling is used inappropriately, I say that the doomsday scenarios of private corporations swooping in to take over huge swaths of land for their own personal development are just a little…over the top.

If you’re afraid of big corporations having too much control, stop voting Republican. Simple solution.

By Harbinger

July 12, 2005 11:32 AM | Link to this

*By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

The only way for the Supreme Court to interpret ANY law is to refer to past rulings and written opinions… how else could they do their jobs?*

There is only one way to ensure that the law is interpreted properly and that is to write it properly- short and simple. But, the devil is in the details and that is how they- legislators- bury loopholes.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 11:42 AM | Link to this

The “Common Law” portion of our legal system is based on precedent and interpretation, and has been since before it was imported from Britain. Laws have been interpreted for scope and appropriateness by courts for centuries. The lesser courts look to the higher for their precendets, etc.

People are so caught up in the “legislating from the bench” nonsense that they think this is a new phemnomenon or that it’s inapproriate…it isn’t. It’s how the courts were DESIGNED to work.

By Sandy/Sanhan

July 12, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

For anyone interested: http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/domain.html. This has a NOW transcript with other links related to the topic of eminent domain. Also, Connie Rice is sited on the same page; she is actually a cousin of Condoleeza Rice—but their politics couldn’t be more different.

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 11:46 AM | Link to this

Oh, gee, well I’ll calm down, Eaton. Governments never look for a way to expand their control. What was I thinking!

Brian, admittedly I’m one of the belated who received a wake up call with this latest ruling. I will be paying closer attention and making my feelings known - Thanks

PS - Eaton, Do you work in my precinct? Otherwise, how do you know how I vote?

By JB

July 12, 2005 12:01 PM | Link to this

Ken, I realize this is in response to something from late yesterday about the composition of the Supreme Court. Check all the big major decisions and you will find they always fall 5-4, with 4 conservatives versus 4 liberals and O’Connor as the swing vote. Check this website out. http://www.webfaerie.com/content/2000SCvotes.htm It is just for the 1999-2000 term but it demonstrates the dynamic of the court. I think most experts would describe the court in this manner as well.

By Inga

July 12, 2005 12:03 PM | Link to this

“it seems like a lot of people are getting incredibly upset by this decision with no real reason” Eaton that is rubbish. I guess you wouldn’t be upset when the govt gives you half of what your house is worth because they want to? Then they turn it over to a developer to build high priced condos that raise the tax rates thereby forcing older people on fixed incomes out since they can’t afford the taxes. Oh I hope karma gets you.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 12:04 PM | Link to this

Just basing my opinion on your apparent philosophies, Bobb.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 12:08 PM | Link to this

Inga, please take time to read before you pounce. I said “Yet”. Until the sky actually falls, yes I think people are overreacting. The situation you describe hasn’t happened, nor do I think it will. But thanks for assuming things about me that you have no clue about.

By Carey

July 12, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you’re missing the big picture. It already has been used inappropriately. Let me tell you the truth of what is happening in New London. How do I know because I live in that area? New London has had economic woes since the seventies. Why is there a sudden need to seize property from landowners who have OWNED and paid taxes on those houses since the turn of the century? In a word Pfizer. You know the pharmaceutical manufacturer. This case has been going on for years and it all started when Pfizer announced the need to expand facilities. They will benefit the most from this decision. Pfizer WILL have a complex on that desired peace of real estate before long. What the media doesn’t tell you is that in the Fort Trumbull area there IS substantial undeveloped property which will support the development in question. The problem is the true property owners have the prime real estate portion with the water views. The homes in the Fort Trumbull area are not blighted. Some of the homes have been completely restored. Town officals actually condemned some of the houses in Fort Trumbull. There are profitable businesses in that area. Pfizer needed a way to get this property and they used the New London officials to get it under the guise of “Economic Developmentâ€?. The city of New London with the help of the Supreme Court of the U.S. just got away with stealing. Justice O’Conner’s warning is correct. The developer with the deep pockets can grease the palm of local officials to get the land they want, and now there is nothing anybody can do about it. The fallout has already begun. Other towns have already seized property. The insult of all of this is the lawyer representing New London said the needs of the town out way the needs of the individual. That is Communism 101 which states “The needs of the State out way the needs of the individual property owners.â€?

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

outweigh… but it’s a good point.

Eaton, don’t let your disregard for churches blind you to the significance of this issue. Expansion of eminent-domain power to benefit private enterprises is a real, and severe, threat to our freedoms.

As liberals, we should be concerned about ANY effort to expand government powers; we are, after all, the ones who care most about freedom. There have been over two decades of rulings in support of this practice—driving people out of their homes and plowing small businesses under in the name of building up tax revenue by (and for) big corporate interests: Wal-Mart, apartment developers, etc. Is this not a troubling trend in your view?

Ignoring the fact that it hasn’t happened to churches yet—shouldn’t we be fighting against this regardless of WHO it affects?

By Ken

July 12, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Eaton… The court very well may have been thinking in the best interest of New London, but unfortunately, they should be making their decision based on law rather than interest and our legal system works off of precedent. The correct legal outcome is not always what is believed to be in the best interest of our society.

I personally would prefer to not wait and see if the government abuses this new precedent with your implied “yet” scenario. They very well may not, but I don’t even want them to have the opportunity. I view the wait and see attitude as putting us on the precipice of a slippery slope that could become much messier before it gets better.

But then, I always believe decisions should sway to the rights of the individual, if at all possible.

By kimberly

July 12, 2005 12:55 PM | Link to this

From Bartleby.com: on FASCISM…. (all-capping is mine) Although Mussolini’s and Hitler’s governments tended to interfere considerably in economic life and to regulate its process, there can be no doubt that despite all restrictions imposed on them, THE CAPITALIST AND LANDOWNING CLASSES WERE PROTECTED BY THE FASCIST SYSTEM, and many favored it as an obstacle to socialization.

and: ….Unlike Communism, Fascism abhors the idea of a classless society and sees desirable order only in a state in which each class has its distinct place and function. Representation by classes (i.e., capital, labor, farmers, and professionals) is substituted for representation by parties, and the corporative state is a part of fascist dogma.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 01:02 PM | Link to this

Ken, our legal system does work on precedent, but the Supreme Court is the highest court…it SETS precedent, it doesn’t have to rely on past decisions.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

Forgive me if I missed something, but is Kimberly implying that a Capitalist is actually just a Fascist in disguise?

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

I’m thinking there is a middle ground in there…

By zack dementia

July 12, 2005 01:27 PM | Link to this

All this talk about Fascism misses an important point. Christianity is the Fascist party at prayer.

By Dakotawoman

July 12, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Who is this Ray person? And who do you think you are preaching to the people on this forum? You of the simple mind! We have Jewish people on this forum and you’re telling them they have to believe in Jesus? Go back under your rock Ray. And no, I don’t hate you because you’re a xtian. I hate you because you are so self righteous and think you can tell everybody what they should believe! Who do you think you are?

By Ray

July 12, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

zach dementia: You state “someone who proclaims Jesus as Lord is indeed a fanatic, since there is no evidence for this belief whatsoever.”

Zach. Have you ever personally seen a molecule? How about the surface of Mars? Have you personally been there and seen it with your own eyes? Of course you haven’t. You’ve seen pictures of molecules in text books and probably seen pictures of the surface of Mars online. However, other then what you have been told in a book or through a web site, you have no “evidence” to prove the existance of either of these. You have faith that what you have been told by the scientists is correct.
I, on the other hand, have thousands of years of texts, examples, and countless miracles that show the existance of God and His interaction with us. Of course, it takes faith to believe these texts, etc., but how is faith in God any different then faith in the existance of a molecule? Unless you are a molecular scientist, I’d say the level of faith is the same. In short, who’s more a fanatic; the person who looks at the wonders of the universe and the miracle of the human body and says “there is no God” or the person who says “there is?”

By lozen

July 12, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Hi Norman! Recognize your M.O. in spite of your new name: zach dementia. Christianity is totalitarianism in religion fer shur!

By Ken

July 12, 2005 01:33 PM | Link to this

Hey Zack Demented… Why ruin good discussion by tossing a bomb like that…?

By Inga

July 12, 2005 01:37 PM | Link to this

Eaton I read your posts. Why are you on a woman to woman blog anyway? You strike me as quite a know-it-all. Are you this way in person or just on an anonomous blog?

By Ray

July 12, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Eaton: You state “Ray, being a Christian doesn’t make you a religious fanatic, but making statements like the one above DOES. Go fly a plane into a building or something.”

Oh, I see. You can be a Christian as long as you don’t believe all that silly stuff. But if you truly believe that Jesus Christ is Lord….well now, THAT makes you a fanatic.

Earth to Eaton: The very definition of being a Christian is belief that Jesus is Lord and that belief in Him and His church is the only path to salvation. That does not make you a fanatic.
Every religion in the world has a belief system. If you don’t believe the tenets of a faith, why belong to it? Although many in this generation have lost site of this, there are absolutes….there is right and wrong. Sadly, those that speak out in defense of those truths are now labled fanatics or closed-minded. Meanwhile, the Eaton’s of the world who desire moral relativism (i.e. everyone’s truth is valid) claim to be the “enlightened.” Can you say anarchy? Sad…

By Ray

July 12, 2005 01:43 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: You state “No one here (well, possibly norman) would call all believers in Jesus fanatics or narrow-minded. Any attempt to push or enforce that faith on others, however, is anti-freedom and anti-American, and will most likely be condemned as such.”

And how does that differ from the secularists pushing their faith on me?

By taboga

July 12, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

A Supreme Court Justice, toting a 12 pack of his favorite brew, came upon sign: No alcoholic beverages allowed.

Relying on his vast experience at interpreting the Constitution, the Justice ruled:

That in keeping with the spirit and intent of law, the beverage clause of the stated law, in this particular instance, did not restrict, impede or hinder in any fashion hereto, his intent to further proceed to his desired destination.

His ruling was based on the opinion: That he is not an alcoholic and therefore his beverages are not that of one.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Ray, you wouldn’t know right and wrong if it jumped up and hit you in the face. Or should we call you Zack? or Boscoe? Which is it?

What makes you a fanatic, Ray, is that you are so arrogant that you think you have a lock on truth and that anyone who doesn’t believe like you is deluded and just waiting for you to enlighten them.

Like I said, fundy a*****, go fly a plane into a building. It’s the only thing religious fundamentalist freaks like you are good for.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 01:47 PM | Link to this

Ray, you are truly a moron. No one is “pushing” secularism on you. Can you pray? Can you go to church? Can you get on here and prattle on about Jesus? Yup. Yup. and…let’s see..yup.

By Dakotawoman

July 12, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Ray, I have faith too! I believe in molecules because there’s evidence. I believe in things I’ve never seen because there is evidence those things exist. There is no evidence whatsoever that your god exists. There’s only a book full of fantastic stories that’s 2000 years old and written by/for superstitious and uneducated people who knew nothing about science. Faith is used by people like you to mean “refusal to face the realities of this world.” There’s a beautiful world here and many wonderful things we humans don’t understand, but that doesn’t mean there is some anthropomorphic god who turned himself into a human to save us from our sins. You think you know the Truth and you think everybody should believe what you believe. I don’t think you know The Truth and I will never believe what you believe. I have faith that my religion is just as valid as yours and I don’t need your religion. Go preach to someone else.

By lozen

July 12, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Uh Ken, I think it was Ray who tossed the bomb and not zachdemented. I think zachde… responded to the disrespect shown to people on this forum by some self righteous man speaking down to all of us as if we were children who needed someone to instruct us in faith and religion. Don’t have time to go back and check for sure!

By Ray

July 12, 2005 01:55 PM | Link to this

Vince:

Boy, no matter what the crisis, I am so blessed to have this weekly reminder that some people in the Atlanta area have actually actually know that God doesn’t exist. I wish I knew how you guys determined that. Please, send me your thesis.

Your level of arrogance amazes me. Man as the center of the universe, his own god. News flash - this planet, and everything on it, didn’t develop by chance.

Your arguments are ridiculous. You don’t have to be a child to oppose child abuse. And you don’t have to be a woman to oppose the murder of the unborn.

And who cares if gay people are born that way or not. Who cares if pedophiles are born that way or not. Sexual deviancy should not be condoned because someone is born with an inclination. If you have an inclination toward something evil, avoid it.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Ray: How is anyone “pushing secularism” on you? Is requiring the government to stay neutral on the topic “pushing secularism”? It seems to me that keeping the government OUT of any religious matters ensures everyone’s freedom to believe whatever they want… or nothing at all.

I have yet to see one law passed by Congress that forces anyone to believe in or follow a secular philosophy. What I’ve seen is rulings that prevent government agents from showing preference between religions, or for religion over nonreligion, in the performance of their duties and their dealings with the public. In other words, they have to treat us all equally, regardless of religious views.

Are you saying this is somehow a bad thing?

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 01:57 PM | Link to this

Well, I knew this would turn into a debate about Christianity as the One Truth Path that others are “too blind and stubborn to see,” but it’s a shame it only took til Tuesday.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 01:59 PM | Link to this

Ray…

From one believer to another… There are better and more constructive ways to demonstrate and get out the message of the gospel to our society than some of the inflammatory rhetoric used (not specifically by you) on this page.

We need to keep in mind the freedom provided to people of all faiths and beleifs in this country. This is a similar freedom that God provides to all of us. Showing compassion, respect and love for another is a far better tact than bomb throwing. That does not mean you have to approve of their lifestyle or choices, but you may have to accept it.

I can honestly say I do not approve of many lifestyles represented on this board, but I am NOT going to berate or ridicule them. I will treat them with the dignity and respect that all human beings deserve. Whether you like it or not, God created them just as he created you and me.

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Eaton:

You are truly sad. To see someone so lost that they would mock the Lord…..astounding….something we wouldn’t have seen 50 years ago, prior to all you “enlightened” folks showing up.

You are a perfect example of unchecked secularism. You don’t just choose not to believe, you must belittle and tear down that with which you disagree.

Sure, I can still go to church and pray. But if it were up to hate-filled secularists like you (and sadly there are more all the time) that would not be the case.

I know you won’t like this, but I am praying that you will one day have a change of heart and turn your heart away from hatred to the Lord.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Ray, personally I find your willful ignorance, your rampant superstition, and your lack of anything resembling the compassion and caring demanded by the religion you claim to be an ardent follower of to be evil. The fact that your worldview is that of a primitive people 6000 years dead does not surprise me, as I suspect your brain is about as sophisticated as someone that many millenia dead.

If you want to see some sexual deviancy, you son of a b***, how about you come compare me to a child molestor to my face, s** head. Then I can shove my foot up your fat, ignorant a*.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 02:04 PM | Link to this

Yes, I know that I’ve allowed my buttons to be pushed. Sorry to anyone I may have offended. Except you, Ray. I meant to offend you.

By kimberly

July 12, 2005 02:05 PM | Link to this

My point regarding fascism is that we tend to see government in bed with big business and big money, especially private developers who can now take YOUR land if they grease the right palms in government. The socio-economic class system is encouraged rather than discouraged as with communism. Instead of regulating big business to hold it back and prevent it from running over people and communities, there is a more intimate, mutually-beneficial relationship between big government and big business, whereby the primary players reap big rewards and the little folks have no power to influence any of it, even when our own safety, and tax dollars, are at issue. Hence, DE-regulation of the energy and banking industries, which have led to big profits for a few, and no recognizable benefits to ANY of the rest of us. (Remember natural gas deregulation a few winters ago? Have you read the details of the bankruptcy bill that recently passed Congress faster than sh*t through a goose?) If you educate yourselves further on the characteristics of fascism, you’ll see that modern-day USA is exhibiting more of them than in previous times. BTW: I am NOT a communist, so don’t even start on me with THAT!

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Eaton: Clearly I’ve touched a nerve.

Glad that you’ve decided to show your true self…angry, hostile, vile. Amazing how all the self-proclaimed “compassionate, open-minded, inclusive” secularists immediately turn to anger, hostility, cursing, etc. whenever someone disagrees with them.
The faith of the secularist: I’m inclusive of all people, as long as you agree with me. Disagree, and be met with cursing and name-calling. And you don’t think Christians should be worried with people like you running around?

By Ken

July 12, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

Brian…

Ray is coming from the POV, of which I know many people, to whom it appears many facets of life where religion was prevelent and accepted by a vast majority of people, for a very long time, are now having it stripped away. That gives the appearance of pushing a secular agenda.

For example… School prayer was an accepted part of our educational system for a very long time. Rulings have made that ununconstitutional.

Another example… Displays of the Ten Commandements or other relgious symbols at government buildings were accepted for a very long time so long that the rulings of the government did not discriminate based on religion. In fact I remember an episode of “Law and Order”, please forgive the TV example but probably not outlandish, where Bible scripture hung directly behind the judge. Rulings have made that ununconstitutional.

Those examples may be defendable, but when the ACLU gets involved with minor issues, it really pushes buttons. For example… A city in California had used an official seal that was circular, cut into four equal parts and one of those depicted a Spanish Mission with a flag showing a cross. Obviously, this was in deference to the heritage of the city. The courts still ruled that seal must be altered.

Just a few examples where the will of the majority, a very large majority are being trumped by those the few. That gives the perception of pushing a secular agenda.

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:12 PM | Link to this

Eaton: Of course you meant to offend me. I’m a Christian….you hate that and will do anything you can to silence me, and people like me. Your arrogance leads you to believe that you, and only you, are right. Those that disagree must be silenced with foul language and name-calling. There can be no discussion or debate. It’s the nirvana of the secularist….I am my own god. Agree with me, or else.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Really, Ray? Then why haven’t I called you names and cursed at you?

I can understand why people of any faith other than Christianity (or none at all) would be worried at the thought of all the fundamentalists running around spewing venom and contempt in the name of God’s Love. Surely you don’t intend to be one of them… do you, Ray?

By kimberly

July 12, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Ray, I too am saddened by the deterioration of our society with regard to the acknowledgement or our Creator, by whatever names we know Him. I was raised by athiests, but taken in by some good Christians in my youth, driven to church, included in trips and activities, etc. I truly believe that the kindness and involvement of those Christians during a difficult time in my development DID actually save my life. I am ever grateful. But I am also saddened at the reasons so many people turn away. Look at the Rev. Falwell, the Bakkers, Pat Robertson and his hate-filled damnation on TV every day. Billy Graham preached hope to those of us who listened years ago. But in the last 15 or 20 years, the “religious right” and “moral majority” have become more vocal in stuffing their damnation down our throats. When these same people are shown to be greedy, money-driven HYPOCRITES, their entire message is diluted, if now tainted irreversably. My little old granny used to watch the TV preachers early in the morning because there was nothing else she could do in her condition. She became a “born again athiest.” I didn’t agree, but had a hard time arguing. Look at the examples of Christ that are the most loudly and obnoxiously thrust upon us. They’re not even remotely Christ like! I too am saddened as you are, but who is really to blame? People who are just trying to live by their own consciences because that’s the only thing they know to be true? What do modern churches REALLY teach? I’m not dragging MY child to them, that’s for sure!

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 02:16 PM | Link to this

But that’s what the courts are FOR: to ensure that the rights of the minority, no matter how small or unpopular, are never overwhelmed by the majority.

The cases you cite (as you no doubt already understand) were instances of Christians using governmental resources to promote and advance their particular faith. Numeric superiority in such cases doesn’t matter; the Establishment Clause quite clearly forbids any preferential treatment by government in matters of religion.

Sure, the Christians apparently “lost” something they were used to (having government available as a platform for their faith)… but they also gained more freedom, which many of them fail to appreciate. And that’s more valuable than the trivial advantages offered by federal favoritism.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 02:20 PM | Link to this

Oh Ray, your sanctimonious nature is so apparent. I don’t hate people who disagree with me, I hate people like you who attack me and compare me to child molestors.

My hating you is like a Jew hating a Nazi. You are the bigot, the mean-spirited scum. I have every right and every reason to despise you. That’s YOU, Ray, not Christians, not religion, just YOU and people like YOU.

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:27 PM | Link to this

Brian Curtis: I apologize. I should not have generalized. Much like Eaton having his buttons pushed, so did I. I guess I just get frustrated that a person of faith is not allowed to air their views without being condemned. And BTW, I am not a fundamentalist. Mainline Christianity.
I will ask you though, what do you mean by “running around spewing venom and contempt.” If someone is saying “hate this person becuase of sin,” then I agree, that is venom and contempt. But if someone says a particular conduct or behavior is sin, how is that spewing venom and contempt? As Christians, we are called to recognize the sin in ourselves as well as others, point it out, change our ways, and help others to do the same. That is done out of love, not hatred.

By Tim

July 12, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Ray… the problem is when you compare someone to a child molestor… you can’t be so stupid to believe that that person is not going to become hostile with you can you?

I consider myself a Christian too… but quite frankly if you compared me to a child molestor to my face I would probably tell you I was about to shove my size 12 up your rear as well

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Eaton: First of all, I don’t know you, so how could I possibly compare you to anything.
Secondly, what are you talking about? When did I ever compare YOU to a child molester. Like I said, I don’t know you.
- Murder is sin - Adultery is sin - Lying is sin Now, because I just made these statements does that mean that I have called you a murderer, or an adulterer, or a lier? Of course not.

Pointing out sin does not equal attacking someone or comparing them to anything. If you choose to hate me because I have mentioned various sins, that is your choice. But don’t falsely accuse me of comparing you to anything, because as I said already, I don’t even know you.

By Netbanker

July 12, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

How many of today’s Christians would call Jesus as damn librul were he around today? It is just completely whacked that conservatives use a man who was a stark raving radical liberal (Jesus) for his day as an example of what is good yet fight like a pharisee to turn back the clock on our country. What ‘progress’ for the world have conservatives ever really made outside of war? Can someone help me out? It’s due to the damn libruls that our country was founded (yes, folks they were the uber-radicals of their time fighting against monarchies and such…what were they thinking fighting for freedom and being concerned about the evils of state sponored religion?!), that women can vote, that we no longer have slaves, that religion is on the list of those protected against discrimination, etc.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 02:40 PM | Link to this

Oh yes Ray, I’m so sorry that I condemn you for comparing me to a child molestor or calling me a deviant. It is so OBVIOUS that you aren’t a fundamentalist. As for “pointing out” my sin and trying to help me change it, that is possibly the most offensive thing I have ever heard. You wonder why I respond to you with anger? How DARE you think you have ANY right to identify “sin” in my life, or tell me how I am living my life wrong. If you think that’s love, I pity anyone who is loved by you.

By Tim

July 12, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Ray… “And who cares if gay people are born that way or not. Who cares if pedophiles are born that way or not. Sexual deviancy should not be condoned because someone is born with an inclination. If you have an inclination toward something evil”

most people would take that to mean you are comparing gay people to pedophiles

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Tim,

When did I ever compare Eaton to a child molester? I don’t know Eaton. I have not compared him to anything.

If I were to make the statement “those with a tendancy toward lying should avoid lying”, does that then mean that I have called you a liar? Of course not. You’ll only feel attacked if the shoe fits.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Actually Brian… I do not believe that the instances I sited were at all the attempt of anyone to advance their faith. I believe in most cases they are reminders of the heritage of our country (which is undoubtedly religious) and the foundation upon which they were built (The Judge Moore ruling would be an exception).

And I would agree that the courts are there to protect the individual from the majority. However, the question in some of these cases lie in: How was the individual in question being denied any particular right and how did the removal of said items subsequently provide them?

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Here you go Ray. Remember this quote? Oh - and before you say “But I didn’t know you were gay” please remember that it’s not OK to make bigoted remarks about anyone just because you don’t think they are around.

“And who cares if gay people are born that way or not. Who cares if pedophiles are born that way or not. Sexual deviancy should not be condoned because someone is born with an inclination. If you have an inclination toward something evil, avoid it.”

So, in one paragraph, you’ve called me (albeit unknowingly, I’ll grant you that) evil and a deviant, and compared me to a pedophile. You’ve also tacitly suggested that I don’t deserve to live my life in happiness. I can’t imagine why that would p** me off.

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:46 PM | Link to this

Dakotawoman:

When did I ever tell anyone what they should believe. All I have done is state what I believe. When, oh when, did that become a bad thing? Why is it that everyone can have a voice in this society EXCAPT the Christian? Why are we immediately told to “shut up,” “go back under your rock,” etc. I mean, read the comments toward me on this board. And you condemn Christians for being intolerant, mean-spirited, and closed-minded.

Just read your own vitriol. I have focused none of my commenst at any individual. You have all fired off plenty directed at me. I think you all should look in a mirror.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 02:48 PM | Link to this

Ray… Will you please stop digging a hole you cannot get yourself out of…?

By Ray

July 12, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Eaton:

Assume for a moment that “Joe” is a murderer.

If I make the comment “murder is evil” have I attacked Joe, or simply pointed out a fact?

If at some point in the future, society starts to change its view toward murder, does that change the fact that murder is evil?

Sin is sin…..it does not change with the whims of society. I know very few people want to hear that today (and I’ll be labled “attacking” and “bigotted” for saying it), but it is the truth.

We are not damned for how we are born…..we damn ourselves through our actions.

I do not know you….I do not hate you….as a Christian, I am called to love you. What actions you choose to partake of in life is between you and God and nobody else.

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 02:57 PM | Link to this

Jezzus, they ought to rename this column “Eaton to Eaton”. It all seems to be about him anyway.

Bottom line is that there are plenty of secularists in this country who’d love to take the Church down, and if they get the opportunity to try it with eminent domain, they will. Plenty of folks who might try to get rid of other things too. Be alert. People are people after all.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

*I have yet to see one law passed by Congress that forces anyone to believe in or follow a secular philosophy. What I’ve seen is rulings that prevent government agents from showing preference between religions, or for religion over nonreligion, in the performance of their duties and their dealings with the public. In other words, they have to treat us all equally, regardless of religious views.

Are you saying this is somehow a bad thing?*

Brian,

All that may sound fine - but that is not what the Constitution calls for. Just because you believe that keeping religion out of public/government buildings is the right thing to do - does not mean that it makes it Constitutionally right.

The Founders were not concerned about whether or not the States would do the “good” thing or the “bad” thing. What they were concerned about however, was that the states had the right to decide for themselves what good or bad.

What you and others are advocating is exactly that which the Founders were strongly against: Having a centralized government dictating to the states how they can and cannot conduct their religious affairs. As far as the Founders were concerned, the states could have a picture of Jesus on every tree limb in the state, OR, they could ban the display of Jesus any and everywhere they chose. Whatever the people of the states decided.

If the Founders would have wanted a Federal Court to dictate to the states the do’s and don’t of religious practices based on the court’s belief of what is “good” or “bad” - then why on earth would they have created the First Amendment preventing Congress from enacting laws for that same exact purpose?

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

Put it on the other foot, Ken. How about if you lived in a primarily Muslim nation. What if your child went to school and was FORCED to participate in the Call to Prayer? What if whenever you went to court, a document declaring that your religion was a false one hung over the judge’s head?

By David

July 12, 2005 03:06 PM | Link to this

Ray,

As for your analogies, I’d say that by saying murder is evil and that Joe is a murderer, you most certainly are attacking Joe. You’re calling him evil.

Also, societies views have changed towards murder. If you’ll crack open your Bible, you’ll find passages that condone killing adulterers by stoning (Deut 22:23-24). And, for the sake of argument, we’ll say that in that culture this sort of killing was an established norm, and since it is in the Bible, certainly not evil. But something tells me that you wouldn’t be so pleased if one of your family members was stoned to death for having sex outside of marriage.

So sin does in fact change with the whims of society. Or the whims of God, if you prefer.

By Josh

July 12, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

This issue is not about churches or religions at all.

This issue is about private property rights and that’s all it is about

Why are we dragging religion into this debate?

If you own the property then no one should be able to take it from you so some private citizen can make money.

In fact, why is it even a questions as to if property tax itself is even legal. We formed this country under the notion that once you pay for your land it belongs to you. Where did we get off track and start asking for property taxes????????

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 03:08 PM | Link to this

Sorry if I choose to participate more than you, Bobb…you can skip my posts if you want.

Ray…did…you just…compare me to a murderer?

You really are clueless, aren’t you.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Very true David…not to mention that pesky shellfish and pork thing.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 03:11 PM | Link to this

Taboga: In that case, what you have a problem with is the 14th Amendment, which requires the states to comply with all rights and protections guaranteed to citizens at the federal level (i.e., the Bill of Rights).

It’s the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause that tells states they’re not allowed to pass laws or impose practices that violate constitutionally-guaranteed rights. That is, they can’t pass any laws or take any actions that would be forbidden to the federal government on Bill-of-Rights grounds.

Or, perhaps the sticking point between us is the understanding of what Christian symbols and monuments mean on public (i.e., government) properties. You see them as a harmless acknowledgement of history; but I see them as governmental endorsement and support for a particular faith, which is therefore forbidden by the Establishment Clause—and which, by 14th-Amend. extension, is equally forbidden to state governments.

Thus far, the Court has agreed with my perception of the issue. They may change their interpretation in future, but personally I hope they don’t. Governmental favoritism is always a bad idea for freedom and democracy.

By Josh

July 12, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Well said taboga. Seems like some on this Board failed History. I suggest they go and actually read the Constitution and the Federalist Papers and stop making things up to bolster their points of view

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 03:12 PM | Link to this

Josh, I’m afraid just about every discussion on this forum winds up being a debate about religion. It seems unavoidable.

I’m not familiar with the history of property taxes, so I’ll have to do some digging before I can try to answer your question.

By Ken

July 12, 2005 03:13 PM | Link to this

Eaton… That is where you and I differ… As long as the laws allow me to practice my faith and treated me equally under the law, then there is no reason to argue.

If I live in a primarily Musim nation, I would expect to have their established laws and customs as part of my daily life and b/c I have strength in my faith, I would not feel threatened by anything stating otherwise.

Maybe that’s the real difference between you and me… I don’t feel threatened by any of the derogatory comments made against God, Christ or religion in general. I feel saddened, but not threatened. People of faith have been ridiculed and persecuted for thousands of years and we are still here.

By zack demential

July 12, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

See The Battle for God by Karen Armstrong. She shows that our founding fathers were rationalists and deists and not very Christian. The country was christianized by the mob, in the two great awakenings. Our rednecks made this country religious, which it was not to start with, except for witch-hunting New England.

By David

July 12, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

It might not be a great name for this blog, but Eaton to Eaton sounds like the title for a great sitcom.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Do people honestly think the country is supposed to still exist in exactly the same form as it did at the moment of its conception? Nations and governments evolve.

By Josh

July 12, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

The Fourteenth Amendment Rights Guaranteed Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Sorry Brian…..No where in the above noted Amendment does it say….as you have tried to note…..”It’s the 14th Amendment’s “equal protectionâ€? clause that tells states they’re not allowed to pass laws or impose practices that violate constitutionally-guaranteed rights. That is, they can’t pass any laws or take any actions that would be forbidden to the federal government on Bill-of-Rights grounds.”

Again people like Brian trying to rewrite the U.S. Const. to make them appear to be right.

By David

July 12, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Josh,

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”

Thus, constitutional protections/limitations of federal government also apply to the states.

By lozen

July 12, 2005 03:37 PM | Link to this

Oh, poor poor Ray. I feel so sorry for you! You should be able to get on this forum and compare gays to child molesters, talk down to other adults, who (in my case at least), are older than you are, and we should all be grateful for your “LOVE.” Bull. If you came on this forum and said “I believe god is good and I go to church and I have faith,” noone would get angry and call you names. That’s not what you do. You start preaching and condemning and taking a holier-than-thou attitude. And then you’re all upset because christians get attacked! Duh.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

Josh: Actually, that’s exactly what it says, and in the very portion you quoted!

“No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [meaning the guarantees of the Bill of Rights, among others]”… “nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Which, again, means that no specific state can deny equal protection of their constititional rights.

This is not “making things up;” it’s taken directly from a long list of Supreme Court interpretations, from Palko v. Connecticut (1937) onward. It’s this application of Amend. 14 that resulted in our various antidiscrimination and privacy laws.

You’ll find more information about how the 14th extended Bill-of-Rights protections to the state level at http://www.stcynic.com/blog/archives/2005/05/the_historical.php.

By Netbanker

July 12, 2005 03:49 PM | Link to this

“Clinton balanced the budget not because it would do any real good but because the American people though it was a good idea. It was purely political.”

WOW! Balancing the budget wouldn’t do any real good? How about the fact that 19% of all our taxes go to pay for the national debt and that percentage is rising? Can you imagine the tax cut we could have if our government spending was reduced by almost 1/5 simply by NOT having a deficit. The first step toward reducing that massive debt is to STOP debt spending. The American people were RIGHT. It is a good idea.

Our government is driving this country toward bankruptcy folks with the Republicans steering the way and stomping on the gas pedal by consistently outspending every Democratically controlled Congress or Administration.

In case you hadn’t noticed…I’m back from vacation..which means I did NOT win the lottery or inherit massive amounts of money in the past 12 days.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Do people honestly think the country is supposed to still exist in exactly the same form as it did at the moment of its conception? Nations and governments evolve.

No is stating that we cannot change - and the Founders provisioned for this. It’s called: Amending the Constitution. If we desire change, we have the mechanism to do so through our elected legislative body.

It’s perfectly fine to change the Constitution. But what is not the correct way, is to have a court deliberately misinterpret the Constitution as it is currently - just because they don’t agree with what it states.

Change is fine - do it the right way though.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Oh, Toboggan, an Amendment is not the only way to evolve as a government…why do you think we have a legislature in the first place? The Constitution is a framework within which other laws are meant to grow and change - it’s not the only source of Law for the nation.

And…such hubris! Deliberatley misinterpret? Are you a legal scholar, to make such a determination? Or, as I suspect is more likely the case, are you just parroting the “legislating from the bench” Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world?

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 04:07 PM | Link to this

This is my Blog! You must give into all of my beliefs! I am gay and proud of it, everyone who is not gay is wrong! I am the know-it-all around here. Most of my posts are full of crap, but you must live by them! Down with all religion!

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

Yeah. Clever.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

And…such hubris! Deliberatley misinterpret? Are you a legal scholar, to make such a determination? Or, as I suspect is more likely the case, are you just parroting the “legislating from the bench� Hannitys and Limbaughs of the world?

It’s like the ol saying: You don’t have to be an astronomer to know that the moon is not made of blue cheese.

By FullofCrap

July 12, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

Everyone who is gay is going to Hell, the bible says SO!!!!!!!!!

Eaton will be driving the pink Beetle down the paisley coated road!

By Tim

July 12, 2005 04:17 PM | Link to this

IT’S NOT??????!!!!!!

By paul

July 12, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Does the man still live in the moon?

By paul

July 12, 2005 04:23 PM | Link to this

No, the Government should not be able to take church land. That is what this forum is for, right?

By TT

July 12, 2005 04:32 PM | Link to this

By TT

July 12, 2005 04:34 PM | Link to this

Sorry guys, I don’t know why my font will not cooperate.

By Linda

July 12, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

It is interesting to look at the reasons some of our own ancestors came to the US in the first place. We, of course, wouldn’t be here with all of our rights if they had not. One of my families, the McKays, were literally burned out of land in Scotland which they had been on for generations. During the “Clearances,” the large absentee landowners of the day determined to improve their revenues and “cleared” out their renters. My people came to the US specifically because we had a constitution that not only let them own their own land, but gave them protection from the government or the rich taking it from them without cause. This latest ruling by the five unelected lawyers on the Supreme Court is at best un-American to the extreme.

AS far as the government taxing (and thus controlling the churches), we only have to look at the former Soviet Union for an example of what happens when the government takes over the church. Eventually the Soviet churches ended up as “public buildings.” After the fall of the Soviet Union, the government welcomed the churches back in because their country had become morally bankrupt.

Having said that, however, the property of the Church is not the Church. The suffering Church in eastern Europe under the Communists emerged as a stronger Church than the Church in western Europe where the Church was not persecuted. The Christian Church has Christ’s promise that hell will not prevail against it and that certainly includes its survival even if taxed.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

How many of you have bought into the notion that the Constitution is the: “Supreme Law of the Land”…?

If so, socialist academia has taught you well.

Believe it or not, the Constitution was written specifically to ensure that there would be no “Supreme Law of the Land”.

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Lol. Socialist academia. That is a good one. Rush Limbaugh has taught YOU well.

By taboga

July 12, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Lol. Socialist academia. That is a good one. Rush Limbaugh has taught YOU well.

“Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.” -John Lennon

By Bobb

July 12, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Hey, bud, you have your own column. Go with it. You’re kind of hard to ignore

By lozen

July 12, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

Eaton, honey, can I ride with you in the pink Beetle on the paisley road? Let’s take Tim, Netbanker and Brian too. We’ll take a cooler full of margaritas, open the moon roof, maybe go to Florida. All around us in their purple, yellow and green economy cars, wearing their tie dyed shirts, will be all the other libruls. Garish! We’ll be dancing at the disco, lying by the pool, decorating our houses, and improving the neighborhood with our landscaping. We’ll be having fun, I guaran-damn-tee ya!

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

It’s all well and good to quote John Lennon, who by the way, would probably find you despicable, but I grew up surrounded by academia. I also know the definition of socialism, which most people in this country who cry “Socialism!” don’t. I assure you that most professors I know are quite happy being in non-socialist societies, particularly since socialism and communism has never been especially kind towards academics.

Maybe you’re stuck in the 60’s…

By TT

July 12, 2005 04:54 PM | Link to this

The 14th Amendment, which was cited by others on this blog, guarantees private property rights. Despite Shaunti’s tiresome attempts to make every issue about Conservative Christians, eminent domain affects us all. Funny how it reared its ugly head under a Republican administration and a conservative Congress. And Taboga, only someone with little education would label academia as socialist. If believing in cooperation, the betterment of society, and learning from others is socialist, then I’m Marx’s biggest fan.

By zack

July 12, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

The Republican Party is the smiling face of American Fascism.

By kimberly

July 12, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

Regarding the SOCIALIST label: The Nazis were fascists, but called themselves socialsists to be better accepted by the people. The Soviets were communists, but called themselves socialists to be better accepted by the people. Here, if you’re not a Republican, Limbaugh and his lemmings call you a socialist using a connotation that equates to common vulgarity.

THE LABEL MEANS NOTHING! Think, people! Each issue we encounter is complex and different, but with the same underlying base: if you want to find the truth, FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL!

By taboga

July 12, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

And Taboga, only someone with little education would label academia as socialist. If believing in cooperation, the betterment of society, and learning from others is socialist, then I’m Marx’s biggest fan

Marx didn’t believe in cooperation - he believed in forced slavery through a pretense of a government. It was called: Communism.

Marx didn’t believe in the “betterment of society” either. He believed that select individuals were to determine what was best for society - rather than the individuals in society.

Marx was interested in “learning from others”, but rather they from he.

All sounds a lot like academia doesn’t it.

By lozen

July 12, 2005 05:11 PM | Link to this

taboga, you do know don’t you that the first thing a dictatorial or facist government does is close the academies don’t you? Totalitarianism is afraid of the inquiring mind, books, people who think. Raving about socialist academia is one indication of where the totalitarians in our country want to take us.

By Brian Curtis

July 12, 2005 05:14 PM | Link to this

Taboga: That’s interest, especially because the Constitution explicity says it IS the supreme law of the land!

Article VI, Section 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

By taboga

July 13, 2005 07:26 AM | Link to this

Article VI, Section 2: “This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof… shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.�

Brian,

Here it is in its entirety:

“2. This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

The Constitution grants the Federal Government jurisdiction over certain matters. The above is only stating, that the laws made under that authority, which is granted by the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land.

Nowhere in there, does it state that the Constitution itself is the “Supreme Law of the land”.

Reading, comprehension and context — is extremely important.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 07:44 AM | Link to this

Lozen,

Regardless of what Totalitarians may or may not do - has absolutely nothing to do with what I stated.

I didnt’ state anything about “closing academia”. If I stated that my car is dirty - would you automatically assume that I want to throw it away? Maybe I just think it needs to be washed?

Neither do I think that academia is promoting the “inquiring mind” or “people who think”. The majority of acamdemia has become little more than self-appointed elitists who think they have all the answers and just need to share them with the rest of us. The “inquiring mind” and the “people who think” are the ones who question their prescriptions. And usually, those who question, are labeled: Right-wing, bigoted extremists!

Academia is doing little more than training performing seals! Look out here on this board and see what I mean.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 07:54 AM | Link to this

Wow… I thought about going to law school but with all of the professors on this blog, I think I’ll save my money.

BTW… Republicans aren’t fascists any more than Democrats are socialists. Folks in this country simply despise the other side so much that their contempt makes them react emotionally rather than through discourse.

The fact of the matter is, both sides want to impose moral positions on our population. That is he very nature of a politician. He/She has been elected to make decisions based on how he/she would decide certain issues.

The Republicans want to install laws that would restrict our lifestyle choices and that we alone decide our place our in the world. Democrats want to tax people with increasing proportion on a person’s wealth and allow the world consensus to shape how we respond to the world (there are others, but these are a couple).

People keep talking about the Constitution, the founding fathers, etc. Personally, I don’t think they would agree with either. I think, right now, they looking down on us, shaking their heads and wondering how we could screw up something that was so divinely created.

By Tony

July 13, 2005 07:56 AM | Link to this

Editors Shaunti or Diane

I have filed a complaint with the AJC customer service department.

It is one thing to call people names, however, when people make threats to individuals and his post is not edited or blocked is irresponsible.

Please ensure the integrity of you paper and indeed this forum and maintain the standards prescribed above and resolve this matter.

I have attached the post below where this individual threatens another poster. Something needs and indeed should be done to prevent posters from threatening other posters. I hope someone with the authority can prevent threatening comments from being posted and either block or edited as forewarned!

By Eaton

July 12, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Ray, personally I find your willful ignorance, your rampant superstition, and your lack of anything resembling the compassion and caring demanded by the religion you claim to be an ardent follower of to be evil. The fact that your worldview is that of a primitive people 6000 years dead does not surprise me, as I suspect your brain is about as sophisticated as someone that many millenia dead.

If you want to see some sexual deviancy, you son of a bh, how about you come compare me to a child molestor to my face, st head. Then I can shove my foot up your fat, ignorant as.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 08:23 AM | Link to this

Taboga: Yes, context is important… which is why the Supreme Court has the job it does, of interpreting what the Constitution means. And time and again, they’ve pointed out that the Constitution and its attendant amendments, treaties, etc., really ARE the “supreme law of the land.” The point being that laws passed by lesser structures, such as state governments, are automatically subordinate to the Constitution and treaties—they can’t trump or override the Constitution.

I’m curious, though… if you’re so sure that the Constitution isn’t our highest law: what is?

By Ken

July 13, 2005 08:35 AM | Link to this

Brian…

Is there a difference between the law and defining what laws the government can create?

Isn’t the Constitution actually a document that outlines the government, it’s role and its limitiations rather than specifically a list of laws? Help me out. It may clear up the disconnect with Taboga.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 08:48 AM | Link to this

Ken: Perhaps that’s it. The Constitution spells out the structure and functions of our government, so in one sense it’s a blueprint.

But what are laws, after all? They’re instructions, too. They say what you can and cannot do; what the government can and cannot do; what corporations can and cannot… well, you get the idea. So the actions of government are bound by the statements of the Articles and Amendments just as much as (in fact, more than) they’re affected by the latest air-quality or campaign-finance legislation.

By Jack

July 13, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

I would LOVE to meet Eaton in person. He is an arrogant piece of dirt and it would make my day to clean his clock. What guts he has on the blog. Bet you would run from a fight wouldn’t you sweetie pie?

By Tim

July 13, 2005 09:16 AM | Link to this

lozen… cruisin in the beatle sounds like fun! what time should I be ready? ;)

Tony… did you send similar complaints when others on this blog ‘threatened’ people… or do you just pick and choose?

By Ken

July 13, 2005 09:24 AM | Link to this

Brian… Makes sense to me, but some people just feel the need to argue, regardless of what it may be about…

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Tony: I assume you’ll now post a similar complaint about Jack for making threats as well, correct?

By Tim

July 13, 2005 09:29 AM | Link to this

Jackie dang you are a big talker for such a lil guy… have a wonderful day creepy… go scurry back to munchkin land now

Tony… are you now filing another complaint with ajc customer service dept in reference to Jack?

By zack

July 13, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

The reason the religious are more insulting than the secularists is that religion grows from fear, frustration, and revenge. Look at that wonderful church-goer in Wichita, Mr. Rader.

By zack

July 13, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Since suicide bombers are evidently the cause of the attack in London we can expect more of the same. Many Muslims evidently believe that their religion demands action like this. There are some Christians and Jews who also share this fundamentalistic terroristic religion. It will not be enough to take away church property. We must outlaw religion. But the first step must be the deportation of all Muslims, since Muslims currently are more dangerous than Christians and Jews who believe in a fanatical version of their religion.

Start with deporting Muslims. Britain has allowed millions of Muslims to enter their country. They are paying the price. So will we if we do not act now. Compared to Muslims Mexicans are harmless children.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 09:58 AM | Link to this

Count me in on the Beetle road trip! If we’re going to Florida I own an apartment near Miami so free lodging within a block of the beach. I can probably swing some time on one of my friends’ boats if we want to go water skiing or take cruise out to Bimini or maybe down to Key West.

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

Ken and Brian, I think you have it. The Constitution/Amendments trump everything. No national, state, or local law, or government action can be made (legally) unless it meets the criteria they establish. It tates the limits of government as much as anything since the founders had just fought a war to make that very point. At least this is my understanding.

One of you mentioned campaign finance reform. The 1st amendment has examples of limits on government including , ” Congress shall make no law.. abridging the freedom of speech..” The campaign finance law puts limits on campaigning (advertising during last days of campaigns I think??) that can be argued to be in violation of this amendment. Actually, I think this might have gotten to Supreme Court and they said it didn’t…anyone know for sure?? Anyway, the Court is supposed to rule on what a law means, how it is used, and obviously if it violates the Constitution. I think this why a lot folks get upset when justices look to outside sources like foreign law. Maybe this is one source of the “judicial activism” issue..?? That’s why we have checks and balances in the Constitution so each branch (exec, legislative, judicial) can override the decision of the other. Ain’t easy though. Takes an amendment (right??)to override the Supremes (or another Court decision they make themselves).

Pres can veto a law passed by Congress. Congress can override vetos. Congress can also craft a law in a different way if the Supremes rule its original form was unconstitutional. The three branches are equal and supposed to compliment one another and work together. We vote to decide who runs the exec, who legislates, and who gets to decide who sits on the Court. The power ultimately rests in us. You can whine that we are powerless as individuals, but what, over 120 million individuals vote last fall? That’s a lot of power

Anyway, I don’t see how anyone left/right/center/ can think the Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. It’s been straining to keep gov’t off our backs for 200+ years. Why would we want anything else?

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Good point ‘Zack’…those ‘religious’ folks who carry on like spoiled children are the clanging gongs that Jesus warned us about. It is this small slice of Christians that actually smear the reputation of the faithful because for this minority the show of faith in the public square is more important that actually living the message of love and charity espoused by their religion. It’s more important to protest about the display of the 10 Commandments than to DO good works that will actually make a difference in someone’s life. I don’t imagine that Jesus or the Apostles meanting standing around chanting slogans or holding signs for TV cameras when they told their followers to ‘witness’ to others.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 10:31 AM | Link to this

Norman… Quit hiding behind that alias of Zack and show who you are…

All groups have extremist wings. Religious groups are no exception. How many Muslims do you know Zack…? How many are militiant terrorists…?

By taboga

July 13, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

Brian,

The state governments are not “lesser structures”. This, IMO, is the problem that so many folks have: They think there is some ranking structure to our government whereby the Federal Government outranks the state governments. This is NOT the case.

Look at it this way. Suppose a group of people were planning a big party. You were given the authority over the cake and ice cream. You have the final authority to determine what kind of cake and ice cream, how much, etc. You have the absoulte authority in making these decisions regarding the cake and ice cream.

You DO NOT however, have absolute authority over the party itself! You have no authority over anything other than the ice cream and cake.

If that reasoning can be followed, apply the same logic to the Federal Government. The Federal Government, under the Constitution, was supposed to operate the same way: Authority over those things that the Constitution specifically granted to them.

And the Federal Government was not granted (by the Constitution) the authority to dictate to the states - any matters regarding the practice of religion!

And even though you might think that there should be 6 different varieties of beer at your party; so as to be fair to more people - it doesn’t matter! You don’t have that authority! That’s not for you to decide!

The Federal and State Governments entered into a contractual partnership: The Constitution. They are partners in our system of government - the Federal Government is not the King.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 10:57 AM | Link to this

Bobb…I never really considered the campaign finance reform issue in terms of free speech. I don’t want to squash the right of free speech, but I must admit that I am absolutely sickened by the amount of money that is spent on political campaigns. It just seems that the majority of it is spent on smear campaigns rather than on stating a candidate’s position and/or plan to address real issues. Personally, I don’t believe that someone’s personal life and especially NOT the lives of their family members have any place in a political campaign. I’ve worked for people who are brilliant in their ability to run a successful business operation while their personal lives were a total wreck. If private businesses dug as hard into the personal lives of their employees as people do to politicians everyone would be considered unemployable.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

What’s wrong, Jack and Tony…you expect the gay guy to be meek and submissive and feminine, and you can’t handle it when they get mad at narrow-minded bigots like you and fight back? And while I may be arrogant, I’m a better person on my worst day than either of you two outdated fossils are on your best.

Tobago, you have listened to the right-wing propaganda machine quite well. I know more professors than you , I guarantee, and they come from every political stripe. Are there MORE liberal-leaning professors? Yes. Does that make academia a “liberal indoctriniation camp?” No.

Most professors are devoted to learning and thinking and have no interest in indoctrination, left wing or otherwise. No one comments on the fact that there are substantially more CONSERVATIVES in the millitary or in business, do they? No…but because there are more liberals in academe, it’s a conspiracy to train seals.

The only person parroting nonsense around here is you.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 11:08 AM | Link to this

Actually Toboga, I believe the Federal Constitution does supercede the State Constitution when the State Constitution is MORE RESTRICTIVE. For example…

If the Federal Constitution says that all citizens over the age of 18 can vote. The the State Constitution can provide more access (i.e. all citizens over the age of 16) but not less access (i.e. all citizens over the age of 20).

Did I get that right Brian…?

By Ken

July 13, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

Actually, I believe there is some bit of truth when it comes to left leaning professors influencing the folks attending our universities.

Profoessors are just that… They profess what they believe are truths in a particular subject. They are not teachers that teach us specific facts. I particularly saw the difference while getting a technology based degree.

Tech professors talk about absolutes… Math and Science. No one can debate the resolution to a calculus equation or a chemical reaction.

Liberal arts professors (i.e. English, History, etc.) can present particular facts but they also inject their own spin on the writings, readings, situations, etc. There is far more leeway in how they influence the thinking of the student. If they do not challenge the student to come to their own conclusions, which many of them in my experience do not, then you do end up with a mild level of indoctrination.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 11:18 AM | Link to this

Ken,

I have never heard of the “Federal Constitution”. I have no idea what it might state.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 11:21 AM | Link to this

Taboga: The Constitution, through Amendment 14, explicitly DOES grant the federal government superiority over the local and state governments; that’s the sticking point. Under the terms of Amend. 14, no state is allowed to pass laws that violate the Constitutional guarantees defined at the federal level (the most obvious example being the Bill of Rights).

The Superior Court’s rulings trump all lower courts; acts of Congress can override all state legislatures; and the President’s executive orders and federal-level department can and do dictate terms to local agencies and governors. I don’t see much room to argue that the two levels are somehow coequal.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 11:26 AM | Link to this

No offense here, Ken, but what is your experience with college professors? I’m betting that I’ve had more. Not only do I have a Masters degree of my own, but I grew up on college campuses and am the child of one of those History professors you’re talking about - a professor, by the way, who believes that a student’s ability to reason and provide logical support for that reasoning is far more important than regurgitating facts.

I know literally hundreds of professors and have known them all my life, so I’m guessing that my experience with academics is greater than your own. I could, of course, be wrong.

I wonder if tobbagan would be interested in meeting two Chinese guest professors who were on faculty exchange for a year at my father’s college recently. Both of their parents were teachers as well, and both were murdered during the Cultural Revolution. Little Toby might consider that before she goes calling people socialists.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 11:28 AM | Link to this

Ken: Good point. We should remember that the Bill of Rights and other amendments secure our freedom by limiting what government can do. That’s the only way we CAN enjoy our rights—by restraining government.

So the Constitution spells out the bare minimum that the federal government is designed to do (resulting in our freedom). And (through Amend. 14) it also provides a “floor” for what state governments are allowed to do—again, securing our basic freedoms by restraining government.

State governments can certainly go beyond those bare-minimum requirements in restraining themselves to expand our liberties—for example, by lowering the local voting age. But they can’t violate the Constitutional minimums by taking on more authority than is permitted to them.

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 11:30 AM | Link to this

Netbanker - I was referring to a provision of the campaign finance law that prohibits or limits how money can be used during the last 20 days of a presidential campaign. I may not have it right, but it basically limits advertising with funds from certain sources or something like that. I was really just using this as an example of how the Constitution puts limits on government (no abridgement of freedom of speech) but here is a law that can be argued violates that provision. I think - but not sure - that the Supremes ruled that it doesn’t, based on what I don’t know. I’m with you about personal attacks, but that comes with the territory and is nothing new. Money is the root of all evil for sure, but it isn’t cheap to run a national campaign and if private citizen wants to advertise on their own is it really anyone else’s business? Look at Soros and others on both sides. I admittedly don’t know enough about the details, but much like the property rights discussion way above, I’m afraid that once the government starts shading the Constitutions meaning, then before long it is blanked it out altogether. Besides, how to we expect the very people (politicians) the law is supposed to limit to craft a law that isn’t beneficial to them or can’t be circumvented somehow?

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 11:38 AM | Link to this

Off the wall question alert!

Why aren’t there Conservative Arts Degrees for those who don’t like liberals?

By taboga

July 13, 2005 11:48 AM | Link to this

Brian,

Talk about stating the obvious! Of course no states are allowed to violate the Constitution - they agreed to its contents!

That’s about like you and I entering into a binding legal agreement and you stating: I cannot violate the agreement. Of course I can’t - and neither can you! That’s what a binding legal agreement is.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 11:51 AM | Link to this

State governments can certainly go beyond those bare-minimum requirements in restraining themselves to expand our liberties�for example, by lowering the local voting age. But they can’t violate the Constitutional minimums by taking on more authority than is permitted to them.

Brian,

The more I read your posts, the more I am convinced that you are not talking about the U.S. Constitution, but rather the - Communist Manifesto.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Eaton…

Between my own education, family and friends I have a good deal of experience. Not as much as yours, but a good deal. And how could one not take offense given the elitist tone that eminated through your typing?

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 11:56 AM | Link to this

There are, Netbanker. They’re called Business degrees.

Except for mine, of course.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 11:58 AM | Link to this

Taboga…

Is that the best you can do…? No real response other than feined confusion…?

Well in case it was real, please subsitute “Federal Constitution” with “United States Consitution”.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 12:14 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t being elitist, Ken, I was merely inquiring as to the breadth of experience that allowed to to make such a determination and comparing it to my own. It’s much like when you tell me how I can’t possibly understand how a person of faith thinks because you’re one and I, presumbably, am not.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 12:42 PM | Link to this

Taboga: So arguing in favor of limited government and maximized freedom at both federal AND state levels…. is reminiscent of Communism to you.

In my best Spock voice, with raised eyebrow, I must say: “Fascinating.”

Do you have an actual response to the points raised, or have you given up?

By Ken

July 13, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

Brian… I think Toboga has given up…

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

College professors, based on my experience, are somewhat more likely to think progressively and with logic than they are to be right-wingers, but I’ve seen both. I CAN tell you, however, that as a group of people, they are some of the most PERVERSE and TWISTED individuals you’ll find anywhere. (wink wink) Seriously. Especially the quiet ones. Watch out for English professors. You do NOT want to know what kind of equipment these soft-spoken acadamians have in their basements, and begging & pleading does NO good; they’re completely unphased.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 01:23 PM | Link to this

I’ve gotta meet me an eligible English professor now!

“Ooh, correct my grammar… I’ve been naughty.”

By Ken

July 13, 2005 01:24 PM | Link to this

Eaton…

Qualifying and quantifying your experience, gives the impression that due to it’s breadth, your opinion holds more water. That is elitist.

Interestingly enough, you never refuted my basic statement that liberal arts professors inject opinion much more than science professors and that can lead to shaping a student’s belief structure if and when the professor does not challenge the student to draw their own conclusions. Taken one step further, if most professors are left-leaning, we can conclude students have more left-leaning influence than right-leaning influence.

Your father is no doubt a wonderful professor. I, however, have experienced major differences between liberal arts and science professors. Perhaps that has to do with the univeristies involved.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 01:30 PM | Link to this

Brian,

How do you argue, that having the Federal Government inserting itself in areas that are beyond their jurisdiction, is somehow - “limiting” government?

How do you argue, that having the Federal Government inserting itself in areas that are beyond their jurisdiction, is somehow - “maximizing” freedom?

I just can’t get my hands around the idea that additional government interference in our lives, is somehow maximizing our freedom by limiting government.

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Ken: That may be partly due to the fact that liberal arts are based more on argument, perception, and opinion inherently. Science, business, and economics can work with objective facts and provable/disprovable theorems; liberal arts, however, are about communicating and dissecting ideas, which do not always have clear-cut truth values to examine.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 01:38 PM | Link to this

Ken: That may be partly due to the fact that liberal arts are based more on argument, perception, and opinion inherently. Science, business, and economics can work with objective facts and provable/disprovable theorems; liberal arts, however, are about communicating and dissecting ideas, which do not always have clear-cut truth values to examine.

Brian,

That’s why Liberals are so fond of Liberal Arts. They can babble on, posture and proclaim intellectual prowess, yet never having to prove themselves - because there’s no answer to that mindless drivel.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 01:40 PM | Link to this

Ken, that’s the main problem - experience SHOULD make one’s “opinion” - and I hesitate to use that word because statements based on evidence and experience aren’t really “opinons” - more valid. Post-modernism tells us, however, that all of our “opinions” are equally valid, whether we’re talking about whether or not chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla or what caused the fall of the Roman Empire. It’s why people with high school educations actually think they’re qualified to attack someone with two PhDs about evolution. Experience does count for something, Ken, that isn’t elitist it’s just logical.

And no, liberal arts profs don’t inject anymore than anyone else. Just because their topics aren’t hard numbers doesn’t mean they can’t be taught objectively, and just because someone IS teaching something like engineering, that doesn’t mean that they don’t inject personal opinions.

Again, where is the outcry against the overwhelming numbers of conservatives running the military? Why is it (typically) only the so-called liberal elite targeted whenever people want to blame someone?

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

That’s why Liberals are so fond of Liberal Arts. They can babble on, posture and proclaim intellectual prowess, yet never having to prove themselves - because there’s no answer to that mindless drivel.

Speaking of mindless drivel…and tobbogan, you do know that the phrase “Liberal Arts” far predates the Rush Limbaugh-created insulting use of the word that you are so fond of, don’t you?

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Well Eaton no wonder I’m twisted. I have a business degree AND a foreign language degree.

Kimberly…one always needs to keep an eye on the quiet ones. Still waters run deep.

Brian..you dirty boy! Love it! I work with a couple of hot, female documentation writers if you’d care for a referral…they’re VERY strict about proper grammar.

I finally looked up conservatism and liberalism in the Miriam-Webster Online dictionary. It struck me that definitions 2A and B for Liberalism would seem to fit the party platform claim of Republicans…who are supposed to be convservatives. What a tangled web we weave, huh?

Main Entry: con•ser•va•tism
Pronunciation: k&n-’s&r-v&-“ti-z&m Function: noun 1 capitalized a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party b : the Conservative party 2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change 3 : the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change

Main Entry: lib•er•al•ism
Pronunciation: ‘li-b(&-)r&-“li-z&m Function: noun 1 : the quality or state of being liberal 2 a often capitalized : a movement in modern Protestantism emphasizing intellectual liberty and the spiritual and ethical content of Christianity b : a theory in economics emphasizing individual freedom from restraint and usually based on free competition, the self-regulating market, and the gold standard c : a political philosophy based on belief in progress, the essential goodness of the human race, and the autonomy of the individual and standing for the protection of political and civil liberties d capitalized : the principles and policies of a Liberal party

By Ken

July 13, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Brian… You are absolutely correct. I was simply trying to offer a softer explanation for a previous post spouting off about left-leaning indoctrination by our professors (sorry I don’t remember who)…?

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Taboga, have you given up on responding coherently? Now you’re just snarling about how evil and arrogant liberals are. There’s no substance to that sort of comment.

By Jack

July 13, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Eaton, I don’t dislike you because of your sexual preference. I dislike you because of your arrogant attitude. You probably are tough if you display that attitude in public otherwise you would be beaten daily. I’m sure plenty of men that share your sexual preferences are tough as nails. I just don’t think you are. (My Sweetie Pie comment was meant to rile you up and I hope it did)

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 01:54 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: Thanks for the definitions! Yes, the current “conservative” agenda—at least, the Washington contingent—seems to have little to do with traditional conservatism. But this is not a surprise.

P.S.: Actually, I’m a technical documentation writer myself!

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 01:56 PM | Link to this

Jack, you know nothing about me, and if you think I’m arrogant because I don’t like you and your backward, archaic attitudes about people, that’s your problem. I’m not the one who pops on here ONLY to take jabs at me. I may be arrogant, but you’re a jackass.

By Tim

July 13, 2005 02:01 PM | Link to this

oh I bet Jack would just LOVE to ‘rile’ Eaton ‘up’

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 02:11 PM | Link to this

Brian…I’m not sure I fully agree with your statement that “business, and economics can work with objective facts and provable/disprovable theorems.” I say that because if one examines the economy today it is not reacting as predicted by the various economic theorems currently accepted as market rules. Much of predicting business trends is very soft and based not so much on hard numbers as intuition or guesses. I’ve been telling my company for 18 months that we need to step up security measures for user authentication when doing financial transactions due to what I perceive will be an increased demand. As it turns out demand is increasing as a result of the focus on identify theft due to recent stories of lost financial data (Choicepoint, DSW credit card transactions, Citigroup) have hit the news. Fortunately we’re ready but there is no way to have known for sure that was the right move. I’m speculating in the stock market because I predict a trend of increasing value based on genetic research and especially nanotechnology for medical uses.

By Blablabla

July 13, 2005 02:14 PM | Link to this

brian & netbanker: those definitions are outdated. in economic terms, those that believed in individual economic liberty and allowing market forces to run their course were at the time very liberal because those concepts were being contrasted with economies that were largely controlled by a monarchy. those definitions would have made more sense to you had you lived a few hundred years ago.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 02:26 PM | Link to this

More specifically, that’s a definition of classical liberalism and conservatism. Classical liberalism dates from the Enlightenment, 18th century, though I’m not sure of the historical root of classical conservatism.

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

Can any of you free thinkers and rigid business types recommend a good laptop for hs senior/college students? I need two so price is an issue - just something reliable, good features/performance, long battery life is an issue for one. If it makes the libs happy, neither wants a degree in business. For you conservatives, both are, well, conservative even after two years in college for one. And just to keep it on topic, how they feel about applying eminent domain to church property I can’t say, but will ask and let you know.

By zack

July 13, 2005 02:52 PM | Link to this

Conservatism was born in opposition to the French Revolution. To the degree that some were struck by the utter novelty and destructive (in their view) of that Revolution they sought fundamental explanations, not circumstantial ones. Thus was born the conservative tendency to find conspiracies. First the culprits were the philosophes of the 18th Century, then among Catholics the Protestants, then among all Christians the Free Masons and the Jews. There is nothing wrong with a gut conservatism which doesn’t like change. But when the results of radical utopianism are so far reaching, its opponents reach for a utopianism of their own — eventually radical conservatism, then fascism, usually accompanied by anti-semitism, extreme nationalism and racism. In America this was found in the plebeian KKK and among conservative Catholics and Protestants. The Republican Party outside the old South was the place they rested and the Republican Party remains tempted at all times by conspiratorial interpretations (plots by liberals, socialists, communists, Jews etc.) and eventually reaches for Fascism.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 02:55 PM | Link to this

Bobb, Dell has a good deal on laptops that isn’t too expensive right now, and I’ve never had anything but great experiences with them as a company.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Bobb,

Because they’re a little cheaper than Dell, I would go with one of the lower end Gateways.

http://www.gateway.com/home/products/hmptbcatalog.shtml?clv=LNav

I use and program laptops quite frequently - Gateway is a pretty good bang for the buck IMO.

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 03:05 PM | Link to this

To me, the differences between the two prevalent labels can be demonstrated by asking the question: “Freedom for WHOM?” The “Conservatives” of the 80’s squawked bitterly about big government. “Get big government OFF our backs!” Then they proceeded to deregulate the banking industry, effectively removing government from the backs of big executives, freeing them to maximize their profits at the expense of honesty, truth, and the pockets of the average little people. On the other hand, “Liberals” tend to favor regulation of big business because it affects the lives of their employees, their communities, the environments that surround their facilities, and the lives of all who fall into the ripples of their commerce. “Conservatives” then, while touting less government for their busiesses, have no problem seeking to regulate person, private, individual behavior. (The mantra of the Reagan years came to include the harmonizing chorus: “Pee in this cup so we can sniff it to judge what you did last weekend in the privacy of your home!”) This is still going on today, with a renewed persecution of gay people who decide they too are citizens, and are tired of being discriminated against because they enjoy a different brand of milk & cookies at bedtime. Meanwhile, “Liberals” are fighting tooth and nail (some of us are, anyway) to protect the eroding rights of individuals, upon which this nation was founded in the FIRST place! Odd.

By Linda

July 13, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

I have just a brief historical comment (Haskins, THE RISE OF UNIVERSITIES) in regard to universities and the Church. The “university system,” a unique intellectual contribution during the Middle Ages was an “utterly new phenomenon in European history. Nothing like it had existed in Greece or Rome”. The institution that we recognize today, with its faculties, courses of study, examinations, and degrees, as well as the distinction between indergraduate and graduate study, comes directly to us from the medieval world. The Church developed the university system because, according to historian Lowrie Dally, it was “the only institution in Europe that showed consistent interest in the preservation and cultivation of knowledge.” Indeed, for a university degree to be respected throughout all of Europe (Christendom), it had to be either approved by the emporer or the Pope.

Given the reality of the history of the university system, it is fatuous to suggest the Church fosters ignorance.Indeed, just the opposite has been true throughout the history of the Church and is today. A copy of the CATECHISM OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH specifically contains what the Church believes and gives the evidence for those beliefs. There is no confusion in the CATECHISM. The Church holds fast to her beliefs because as Chesterson once said so well, “Those who stand for nothing, will fall for anything.”

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 03:10 PM | Link to this

Thanks Eaton and Toboga. I’ll check ‘em out!

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 03:14 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: True, that was probably an oversimplification. I was focusing more on the prevalence of opinion and argument playing a larger role in liberal-arts pursuits because they have less factual data to rely on for objective verification.

And the “conservative” and “liberal” definitions don’t match up to our current parties… or the Liberal and Conservative parties in the U.K…. or Canada, for that matter. Which is why it’s so dangerous to throw labels around when they’re being reinterpreted all the time. Would Teddy Roosevelt still be called a “conseravtive” today? Would Bill Clinton have qualified as a “liberal” in the 1960s?

By Linda

July 13, 2005 03:17 PM | Link to this

Sorry, that is spelled “emperor.”

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 03:19 PM | Link to this

Eaton…it just occurred to me that a Business Degree is still a Bachelor of Science. I guess there aren’t any Conservative Arts because that would definitely fly in the face of preserving the status quo (per the classical definition used above.)

Gee Bobb…some of us libruls LOVE business degrees. Progressive thought and innovation in business have been some of the main reasons for the continued strength of the American economy. I’m a liberal in banking and without fellow libs like myself working for traditionally conservative companies we wouldn’t have internet banking available today. As someone pointed out earlier a liberal arts education is about communication and problem solving skills…two of the most important ingredients in a successful business.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

Which “personal, private or individual” behaviors are Conservatives seeking to regulate?

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 03:28 PM | Link to this

Gee Linda, do you call executing those who pursue lines of thought or science counter to the orthodoxy and dogma of the church fostering knowledge?

The Church, for its own reasons, may have helped to establish the university system (now that WAS an indoctrination center) and sheperded some texts through the “dark” ages, but can hardly be said to foster knowledge. It fosters obedience, dogma, orthodoxy, yes…but knowledge, rarely.

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 03:31 PM | Link to this

Zack, budding conservatives were “…struck by the utter novelty and destructive (in their view) of the French Revolution..”, huh? So it wasn’t destructive? Yes, it got rid of one tyranny, but that was followed by another- itself, which was followed by Napoleon and 20 years or so of war, followed by an even more entrenched monarchial system in Europe for the next century with them battling each other for supremacy and then or course WW1. Some people think the Russian Revolution was a little bit destructive. Does that make them all fascist, anti-Semitic, nationalist, Klan members?

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 03:32 PM | Link to this

I think the question is which personal and private behaviors conservatives AREN’T seeking to regulate, don’t you?

By taboga

July 13, 2005 03:35 PM | Link to this

WOW!

Linda jumped in here with some factual information - and the crowd is muffled!

And BTW, for all you self-proclaimed enlightend Liberal Arts “thinkers” — The Church (Christian) started the school system in this country as well. Just in case you weren’t aware.

It’s a good thing they were not as open-minded and tolerant as you Leftists. Otherwise, they might have gone to court and had Liberalism banned from the schools!

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 03:38 PM | Link to this

taboga, do you wear a swaztika on your arm, by any chance?

By taboga

July 13, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

I think the question is which personal and private behaviors conservatives AREN’T seeking to regulate, don’t you?

No, I think the one I asked Kimberly - would be the right one.

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 03:42 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I was being facetious. For the record, I have business degree and work for a large corporation. I have no problem with liberal arts or business degrees or combinations thereof. It takes all types of thinking to make things work. Just get a degree in something is all I ask of my two.

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

Taboga, “conservatives” were quite vocal just last year that we should AMEND the Constitution to remove rights from individuals, specifically the right for people to marry another person of the same gender… a right they don’t even HAVE yet in most places, but then it’s all about the pre-emptive strike, isn’t it? The so-called drug war is another example. The pharmaceutical industry does not want you growing a plant in your backyard that you can smoke for your pain instead buying their expensive drugs, and the government can’t tax what you grow in your backyard, so it’s ILLEGAL, even though it harms NO ONE and affects only the individual and his property. And let’s not even start with who has rights to my uterus.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Hit send too soon…

Only someone with as distorted a perspective as, say, a Nazi, might have could look at the Catholic church and label it as open-minded and tolerant. Do you have ANY historical perspective? Do you have ANY idea of just how many philosophies and schools of thought WERE banned by the Church? Forget banning - they just KILLED the people that disagreed with them.

Is THAT what you call tolerant?

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 03:48 PM | Link to this

BTW, Linda’s facts only interest me in passing, as I am not Catholic, was not raised Catholic, and have serious issues with my Catholic former boyfriends, as well as with the long history of the Catholic churches lining themselves with gold while the peasants shiver outside. Ever been to Europe and looked at those churches? Uh-Huh. This forum isn’t about Catholicism, but if it were, I’d be all over the issue of why Mary Magdeline wasn’t “identified” as a “whore” until some 13th century misogynistic pope decided to call her that, and yes, DiVinci’s last supper CLEARLY indicates that was a woman sitting next to our Lord, not a man.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 03:51 PM | Link to this

Ok, let’s get past the typical juvenile Liberal Nazi references.

And if you, I can save you some time: I am a Nazi, Racist, Bigot, Homophobe, Bible-Thumping Redneck who wants to poison the air and the water so that me and my rich conservative friends can make money off the backs of the poor - while we start wars for oil at the same time.

Now that we have all those accusations out of the way - can I get an answer from you open-minded and tolerant “thinkers” as to which individual rights are conservatives trying to take away from you?

Thanks.

By Linda

July 13, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Synonyms for orthodox are truth and standard.

The faith of the Church has survived for 2000 years with one billion members worldwide in spite of its members who failed to live up to its truths (just as Christianity survived in spite of Judas’ betrayal), because Jesus promised it would.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Yeah, not to mention that there were a lot of conservatives furious a couple of years ago when the Supreme Court ruled that you couldn’t arrest someone for having sex in the privacy of their own homes. A lot of people would like to see that change. Or lets see…I can’t adopt a child in many states, in some states they want to remove my rights to enter into multiple contracts that any heterosexual person can enter into…

I could go on and on, but I figure that, like most Nazi-wanna-bes, Trinidad-and-Tobago there doesn’t think that gay people count as human, and therefore don’t deserve those rights.

Fire up those ovens, tobbogan.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

If no one already has the right to marry of the same sex, the right to take illegal drugs…

…how are Conservatives trying to take away those rights?

And I really don’t care to discuss your uterus.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 03:57 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry…is the same person who called all academics Socialists now proclaiming its childish to call her a Nazi? Because, that would be hypocritical, wouldn’t it?

Your question has been answered at least twice, Goebells.

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 04:00 PM | Link to this

Yo, T: My post of 3:44 was just a start. Probable cause and search & seizure laws have been changed in recent years to afford law enforcement much greater authority to barge into your home, car, and life and turn them upside down looking for something illegal. The Patriot Act takes it even further. It used to be that you were mostly left alone as long as you weren’t bothering anyone. Not so anymore. Now if you’re a VICTIM in a traffic accident, your blood can be tested for anything and everything and sent to a prosecutor. Employers say they’re screening for “illegal drugs” but there’s nothing to stop them from looking for pregnancy or psychiatric drugs and discriminating. And again, WHY WHY WHY are there ANY laws anywhere that apply to the gender differences or similarities between people who love each other? How on EARTH is that anyone else’s business? But conservatives don’t start screaming “too much government” until someone tries to regulate the waste disposal policies of their manufacturing plant, or ensure that their illegal alien employees have a safe place to work.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

So the Church started the educational systems of universities and public education. Those churches were/are a far cry from we know of church behaviors today.

It was the Danbury Baptists (how’s that for irony?) who wrote Jefferson and were very concerned about both state interference in the matters of the church as well as the church overtly influencing or controlling government. That is what they fled in England and Europe. It was churches who wanted that ‘wall of separation’ as an assurance that what they fled from wouldn’t be recreated here in U.S.

Why is it that the conservatives (especially the religious ones) don’t ever seem to acknowledge that Jesus and the Founding Fathers were the stark-raving-fall-off-the-edge-cause-you-can’t-go-further-left-radical LIBERALS of their times? Somehow these radical liberals leaders who fought against the entrenched establishments and conventions of their era are the icons of their conservative principles. How crazy is that?

By zack

July 13, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Bobb: the question of the French Revolution was not whether it was or was not destructive. The question was whether it occurred for understandable reasons — political, social, economic, etc. — of whether it was the result of evil conspiracy. Conservatives were always tempted to give answers involving conspirators. Conservatives are not the only ones tempted in this way. Extreme leftists are also. And sometimes there are indeed real conspiracies. But conservatives are the most inclined to find enemies everywhere and to seek to destroy them. The Nazis were not conservative but they gained power because conservatives were willing to try to use them for their own purposes. What happened is that the conservatives became the pawns of the Nazis. When in doubt find out if a conservative is rational or irrational. The irrational ones are the dangerous ones. The Christian Right is dangerous because it shuns logic and reason and believes in all manner of nonsense about non-existent satanic forces.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Typical fundamentalist crap. After all, Blacks didn’t have any rights at one point. Women didn’t have many. Those people had to fight for the rights that SHOULD have been theirs and there were always hate-filled bigots like you trying to stop them…beating them, spraying them with hoses, kicking them, killing them.

All the time, you, or your philosophical ancestors - you know them, don’t you - the Klan, the Reich…called those fighting to be treated equally UPPITY, said they needed to know their place.

Call it what you will, with that smugness that only facists are capable of, oppression of MY rights as a human being is evil and it is exactly the kind of nonsense that scum like you delight in.

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

Taboga, the bank has the RIGHT to LIE to you about your loan, provided it is not secured by your primary residence, and possibly one or two other conditions. (It’s been awhile since I worked in banking, but I remember regulation Z very well.) That’s because the lobbyists are the ones who draft laws and push them on their paid-for legislators. Just because something is LEGAL, doesn’t make it right, and just because a law was passed, doesn’t mean it’s in the best interests of the people. Just because a law makes something illegal, doesn’t mean it’s wrong. That would only be possible if all our legislators, past and present, were perfect, Christ-like individuals. That has NEVER happened, no matter WHAT inane ramblings Bill Frist has for you today.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 04:20 PM | Link to this

Kimberly,

I wasn’t aware that it was a Conservative Administration that had innocent civilians killed by government agents at Ruby Ridge…

Or that it was a Conservative Administration that had innocent civilians killed by government agents at Waco…

Or that it was Conservatives who had storm troopers invading the home of U.S. citizens in the wee hours of the morning to kidnap a little boy and send him back to Communist Cuba.

And I don’t think there was a “Patriot Act” back then either.

By TT

July 13, 2005 04:21 PM | Link to this

Taboga: You have been given many examples of how conservatives have attempted to tell people who they can marry, who they can have sex with and how they can have sex in the privacy of their own home, whether they must endure a pregnancy inflicted by rape or force, and where they can eat or sit on a bus, depending on their skin color. Stop buying into the myths fed to you by Fox News. The Republican Party abandoned itsprotections of individual liberties a long time ago, when it took the money from big business and the fervor of the Religious Right in exchange for votes from uneducated, easily influenced consituents.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 04:26 PM | Link to this

Taboga… Just b/c the government had withheld rights from someone doesn’t mean it was OK…?

Every single person in this country should have the exact same right to choose their vocation, who to marry, how many children they want to have or what they want to do on the weekend. As of right now, that is not the case…

However, we should all also have the right to associate in private clubs if we choose, live in private communities if we choose, hire whatever employees we choose and all be asked to pay the same percentage of our income to support the goverment. As of right now, that is not the case either…

By Brian Curtis

July 13, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Taboga: I notice you keep jumping around and changing the subject every time your claims are challenged or your questions are answered. Do you have anything you’re willing to stand and defend? Or are drive-by insults more to your taste?

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Taboga… the examples you provide only prove my point that big government is scary when it reaches to individuals who are minding their own business instead of sticking to big businesses that affect multitudes. But the Waco thing, c’mon. Koresh had an arsenal of weapons, just shy of WMDs, and was in violation of many laws. That fire was on Koresh’s orders, as he’d rather die a martyr with his Savior delusions than be subject to the penalty of law. Not that I blame him for THAT, but why’d he have to take the lil’ cheeruns with him? But TRULY, you’re not saying what you WANT to say, are you? I know what you want to say… Come on. Say it. SAY IT! I’ve heard you say it before under different names. (Did we used to date?) “Clinton was a skirt-chasing, lying scumbag and EVERYTHING wrong with America is Clinton’s fault!” Seriously… he got some trim, and you people just can’t forgive those of us who didn’t hate him for it. Hahaha! SAY IT!

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 04:28 PM | Link to this

Is a pre-emptive strike to guarantee someone can’t access current law really that different than taking it away from someone? And actually there are states that have defined in their DOMA Amendments marriage and rights in such a way as to negate legal documents between members of the same sex.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 04:30 PM | Link to this

Ken, I’ll skip the other comments, ‘cause I’m sure we’re just going to have to agree to disagree on most of them, but what do you mean by living in private communities?

By taboga

July 13, 2005 04:33 PM | Link to this

TT,

I wasn’t aware that it was the Republican Party that established marriage as being that between a man and a woman. I thought that happened about 6 thousands years ago.

And it wasn’t Republicans who forced blacks to the back of the bus - it was Democrats. Democrat Governors like George Wallace of Alabama, Lester Maddox of Georgia, Ernest Hollings of South Carolina and Fulbright of Arkansas. As well as Democrat Senators like Al Gore Sr. and the present-day Democrat Senator and former KKK recruiter: Robert Byrd.

And what was that about the uneducated again?

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 04:37 PM | Link to this

Eaton, he means neighborhoods where he doesn’t have to deal with “our kind of people.” You know, queers, libruls, loose women, and (insert racial slurs here). Oh, I’m sorry. As a loose woman, I get invited on the DL, but I have to promise to lie about it later. {;->

By Ken

July 13, 2005 04:38 PM | Link to this

Eaton… I’m not sure what you could disagree with unless you are one of those folks who whould agree with the first set of statements and not the second, but as for your question…

If a person, or a group of people want to live in a private community (i.e. a private country club community with specific entrance criteria) right now they would not be allowed to.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 04:40 PM | Link to this

Taboga what you seem to be saying is that the people at Ruby Ridge and Waco had no responsibility in what happened with either situation. Had they complied with law enforcement officials (who are rather independent of administrations, btw) then they would still be alive today wouldn’t they? If they were truly innocent then there was no reason not to comply with the law.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 04:42 PM | Link to this

Oh please…the 6000 year line…please. So, you’re saying that your prejudice is OK because it’s part of your religion? I don’t give a damn who you think is responsible for marriage. You don’t have to marry anyone of your same gender so don’t worry about it.

And we aren’t talking about Republicans, are we? You’re changing it up again, Tobby. I thought we were talking about CONSERVATIVES…no one would have called any of those people or any of the Dixiecrats particularly liberal. However, some of them - like Byrd - actually changed over time and are now sorry for their indiscretions. Others…can you say Jesse Helms…became Republicans and remained true to their Klan.

By Ken

July 13, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

Kimberly…

You don’t know anything about me, and if you’d read any of my posts from the past few weeks, you would know that I don’t classify people like that. Nor do I call people names or other derogatory slurs.

I do however believe that all freedoms should be provided to all people, so long that it does not endanger another individual.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 04:46 PM | Link to this

Taboga: I notice you keep jumping around and changing the subject every time your claims are challenged or your questions are answered. Do you have anything you’re willing to stand and defend? Or are drive-by insults more to your taste?

Brian,

We’ll have to get the Supreme Court to interpret that which would constitute “answering my questions”. You Leftists throw out some nonsensical ramblings and call that an answer.

But please remind me while were awaiting the ruling from the 9 Kings — what was it that you answered again?

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 04:48 PM | Link to this

Ken, sometimes I don’t get you. You seem reasonable at times and then at others sound like YOU ought to be wearing the swaztika.

I like living in a country where employers can’t discriminate against others, and renters can’t discriminate against others. I can only assume that you’re a white male, and therefore unconcerned about discrimination.

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Brian, I believe we have a professional escape artist here.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 04:50 PM | Link to this

Marriage isn’t about religion. It’s about what it has always been about…property and power and MONEY. The whole notion of marriage being about love is a modern invention that has made people (Disney to name one) lots of MONEY. Even the blessed Bible talks about what is appropriate for a dowry. Marriage laws (and divorce laws) pretty much only address the assets of a marriage and the children. That’s it…MONEY…which I guess one could say was given to us by God because Lord knows churches need that tithe or donation because they need MONEY.

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Ken, I’m sorry. Wasn’t really directing that at you, per se. Still, private communities are something about which I can’t really grasp. I struggle to pay my lil’ homeowners assn fees in my very mixed neighborhood. Didn’t mean to put words in your mouth.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

Hey…can Kimberly join us in the pink Beetle too?

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 04:55 PM | Link to this

Zack, you might want to take a look at the modern Democrat party (the leadership anyway) when it comes to people who see a conspiracy behind everything and everyone they don’t like and seek to destroy it; totally, un substantiated, hate-filled vitriol has replaced any sort of reasonable discourse. They have become irrational and tapped out on any “progressive” ideas. Mired in the New Deal/Great Society past. Does that make them conservatives??

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 04:57 PM | Link to this

How do explain Robert Byrd of the Democratic Party, Eaton?

By kimberly

July 13, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Can we put in my Rage Against the Machine CD or some Nine Inch Nails? {;->

By Eaton

July 13, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

I hate pink and I’m not real big on Beetles…could we trade it in for one of the new Mustangs?

Bobb, I think there’s enough hateful vitriol on both sides of the aisle, don’t you? Howard Dean and his comments aside, I haven’t exactly heard love and kindness from many Republicans either.

By taboga

July 13, 2005 05:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

I wish enlightened Leftist thinkers would learn to read. If they could, they would see that my rebuttal was aimed at “TT” rather than “Eaton”. They might also note, that my reference to “Republicans” was done so, because “TT” had referenced “Republicans”. And since I was replying to “TT” rather than “Eaton” - I thought it most appropriate.

And BTW - I couldn’t care less about your sexuality. So if you want to have a cyber debate with another alias about your sexuality - feel free to take it elsewhere.

By Netbanker

July 13, 2005 05:05 PM | Link to this

So long as we can also put on some Depeche Mode and Billy Idol. ;)

By Bobb

July 13, 2005 05:10 PM | Link to this

Eaton, never mind I read too fast and see that you have explained Byrd away by his being “sorry” (So non -Demorcatic, former racist KKK leaders can’t ever be genuinely sorry?) Lots of Nazis were probably sorry too, but I wouldn’t want one representing me in the US Senate.

By Brian Curtis

July 14, 2005 07:51 AM | Link to this

Taboga: In reply to your wondering what “questions of yours have been answered”…

I think it’s pretty obvious that you change the subject whenever you’re confronted with facts and arguments that contradict you… or, as you prefer to call them, “ramblings.”

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 08:12 AM | Link to this

I’m sorry “Toboggan�, did you think that on a blog that only one person would respond to you? Poor baby. It’s a free-for-all, and if you can’t handle it, which I’m thinking you can’t, tough.

And, since YOU brought up the question of what rights were being taken away, I think that my comments were very on target. If you don’t want an answer, don’t POST THE QUESTION ON A PUBLIC BLOG.

If you don’t want to hear it, YOU feel free to take it elsewhere. If it weren’t for fundie bigots like yourself bringing up religion and this crap every week, I wouldn’t HAVE to bring up my sexuality. But since y’all can’t get past it, you can deal. I assure you I find the constant proclamations of “Jesus if Lord” to be equally annoying. Or go away – I couldn’t care less which.

Bobb, I wasn’t “explaining away� anything. Don’t you think that YOU should be held responsible for things that you did when you were a teenager or in your early 20s? The Republicans these days love to point at Byrd and call him a racist because 50 years ago he was in the Klan. Well? So? We can assume that as he got older he realized he was wrong and changed. Don’t Christians believe in forgiveness? I sure thought they did. I guess only Conservatives get to change their stripes and not have to explain things any more.

I’m sure that if you looked in the closets of more than one Republican conservative, you would find a nice little white robe with a hood. In fact, having lived through the campaign of Jesse Helms in North Carolina, I can guarantee it. But there are probably ALSO many Republicans who used to be racists and no longer are - for people of that generation it was pretty hard to escape.

Please check the context in which I mentioned Byrd - Tobaga tried to link liberals and the dixiecrats, because the dixiecrats were democrats, and everyone knows that all democrats are liberals, right? Even 40 years ago…

By taboga

July 14, 2005 08:21 AM | Link to this

You claimed that the Constitution was not the supreme law of the land; I pointed out that it explicitly said it is. In reply, you complained about “socialist academia.�

And I pointed out correctly, that the reference was made concerning those laws that were mentioned as being the “Supreme Law of the Land”. Nowhere, in anything you cited, was there mention of the Constitution itself being the “Supreme Law of the Land”. You answered nothing.

You claimed that state government is not subordinate to the federal level. I again pointed out examples of such subordination and discussed the 14th Amendment. In reply, you said “that reminds me of communism.�

Nowhere in the 14th Amendment is there even a remote clue as to even the slightest hint - that the States are subordinate to the Federal Government. I also stated that your posts lead me to believe that you are talking about the Communist Manifesto and not the U.S. Constitution. They did and still do. You’ve answered nothing.

You asked what independent rights Republican administrations have violated or taken away; Kimberly pointed out several. In reply, you complained about what Clinton did during his administration.

Kimberly answered nothing. She stated Republicans had taken away the rights of Gays to marry and the right of people to use drugs. I responded by telling her that no one has ever had those rights - so how could the Republicans have taken them away?

I think it’s pretty obvious that you change the subject whenever you’re confronted with facts and arguments that contradict you… or, as you prefer to call them, “ramblings.�

You on the Left don’t debate with facts. You simply want something to be true, so you claim that it is - and that becomes your answer.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 08:32 AM | Link to this

You know, Tobaga, I wonder if you have any clue what Communism and Socialism actually are, because your ramblings and accusations bear no resemblence whatsoever to either of them. Do you just like to call liberals Communists?

By Ken

July 14, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Toboga… You might want to read all of the posts before making your response.

First, it was explained how the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. I believe my voting example should have sufficed.

Second, Eaton is correct in that you may want to bone up on the meaning of Communist and Socialist before tossing the terms out on this BLOG. I don’t think anyone here is either. We may not all agree on certain issues, but I think most of agree on one thing… We simply want everyone in this country to enjoy the same freedoms of opportunity and expression.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Taboga I’m still interested in your opinion on my question from yesterday…Is a pre-emptive strike to guarantee someone can’t access current law really that different than taking a right away from someone?

OMG…this had me rolling on the floor…”You on the Left don’t debate with facts. You simply want something to be true, so you claim that it is - and that becomes your answer.”

You on the Right don’t debate with facts. You simply want something to be true so you ignore or squash the facts and scientific research that negates your position and claim it ain’t so - and that becomes your answer.

What about the current administration claims of WMD, Saddam’s relationship to the 9/11 bombers, well hey…the whole justification espoused by Colin Powell before the United Nations in a televised speech for the War on Iraq? So far not a single ‘fact’ has been found to support a single administration claim for why we needed a war against a country that wasn’t a threat to us at all. You on the Right don’t debate with facts.

How about the Administration claim that we’re winning the war on terror? So far the facts show that there has been an INCREASE in world-wide attacks since Bush started this war as well as an increase in the attacks occuring in Iraq. Oddly enough the statistics on the significant increase in terror attacks were CUT from the State Department Report for the first time since 2001. Could it be because the facts just don’t support the Republican party line? What about the CIA report that warns that Iraq has becoming the new training ground for urban insurgency/terrorist because it offers a real life scenario training? We’re winning the war on terror by growing a whole new crop of terrorists with better training than they’ve ever had before…and they’re just slipping in and out of Iraq because the border is as secure as…oh say the American border with Mexico.

What about homeland security, Taboga? The Administration tells us that we’re soooo much more secure yet the 9/11 commission report tells us otherwise and most of their suggestions still haven’t been implemented. Anyone else catch that 1/3 cut in funds to secure rail/public transport or the fact that we’re spending ungodly amounts of money on air safety, yet there have been no mandatory security measure for chemical plants or power plants?

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 10:23 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, it’s pointless to argue with someone who thinks that you and I, both liberals with business degrees who work, respectively, in Banking and Financial Services, are Socialists and Communists. There’s a fundamental cognitive disonance there that can’t be overcome.

By Brian Curtis

July 14, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Taboga: If your denial is such that you genuinely cannot read and comprehend statements that disagree with you… well, then congratulations. You really are a conservative.

Your questions have been answered several times over—you just didn’t like what you saw. And you continue to indulge in silly name-calling and vague insults (that don’t even make sense) rather than address the facts and arguments presented to you.

I’m reminded of an old saying: “Not all conservatives are stupid; but most stupid people are conservative.”

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 10:39 AM | Link to this

Eaton…you’re right. And I suppose I’ll have to be the Communist in this scenario since you don’t like pink. :)

By vince

July 14, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

Hi Ray;

Thank you for your loving and kind words. Obviously, you are devoted to unconditional love for all mankind.

I never said God doesn’t exist. But, you claim God does exist. So, where is your written precis?

How is it that we have evidence of living creatures on Earth from millions of years ago, but actually we’re only a little over 2,000 years old?

I never said you have to have a child to be against abuse or abortion. What I said was, if you are so opposed to abortion, then go down to a clinic and adopt one from a patient. While we’re on that, if you’re against stem cell research, then go to a lab, get one, implant it in your wife or yourself, bring it to term and raise it.

Once again, the child molestation association with gay people… that is so lame. The FBI Criminal Statistics reports show year after year that 97 % of convicted pedophiles are heterosexual men, and most of them are married to women. My point is, if you are not gay, you have no idea whether a person is born gay or not, so pipe down and let it go.

While we’re here… if you are so in favor of these wars we’re fighting, go inlist.

I am so sick and tired of people blabbing on and on about very important topics in which all they do is blab. Start taking action.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 10:46 AM | Link to this

Darn pinkos.

By TT

July 14, 2005 10:47 AM | Link to this

It also sounds like Taboga has a bone to pick with liberals and the educated. Perhaps it’s envy or maybe she really would prefer going back to the past when that whore Eve ate that apple and screwed us all, when snakes and bushes talked, and the just, merciful God of the Old Testament sent his “chosen” people to wander the desert in search of that land of milk and honey. Or maybe she would prefer the days of Jesus her Lord when women were sold into marriage,and were not allowed an education, religious bodies established the rule of law, and those that did not agree with them were placed on crosses. It sure makes me long for those good old days!

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 10:50 AM | Link to this

woops, NB, that should be respectively in Financial Services and Banking - got us flipped around :-)

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

Ok, so I actually DIDN’T get us flipped around. My head is not on right this morning.

By Ken

July 14, 2005 10:58 AM | Link to this

Brian… I guess that old saying can get reversed depending on where you live, where you grew up or who your parents are.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 11:00 AM | Link to this

TT…your reminiscing about the good old days reminds me of seeing a preview for a comedian on cable last night. In it he is asks why the church says he can’t f* his sister. He goes on to explain that per the Bible Adam and Eve had 2 sons and 3 daughters…so if we’re all descended from Adam and Eve then someone was f* their sister and if it was ok then why not now? Come to think of it if the Bible is THE TRUTH then why don’t DNA tests show that every single one of us is related since we all descended from only 2 people? Why isn’t there a significantly higher incidence of genetic flaws caused by inbreeding (such is found in Amish communities) since we would all be inbred from 2 people? OH NO! Facts and Faith collide!

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 11:07 AM | Link to this

E…what do you do because either one kind of describes me? I’m actually a Product Manager for a software company that develops corporate cash management/treasury management internet banking solutions for banks. My background is financial having worked for finance companies, mortgage companies, and several banks before ending up in my current job.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Netbanker, I lived in West Virginia for a couple of years and I can assure you that, at least in that state, it’s still OK to…um…do that.

See, the fundies hope you get thrown off by all the begating and don’t look at the actual numbers and start counting. And I’m not up on my Genesis, for sure, but didn’t one of those sons kill the other and then get banished? So…who was doing the begating? Does that mean that Adam was banging his own children?

By richard

July 14, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Wouldn’t the suggestion the headline puts forth be a violation of seperation of church and state? Once again, the values the liberals hold so dear are only applied when it advances their agenda. The Hypocrisy never ends.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 11:17 AM | Link to this

Net, I work for an annuities firm, though I had an interview yesterday with the securities dept. of a big bank. Got my fingers crossed!

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 11:34 AM | Link to this

Seperation of Church and State refers to the interaction of religion and government. It doesn’t mean that Churches are immune from Federal, State and Constitutional law.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 11:43 AM | Link to this

Actually, in Genesis it goes on to say that Adam and Eve had many children outside of the original 5. In any event that meant that incest was the way we all got here, but that still doesn’t explain why our DNA shows we aren’t related.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Why is everything in the world the fault of liberals? Tthe majority of the current justices nominated by Republican presidents and even Clinton’s two were approved by Republican controlled Senates. Darn those Republicans for appointing all those liberal judicial activists!!

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 12:02 PM | Link to this

E…good luck with the job interview! And I hope the job comes with a big, fat raise!! Since it’s a bank be sure your officer title (which has nothing to do with functional title or job) is at least V.P. since that affects some benefits and bonuses.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I’ve noticed that no matter what, it’s always our fault. Reagan’s deficit spending was Carter’s fault. When Clinton balanced the budget and created a surplus, that was because of Reagan and the Repubs. When Bush II sent us spiraling back into deficit and recession, that was Clinton’s fault…

I mean, it must be great to claim credit for the good stuff and pass the buck on the bad ALL the time!

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 12:11 PM | Link to this

“Death toll accelerating, Iraq reports Sabrina Tavernise - New York Times Thursday, July 14, 2005

Baghdad, Iraq —- Iraqi civilians and police officers died at a rate of more than 800 a month from August through May, according to figures released by the Interior Ministry.

The ministry said 8,175 Iraqis were killed by insurgents in the 10 months that ended May 31. It did not give detailed figures for the months before August 2004, and the numbers do not account for civilian deaths caused by U.S. and Iraqi soldiers in offensives, at checkpoints or on raids.

But it is clear the insurgency is killing Iraqi civilians and security workers at a faster rate.”

Thank goodness we’re winning that war on terror!!

By Ken

July 14, 2005 12:24 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… Actually, if I remember my Genesis correctly, after the Cain and Able story we see that Cain was banished, given a mark to show he was a murderer and then he met up with another group of people living in another land.

I still hold fast to the belief that God created us, but that was something I always asked… Where did those other folks come from…?

And… I don’t know if the “majority” of the justices were approved by Republican controlled Senates. Prior to 1994, hadn’t the Dems controlled both houses of Congress for quite some time?

But they definitely approved Clinton’s appointees, even Justice Ginsberg. She went through with an overwhelming vote even though the Repbublican majority disagreed with her politics. Will the Dems do the same for this President and at least let his appointee(s) get to a vote on the Senate floor?

By Brian Curtis

July 14, 2005 12:30 PM | Link to this

Richard, can you point out any liberals who have been in favor of this eminent-domain ruling? Didn’t think so. And the “liberal activist judges,” as Eaton has already pointed out, were appointed by Republcan Presidents.

But to clarify: No, ‘separation of church and state’ does NOT mean that churches are above the law. Where did you get that impression?

By Brian Curtis

July 14, 2005 12:33 PM | Link to this

Ken: It probably depends on how reactionary a right-wing fundie nutjob his candidate is. If Bush were to nominate an actual sane human being, I’m betting a floor vote would be allowed. But we have to burn through the lunatics first.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 12:38 PM | Link to this

Ken…I think you’re right. I have no idea what will happen with this. It would be nice to actually see this President confer with the Senators prior to picking a nominee. What really sticks in my craw is the whole battle over the last round of nominees in that Bush has had a higher number and higher percentage of his nominees approved than did Clinton, but the claim is that the Dems aren’t playing fair with the filibuster of 5% of Bush nominees. I don’t know what planet other folks live on, but having a 95% confirmation rate is unprecedented. Yeah…must have been the liberal media too who never pushed those numbers in front of the public.

My guess is that the Administration won’t really consult too much and will use the SC nominee to once again draw the nation’s attention away from the Rove investigation, the war in Iraq, the continued deficit spending, the non-movement toward a solution for SS, the continued lack of acknowledgement that Medicare/Medicaid will go broke LONG before SS, the lack of implementing security changes recommended by the 9/11 commission, the trade deficits with China and their purchasing the bulk of T-bonds, etc. You know…the real and practical issues facing our nation.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 12:41 PM | Link to this

Ken, the nominees that have created such an uproar are people who are far, far outside the mainstream of US politics. The Democrats have a responsibility to stand up and use what power they have to keep those judges out of office.

Republicans make a huge deal about so-called obstruction of the process but neglect to mention that they themselves prevented over TWO HUNDRED Clinton nominees from ever even coming to the floor. Their cries of “foul” are hardly credible.

By zack

July 14, 2005 12:53 PM | Link to this

When someone mentions the Bible I reach for my gun.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 12:59 PM | Link to this

Is that the Zack interpretation of turning the other cheek?

By Ken

July 14, 2005 01:12 PM | Link to this

I guess there are folks out there with more statistics on Federal judges than myself. My question was specifically about the SC.

Can someone define “mainstream” anyway… I do not know about her specific cases, b/c I am not a lawyer and don’t have the time to research everything, but I do know that she was affiliated with the ACLU, and that organization routinely does not reflect myself, or what I consider “mainstream” America. Perhaps that goes to why I asked for a definition of “mainstream”. Mine may be different that others.

The fact remains that Justice Ginsberg did not at all reflect the ideals of the majority party in the Senate and she passed with a huge majority.

By Bobb

July 14, 2005 01:17 PM | Link to this

The usual discussion on religion and Constitutional law has me pondering so I thought I’d ask for feedback. I’m not advocating anything just seeing if my understanding lines up with common thinking.

The first amendment says: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

So it simple terms that means.

• Congress can not establish a state religion (Like the Church of England) or appear to impose any religion beliefs on us
• On the other hand, Congress can not create laws prohibiting anyone from practicing their religion
• Congress can not prohibit anyone from public ally speaking, or writing, or advertising about their religion (books, press, radio, TV, walking around with the 10 commandments plastered to your body)
• Congress can not prohibit peaceful assemblies related to religions, in other words a Primitive Baptist Pride Day march or whatever is legal if you get a permit like any other group; or students can form religious based groups and use the school like any other legitimately recognized group as long as it is not imposed by the administration
• Congress can not keep you from praying in public (schools, work, ballgame, sidewalk) as long as it is not lead by a government official in an official capacity, in other words a kid say grace over his/her lunch but the principal can’t say it over the whole lunchroom

That sound like a reasonable reading of the basics? I understand that a whole roost of issues regarding free speech come up like defamation, incitement, causing a panic, and offensive, and that those are interpreted differently by who is on which end. But basically we are free to practice religion without governmental interference, and on the flip side the government can’t make us practice or impose any religion on us. I’m all ears.

By taboga

July 14, 2005 01:19 PM | Link to this

Eaton: Netbanker, do you know that I am educated and I am in the banking business?

Netbanker: Hey yeah, me too, but my father wasn’t a history professor like yours, so I guess, that even though I am an incredibly bright liberal - I will never be as smart as you!

Eaton: Well, that’s ok, you’re still real smart though. Guesss what!

Netbanker: What?

Eaton: I just interviewed for another job! Cross your fingers for me!

Netbanker: Oh, I will - you can count on it.

Eaton: Thanks - your such a great guy! Hey, did I tell you that I am smart and my daddy was a history professor?

Netbanker: Yeah you did, but you can feel free to tell me again and again - whenever you want.

Eaton: Thanks man - you’re great! Well, I gotta go and meet some of my smart Liberal buddies. But did I ever tell you that I am smart and my daddy…

You stooges have no idea how much amusement and entertainment you bring to us! Priceless!

By Ken

July 14, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Netbanker… Also Amen! to the other issues you brought up b/c those are the ones we really need to address.

We may not agree on the solutions, but at least that is where the dialog should be focused.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 01:32 PM | Link to this

Wow Tobago, you really have issues, don’t you.

Still haven’t managed to actually respond to any of the rebuttals made to your idiotic statements though, have you.

By Jack

July 14, 2005 01:42 PM | Link to this

Eaton. You sir are the JACKASS!

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

What’s the matter wittle Toboggan, do you not get accepted to the college of your wittle choice? Did you fail because a big bad mean professor didn’t agree with your Montana-millitia-like philosophies? Did you try to make a wittle stockpile of weapons in your dorm room, is zat what happened, poor wittle baby?

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

Whatever you say Jack. Now go back an fantasize about me some more, OK?

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 02:02 PM | Link to this

Netbanker: would you blame bush for turning the nation’s attention from all the “important” issues of the day to focus on a SC nominee? Seems to me that it’s something that really must be done since o’connor is going to retire. also, given the original theme of the discussion centering on the recent decision about eminent domain and its potential impact on the church (and all other landowners), that the SC nominee is very relavent and quite important. Add on the fact that a new justice would serve anywhere from 10-30 years and could have a major impact on all kinds of issues like abortion, gay rights, etc., and i don’t see why we shouldn’t be focusing on a SC nomination.

truth be told, i don’t think the “rove investigation” is that big of a story. and while i don’t agree with bush on how he would propose to solve all of the important issues of the day that you list out, what i’m not hearing from the left side of the political spectrum is what they would do differently. what would the left do about china and our trade deficit? would they be in favor of additional trade sanctions that would drive up the prices we pay for consumer goods? would they insist that the chinese not artificially keep their currency lower in value, as they have done for years? if privatization of SS is so awful, what would the left do instead? if the left is concerned about medicare/medicaid going broke, what would the left propose to do about it?

don’t like our energy dependence on foreign oil, great, me neither, but the enviros go nuts if you want to increase coal production as an alternative. even worse if you want to build a nuclear plant. everybody complains about gas prices as though if the saudis just pumped some more, we wouldn’t pay so much. the truth is we haven’t built an oil refinery in this country since i was a toddler.

like i said, i don’t necessarily agree with bush on everything, but what i’m hearing from dems right now isn’t much other than “NO”. instead of saying no to everything, propose an intelligent alternative that people can consider. most centrists and moderates on either side of the aisle would love to hear it.

By taboga

July 14, 2005 02:03 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Could you tell me how smart you are - just one more time? And if you don’t mind, could you throw in one or two of your invaluable life experiences?

BTW - Did you get that job yet? We’ve all got our fingers crossed!

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 02:08 PM | Link to this

Really Taboga, if you can’t handle the heat stay out of the kitchen. You’re the one who waltzed in and started attacking educated people. Don’t be shocked if they fight back, OK? Go back to your conspiracy theories and delusions about Socialists taking over the world - you might get hurt around people with actual brains.

By kimberly

July 14, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Can’t we all just get along?

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Bla, you don’t consider the President’s chief advisor committing something that falls just a little shy of treason to be a big issue, particularly since said President stood up and swore than anyone involved would be fired, and is now backing off of that promise?

I find that to be highly important. If anything else, it is indicative of the character of a president who claims to be such an upstanding guy. Why is it that Clinton banging a willing intern was ultimately cause for impeachement, but things like Iran-Contra and now Rove’s betrayal of a CIA agent are “no big deal”?

And forget coal - it’s no more renewable than oil - how about we pour the kind of money into research on hydrogen fuel cells and other similar technologies that we’re pouring into going back to the moon? Talk about your second Cold War - and we aren’t even in a bloody Space Race this time.

By taboga

July 14, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

There you go again. Educated people can read. And if there are any out here, they would have seen that I was “attacking” (A favorite Lib word): Academia.

If you’re not familiar with Academia - they’re those folks that taught you what to think, how to think and when to think it.

But anyway, how’s that job coming?

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 02:29 PM | Link to this

T..why are you dragging me into this? I haven’t said anything insulting to you, nor have I stated claims to be smart. What’s the deal?

Blablabla..it’s not a matter of blame for me and I do think the SC nominee is important, but not at the expense of all the other issues. We seem to have an Administration and a Congress (hmmm…maybe the American people are driving this) who can’t seem to focus but on a single issue at a time. I’d sink like a rock in water if that was how I operated at my job.

Totally agreed that the Dems aren’t offering up solutions. That’s why I have no real faith in that party. Don’t assume that because I’m liberal in my social issues and conservative financially that that means I’m a democrat. I have completely lost faith in the 2 party system because they’re BOTH corrupted by money and power. I’d actually love to see term limits on Congress such as we have on the President. Let’s break the damn strangle hold some of these long-time ‘political operatives’ have on the country.

On the engergy independence front I espoused a position a few weeks ago of having a manhattan project for hydrogen. Why are we giving the energy companies tax breaks and incentives instead of spending that money on a real project? Also, I’m all for bio-energy. Did y’all realize that autos in Brazil run on ethanol and/or methanol exclusively? Why are we paying farm subsidies to farmers to NOT grow corn that could be used for fuel? Why not encourage ethanol refineries in Iowa and Kansas to bring high tech type jobs to those states? Why not have methanol refineries built in coal regions to bring high tech jobs there and add an industry that will help break our dependence on foreign fuel? How about bio-mass recycling at major farms or in agricultural centers to allow those large operations to produce their own power and sell it back to the grid (this is already being done by a few large agri-businesses)? This would decentralize power production, reduce the amount of agricultural waster, etc.

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 02:34 PM | Link to this

eaton: hasn’t rove already met with a special prosecutor that has come out and said he did nothing wrong? i did read that somewhere. if that’s the case and the special prosecutor is walking away from it, it’s not that big of an issue to me anymore. it reeks more of the left being after a guy that they really despise. i don’t think it’s even been formally confirmed that the agent in question was truly, by definition, a covert agent. let’s not rush to judgement.

i made no comment about clinton and his impeachment, although the issue was lying under oath, not that he had bad taste in women. furthermore i made no mention of my take on iran contra. those issues are long over and are irrelevant at this time.

sorry, but it’s impossible to forget coal. it’s responsible for roughly half the electricity consumed in this country. i understand it’s not renewable, but my point was simply if you’re going to wean the US off of oil, there has to be a replacement. fuel cells are years off, and last time i talked to anybody in the energy industry, the research for them is quite well funded.

you didn’t have anything to address the rest of what was said?

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 02:35 PM | Link to this

Tobaga, until you show any sign of intelligence, I’ll continue to think you’re a complete idiot. All you’ve been able to do so far is accuse everyone who is the least bit liberal-leaning of being Communists and Socialists, apparently without any understanding of what that means, attack Higher Education in America, and make a few various comments about Waco. What of substance have you said?

And really, your concern about my job is touching. Thanks! I’ll be sure to let you know, once I get done dwelling on how superior I am to you.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 02:38 PM | Link to this

I do think the Rove investigation is important. This man is a close advisor of the President and has pretty much run a lot of his policy. He’s the power behind the President and if that person views themself or is allowed to be above the law then we’re all in real trouble. The Administration has a history of character assassination in response to criticisms by former administration officials that have all turned out to be true. They don’t respond to the allegation, but set out to discredit the individual. Just look at Whitman, Snow, Wilson to name 3. I’ll all but guarantee that because the law is so narrowly written that he’ll not be charged with any crime because he didn’t state her name and may not have known she was a covert agent even though he positively identified her as CIA. What he did was wrong, but likely won’t meet the narrow criteria of the law.

By Ken

July 14, 2005 02:41 PM | Link to this

Netbanker…

Love both of your ideas… Term limits would be a wonderful idea, at the very least in the Senate. Maybe we should even go back to having the State Legislatures appointing them???

Grow corn for fuel? In other words, really feed your car, but for some reason I remember something like that already being tried… Gasahol…? Not sure why it didn’t fly, but I do know that when I worked at Goodyear, a couple of folks put ethanol from the lab into their car so they could start up and get to the gas station. It didn’t sound too good, but it worked.

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

netbanker - i made no assumptions about your political affiliation. i simply saw the criticisms of the current administration and asked, where are the alternatives?

i’ve often criticized the two party system privately, and agree with you on term limits.

i remember living in ny when they tried a methanol additive to unleaded gas. it flopped bigtime - lower mileage and higher cost. not saying it couldn’t be done, and probably worth some money to make a go of it. personally i think the real solution is nuclear power b/c of its cheapness and cleanliness. people will scream chernobyl, but i think we’re well past that.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Bla, didn’t really feel like addressing all of them - we could go back and forth for ever on that. However, I wasn’t necessarily referring to fuel cells - just the use of hydrogen in general. And, MY readingUltimately, if we’re going to reduce our dependence on oil we’re going to have to look at new sources, not stay with the old. There are serious environmental impacts to coal, so I’m not particularly partial to remaining beholden to it.

Oh, and I know why Clinton was impeached. He should never have been dragged before Congress about a personal issue in the first place. It was all part of the non-stop campaign by the Republicans to destroy him. You know - those same Republicans who now say that we should respect our President and act as if criticism of him is treason.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 02:53 PM | Link to this

B…is it that Rove isn’t guilty based on the way the law is written so it’s not important to you or that you really don’t think that identifying a CIA operative is that big a deal? Was she covert at the time? We don’t know, but we do know that she had worked as a spy previously. His lawyer did admit that Rove identified “Wilson’s wife” to Cooper BEFORE it was printed by Novak.

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 02:54 PM | Link to this

eaton, i agree we should look at alternative sources. but to remove oil you have to replace it with something. and coal that’s used in the US is a heck of a lot cleaner than anyplace else in the world.

i’d love energy alternatives…in the short run i think the best answer is nuclear, at least until some of these other technologies come to fruition, and while the infrastructure (i.e. gas stations) is altered to support a new fuel.

By kimberly

July 14, 2005 03:00 PM | Link to this

With all that Clinton accomplished, (peace, prosperity, balanced budget) IMAGINE what he could have accomplished had he not been forced to spend HALF his time in depositions answering BS charges about real estate deals (in which he lost money) and the sordid details about his skirt chasing, which I personally, as a taxpayer, felt was none of my beez-wax. Imagine if he had been allowed to focus on his JOB instead of being dragged down by trivial crap by people who did the same thing or worse in their own personal lives. Imagine if the Republicans had spouted THEN how we should stand behind our President because that’s what good ‘muricans do, even if he’s not perfect. Hahaha! I’d like to reiterate: a gentleman DOES lie about sex, something for which many of us are much obliged. {;->

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 03:01 PM | Link to this

netbanker - identifying a cia operative is not good. what makes it a moot issue for me is the fact that the special prosecutor has walked away from him and is leaving him out. based on the law, according to the prosecutor, he’s done nothing wrong. was it probably a stupid thing to say, yes.

By Linda

July 14, 2005 03:07 PM | Link to this

Netbanker, I knew I saved the July/August 2004 edition of THE ALCALDE, the alum magazine for my undergrad school, the University of Texas at Austin. In that edition (pp. 40-49) National Geographic geneticist, anthropologist, author, and documentary filmmaker Spencer Wells, a 1988 UT grad, explains how we know that all humans are descended from a single man who lived in Africa and how we came to look so different. The article explains that Wells has writtten a book JOURNEY OF MAN:A GENETIC ODYSSEY which expains how Wells, who did his work by tracing markers in the Y chromosome found only in men, concluded “all humans on Earth are descended from a single man.” This article also points out that “other researchers tracing mitochondrial DNA found only in women, have concluded that all humans are also descended from a single woman also living in Africa.” So it appears our very DNA confirms the Judeo-Christian Bible that all humans descend from one father and one mother.

By the way, Wells filmed a documentary about his work which I saw a few months ago on public television.

By TT

July 14, 2005 03:09 PM | Link to this

Taboga, with your name-calling, you’re like Anne Coulter without the pedigree or education. Truth be told, you are likely critical of academia because you can’t handle an intelligent exchange of information and ideas. That would threaten your preconceived notions that the Bible is the only truth worth pursuing. See that’s what this forum is about— Not superstition or insults, but real-life issues. So how about saving us from your endless cut and paste posts and adolescent, “I’m rubber, you’re glue” or “If I am a redneck, then you are a Communist” rants. There’s plenty of room here for intelligent people, both liberals and conservatives. But we’re all stocked up on stupidity, so sell crazy elsewhere, lady.

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

kimberly, you sound like one of those people who (IMO) give presidents far too much credit for the things that happen in the country, good, bad or otherwise.

i could easily say we had peace b/c we weren’t active in pursuing terrorists, who finally got the nerve to hit us on our home court b/c clinton didn’t do anything about them. there were plenty of terrorist attacks that occurred during his eight years that weren’t aggressively responded to.

i could easily say that the balanced budget and prosperity had a lot to do with a massively expanding economy that (a) clinton inherited at the beginning of his presidency and (b) was driven by (i) declining interest rates and (ii)an exuberant bubble in technology-related fields and investment, both of which clinton had nothing to do with. IMO, clinton’s best economic policy was to do nothing, which is essentially what he did. for that, i give him credit - he didn’t mess with a good thing.

By taboga

July 14, 2005 03:23 PM | Link to this

TT,

Thanks for the post - it was great!

But all kidding aside (with a straight face too), I guess I am to assume that you’re one of these “intelligent” folks out here looking for “intelligent” debate (straight face still - believe it or not).

If so, how did your “intelligence” deduct that I am:

You are absolutely right about one thing though, there certainly is “plenty of room here for intelligent people”. Plenty.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

Bla, what bothers me the most is the lack of incentives from the government to individuals. Look at Hybrid technology - it cuts your personal consumption of gas in half or more, depending on the model. It used to be that hybrids were a hard sell because they didn’t have the amenities or styling of traditional cars, but now we’ve got hybrid sedans, hybrid SUVs, hybrid coupes…yet the one tax break for hybrid owners was allowed to lapse. If we are so concerned about foreign oil, then why aren’t we encouraging folks to buy hybrids? Give us a little breathing room while we work on those alternate sources.

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 03:40 PM | Link to this

Linda…thanks for the info! Do you recall time frame as to how long ago the single man and woman lived?

Taboga…still no answer as to why you’re picking at me? I’ve asked honest questions and provided honest answers without getting personal. And on wishing Eaton good luck on the new job…I do that for everyone on here who is presented with a possible new opportunity in their life regardless of who they are. New opportunities are a chance to grow, learn, have adventures in life, meet new people…all good things.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 03:45 PM | Link to this

Taboga obviously hasn’t been around long or s/he would realize that we occasionaly talk about things other than the topic…like moving into houses, going on vacation, etc. Guess s/he would rather keep us libruls de-humanized so s/he can continue to stereotype us.

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 03:47 PM | Link to this

eaton, i hear you on the incentives for things like hybrids. it would be nice for those to go to the individual. but i was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly so, that the gov’t gave automakers incentives to make hybrids so that they could be affordable. the incentive, i thought, was therefore priced into the sticker when you bought the car. so that’s one thing. secondly, if you cut your gas consumption in half or more, the money you keep in your pocket is another nice incentive.

By TT

July 14, 2005 03:52 PM | Link to this

The religion part was easy, Toboggan. I just deduced from your desire to return to the days when we could post pictures of Jesus everywhere in courthouses that you were one of those “Repent or burn in hell” types. Or perhaps it was your parroting of other people’s ideas and your anecdotes pulled from the pages of Conspiracy Theories for Dummies that tipped me off. Just for the record: no one’s threatening the church specifically, as eminent domain is not a religious issue, but a disservice to anyone in favor of private property rights. As for the deduction (notice proper usage of the word, as deduct as a verb means to subtract) that you are a woman, it was a guess. Man or woman, I imagine your name means something like, one who cannot face the facts. Why don’t you stop trying to make this an issue of party and religion, refrain from starting fights with many of the regulars on this blog who have three times your intelligence and at least two degrees more than you do, and ask yourself why these things are happening under a conservative president’s watch? Will you respond to the issue, or will you just resort to name-calling, insults, and retreating?

By kimberly

July 14, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Bla, you may be right about giving too much credit to Presidents. Still, as someone posted earlier, it’s interesting that the good things in the Clinton years were attributed to Bush the first and the Republican Congress, but the bad things in the Clinton years were blamed on Clinton. But the same logic is not applied the other way around. For example, Somalia is touted as Clinton’s military disaster. But those troops were deployed in DECEMBER OF 1992, a whole month before Clinton took office. Could it be that Bush the first KNEW it would be a disaster, and left his successor a little sure-fire payback for his defeat at the polls? Also, the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, early in the Clinton administration. Who jumped up and down to blame Bush the first for that? BTW, THOSE terrorists were captured and convicted and now rot in jail, unlike Osama. Who is giving the Clinton administration credit for that?

It’s true I don’t understand economics as well as some folks, so the cycles that go on independently of the Oval Office may indeed have more weight that we admit.

Funny though, how the final WTC bombing/planes occurred during the BushII watch, and he stands mostly without blame, even though the committe that investigated it at great length was offered reams of evidence and testimony that the outgoing Clinton administration warned the incoming folks repeatedly, urgently, and at great length that Osama and his thugs were gunning for us, and that — don’t take my word for it, look it up — Condi and Rummy an’nem didn’t want to hear it, didn’t want to discuss it, and instead plotted to invade Iraq. This was confirmed by numerous witnesses during the 9-11 investigation hearings. Four years later, no justice, but big profits for Cheney’s Halli-buddies. Things that make ya go Hmmmmm…….

By TT

July 14, 2005 03:55 PM | Link to this

Thanks to Bobb and Ken for showing that conservatives are capable of reasoned debate. Toboggan should take a lesson from you!

By taboga

July 14, 2005 03:59 PM | Link to this

Will you respond to the issue, or will you just resort to name-calling, insults, and retreating?

And what issue would that be? And how can I be “retreating”? If I am “name-calling” and insulting - that must mean I am here, right?

By Netbanker

July 14, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

What is somewhat more whacky is that the government write off for a Hummer is significantly higher than that of a hybrid.

By Ken

July 14, 2005 04:03 PM | Link to this

Bla… Actually, there was a great tax credit for anyone who purchased a hybird vehicle, I think it was $2000 back in 2003 when I lokoed into purchasing that type of vehicle.

If the same vehicle selection we have not had been there then, I probably would’ve pulled the trigger.

Eaton… Some folks think the tax credit was an excellent incentive, but some folks don’t. Even if that would’ve gotten more people to buy, the car manufacturers would’ve just jacked the prices higher. I am typically a free market kinda guy, but this an area where I wouldn’t mind the gov’t stepping in, freezing prices on some of these hybrid vehicles and really making it an economically attractive offer.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 04:12 PM | Link to this

*You all didn’t see this coming, did ya? You bought into all this nonsense about “Separation of Church and State�…? You really thought that they just wanted prayer out of schools and that was it? You thought they really meant it when they claimed to have *respect for your religion, but just wanted religious monuments and the like removed from public buildings? They even attacked Christmas of all things - then made you think it was out of some respect for the First Amendment.

And i’ve no doubt they’ll close your church and tell you again how much respect they have for your religion! And no doubt you’ll believe it.

You let them. You let them again. And you continue to let them.

Now, they’re coming after the church itself! What lie are they going to tell you this time - so that you can gobble it down!*

Taboga’s first post. Now, personally, I tend to respond with hostility to religious fanatics. I know this, I accept it. I try to reign in my impulses but, yes, sometimes my temper gets the best of me. Taboga makes some protestations about insults and such, but I ask you…given the tone of this very first post, is anyone surprised that Taboga was responded to with snide comments?

By TT

July 14, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

I know, Toboggan, it’s hard to make a point when you have no facts to back it up— it’s probably why you have to result to tearing down academia and all. But stay with us here… The issue is: Who is responsible for eminent domain and what can the American public do to stop it from infringing on personal property rights? So, offer up some solutions, T-bag, instead of just hurling insults? What would Jesus do? And for Heaven’s sake, stop cutting and pasting, the rest of us can read, it’s you that seems to need constant reminders of what we’re discussing.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 04:19 PM | Link to this

Don’t know about that Ken - as Netbanker mentioned, the write-off for SUV’s was very attractive and was heavily used. I didn’t notice any substantial increase in prices of SUVs.

I would think that a large-scale incentive such as this would encourage car manufacturers to keep their prices low. The marginal sales increases would likely produce greater profit than diminished sales along with the higher price.

I like the example of Microsoft Office - Student and Teachers. MS initially went to some effort to ensure that the edition was only sold to actual students and teachers. Then, they realized that their unit sales, and consequently their net profits, went way up. So, now you see Student and Teachers on every Wal-mart computer shelf.

Not quite the same as a car, I realize, as the initial investment on development of software is primarily recouped in intial bulk sales to corporate accounts, and cars have substantial material and labor costs per unit, but still.

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 04:29 PM | Link to this

kimberly,

for the record, i have never said that the good things that occurred during the clinton years are attributable to george h w bush or a gop congress and that the bad things are attributable to clinton. i believe it was eaton who said that out of exasperation about conservatives. but it is a fact that clinton did inherit a healthy economy that had rebounded from the 90/91 recession.

as for somalia, i just don’t think the elder bush was that petty when it came to american lives. you may disagree, but that example doesn’t move me. however, i will agree, i’m surprised W isn’t more blamed for 9/11. i don’t make that decision, we all do.

and four years later, no justice, just big profits for halliburton? i can’t even begin to understand your point. what do you mean, no justice? we routed the taliban and have tons of terrorist prisoners. as for halliburton, the stock sits essentially where it was five years ago and its earnings per share over the last twelve months are negative by over a buck a share. what profits? what are you talking about?

By taboga

July 14, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

Taboga’s first post. Now, personally, I tend to respond with hostility to religious fanatics.

There goes that smart Liberal Eaton again.

I must have mentioned your or you and not we or us in the piece he posted - 10 or 15 times. Anyone who isn’t a smart Liberal - might have recognized that I wasn’t including myself as a religious person.

Yet, the smart Liberal brands me a “religious fanatic”.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

oh…right taboga. You aren’t up on the concept of subtext, implied meaning, or reading comprehension, are you. Why would ANYONE think that you were religious based on that post? I have NO idea…or…maybe it was this jewel that did it…

I wasn’t aware that it was the Republican Party that established marriage as being that between a man and a woman. I thought that happened about 6 thousands years ago.

Now why would ANY reasonable person think that you were a religious fanatic. Can’t imagine.

By taboga

July 14, 2005 04:45 PM | Link to this

The issue is: Who is responsible for eminent domain and what can the American public do to stop it from infringing on personal property rights?

Oh, that!

Well, I know it is a very complex issue and probably requires extensive studies, debate and argument.

But my gut feeling is (going out on a limb here) that the people of the States, through their legislature, can determine the property rights of their state.

Bold and novel concept, I know. But that’s what my gut feeling tells me!

By TT

July 14, 2005 04:52 PM | Link to this

If the shoe fits, wear it T-bag. Oh, I forgot, your kind probably don’t wear shews. Did you come on this blog to spew your hatred for liberals and Eaton? Are you related to Wacky Jacky? How many times must you be asked for input on the issue at hand? Perhaps that’s why everyone on this blog thinks you are an illiterate idiot. Bla: Kimberly is more than likely referring to government findings that Halliburton overcharged the government for contract services in helping to restore some of the Iraqi infrastructure. Quite a sweet deal, trade the lives of American soldiers and innocent Iraqi civilians for a profit-generating conflict. At least Somalia and Bosnia were battles fought for human rights—surely Clinton would not have risked his ratings for Al Gore’s profit!

By taboga

July 14, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

Eaton,

Others will catch on. You’re a little too naive. And you’re making a fool of yourself.

By Eaton

July 14, 2005 04:58 PM | Link to this

Oh yes tobbogan…I’m the one making a fool of myself.

By taboga

July 14, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

TT,

If you were to go back through this topic, you would find that the smart Liberal Eaton who still thinks that I am religious person - posted to me at least a half dozen times before I responded to his silliness.

I will give him credit though - he did back off from trying to force his sexuality on me!

By Blablabla

July 14, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

TT, Halliburton isn’t responsible for making the decision to go to war, so your comment is a wee bit of a stretch. and i guess, part of my point was that they AREN’T making a profit.

By TT

July 14, 2005 05:04 PM | Link to this

Oh really, T, is that why gay marriages are legal in some states and illegal in others? Why should the States decide who can marry who? Aren’t individuals capable of determining that for themselves? Look at the divorce rate in the last 30 years, you can’t blame it on gay marriage. Maybe Gawga should pass a law making it harder for heterosexuals to get married. And if the hillbillies in the Georgia Legislature vote to take away someone’s private property through eminent domain, then it’s OK? I know it’s very conservative of this liberal, but I say, let the people have what is theirs under the Bill of Rights and The Constitution. Oh, that’s right, you don’t believe in the tenets of the Constitution…like civil liberties. Sounds like you fit the bill of today’s Republican party—let’s tell folks how they can live their lives. As for me, I lean more Libertarian than left, although I do have regard for others. Maybe some of us on this blog can form our own party or come up with a catchy slogan like Compassionate Centrism.

By Bobb

July 14, 2005 05:30 PM | Link to this

TT, I don’t follow your, “..surely Clinton would not have risked his ratings (on Bosnia) for Al Gore’s profit!” comment. What would his ratings and/or Al Gore have to do with doing what he saw as doing the right thing? If he did for Gore or didn’t do it to protect his ratings he’d be a very calloused person either way. I know you didn’t mean it that way, but it describes exactly how Clinton was viewed by many.

As for Bosnia, I asked in last weeks forum why was Bosnia justified by the same people who now say Iraq wasn’t. Specifically: Bosnia is far away, it posed no threat to us, it isn’t strategic in anyway, there was a dictator and tragic events occurring but they were internal and not affecting the rest of world and none of our business. All those things were said about Iraq. The only response was from Eaton who only reflexively threw out “broad international support” as the compelling factor for Bosnia every time he was pressed. So what? Europe wants us to clean up its backyard so we jump when Bosnia disappearing from the map wouldn’t have made a ripple in our lives? So what if the UN had given its blessing (for the umpteenth time) to go into Iraq? That blessing would make it okay today despite the lack of WMD and Bush’s “lies” and “deceptions”?

I just see a disconnect between the those who fell all over themselves supporting Bosnia, as well as Pres. Clinton’s threatened war over Iraq (for the same reasons Bush gave), and the opposition now to us going into Iraq. If neither of them threatened us or was any of our business then why is one right and the other wrong?

By the way, thanks for the compliment previously, I can say the say about a few of the liberals posting. Got no response to my question about the 1st amendment.

By Southernlady

July 15, 2005 07:24 AM | Link to this

Churches should be good citizens by paying property taxes…and yes they should be treated no differently than the members of their congregations.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 07:30 AM | Link to this

Oh really, T, is that why gay marriages are legal in some states and illegal in others? Why should the States decide who can marry who?

TT,

I’ll take a wild guess. Maybe because Gays want the states to rewrite marriage laws to include same-sex marriages?

To suggest that the states shouldn’t decide what is a legally recognized marriage in the state, is like:

Applying for a loan at the bank and declaring the bank has no right to decide who gets a loan from the bank!

Look, I can be a bit overboard at times with my ridicule of Leftists. I don’t do it intentionally to be cruel, I just find it entertaining to watch a bunch of nitwits parading around - pretending to be intellectuals.

And to see things like your quote above…

By Ken

July 15, 2005 07:54 AM | Link to this

TT… I’s throw my chips into a new party with you and I think a lot of other folks would as well…

Bobb’s comparisons with Bosnia are there except for one thing… OIL… That alone can make any action in that reason look like profiteering versus noble action. I will not try to get inside the head of anyone, ‘cause I can’t, but I do know that perception is 9/10 of reality.

In Bosnia we did relatively the same thing (I will not say exact) as Iraq. Whether or not France or Germany thinks it’s right has no bearing on whether I believe it’s right. I appreciate their help, but don’t feel as though the international community should sway our opinion all that much.

And the whole thing about polls is why alot of people, including myself, didn’t like Clinton. He is a very charismatic man with good intentions (and flawed personal morals) but he governed to opinion polls rather than what he thought was right. Too often I felt like he just wanted his numbers to stay high, therefore he would shy away from making a tough decision. IMHO he became more of a celebrity rather than a leader.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 08:14 AM | Link to this

Tomato, I’m going to break this down for you, in simple sentences so, hopefully, you can grasp it.

1) This is a public blog. If you think that only one person will respond to your comments, I suggest you find a different forum in which to air your views. A public blog demands participation from many people; if you hope to limit your discourse to one-on-one, try e-mail.

2) My determination about your religiosity, right or wrong, was based on reasons that I have clearly outlined. I’m not sure if you missed it in your cursory reading of responses to you, but it’s a determination that seems to be shared by a number of participants. If you don’t want to be labeled as a religious fanatic, perhaps you should take care not to spout rhetoric that reads like talking points from The 700 Club.

3) My “forcing my sexualityâ€? was a direct result of comments made by both you and Ray. The latter compared homosexuality to child molestation, and the former was the typical “but we aren’t taking any rights awayâ€? dogma spouted by those who are doing their level best to reduce a population numbering in the millions to second-class status. As long as YOU people continue to make anti-gay legislation and Constitutionaly enshrined homophobia a centerpiece of your agenda, I’ll be there to “force” my sexuality on you. The minute you back off my rights, I’ll stop worrying about it.

4) My discussion of my own educational background and my father’s profession was in direct rebuttal to your unsubstantiated and rather ignorant assertions that academia is dominated by Socialists and Communists – terms which, I believe, you lack a basic understanding of.

5) My discussion of my career, and that of Netbanker’s, was similarly in rebuttal of your inaccurate, though predictable, portrayal of liberals as, again, Socialists and Communists. Surely even someone with as limited an understanding as yourself can comprehend that to suggest that two individuals working in what is, perhaps, the MOST capitalist of industries are Socialists and Communists is not only ignorant, but borders on the absurd.

In conclusion, Tomato, it is apparent that you wish to make ludicrous claims about various groups without the pressure of substantiating them, and that when someone actually takes the time to refute your nonsense, you attempt to make them look foolish. And again I say: “If you can’t stand the heat, stay out of the Kitchen�. My suggestion to you is that you retreat back to your Ted Kozinski-like hut stockpiled with various militia pamphlets and military-grade weaponry and leave the rational discussion to those of us better equipped to handle it.

And trust me, I prefer parading around like a nitwit to goosestepping around like the SS any day of the week.

Bobb – why is my response to your question “reflexive�? My opinion is based on considerable thought, not reflex. It may not match what you want to hear, but it is my opinion, nonetheless. I did attempt last week to clearly outline my position – perhaps your self-professed speed reading glossed over the specifics of my argument. For your sake, I present them again.

The Bosnian action was the result of a large coalition of two international organizations who have as their mission the enforcement of international law – NATO and the UN. While I am aware that many conservatives, such as yourself, do not believe that the US should be swayed by the actions or opinions of international organizations, I disagree. I believe that if the US wishes to style itself as the last Superpower, and the “police force� of the world, that it has a responsibility to live up to that title.

No. Bosnia did not directly affect us, but then neither did Iraq. However, the Bosnian crisis represented an active attempt at cultural genocide while, and forgive me if I sound callous, the Iraqi situation was simply a case of a bad dictator. The ugly truth is that there are many bad dictators out there, and we support, at worst, or ignore, at best, a lot of them. The international community decided that the slaughter in Bosnia needed to be stopped, and we did our part, as befits a self-proclaimed world leader.

It is ironic that Bush has decided to claim that we were merely acting on the resolutions of the U.N. in invading Iraq. One wonders why that august body spoke out so strongly against our invasion, if that were the case. Frankly, there are many regimes and conflicts going on in the world that are worse than Iraq. Rwanda, Uganda…just to name a couple.

Please, Bobb – disagree with my logic if you will, but don’t do me the disservice of declaring my answer “reflexive�. Just because my reasoning doesn’t mirror your own doesn’t make it worthy of such casual dismissal.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

A party of Centrists?

We already have a party in the center: The Republican Party.

On a scale of 0 to 10 - Conservative ideas would fall in the middle (5) while Liberal ideas would pretty much fall at the (1).

In order for Conservatives and Liberals to meet in the middle of their perspective locations - we would all be at the (3).

How would being at the (3) on a scale of 0 to 10 — qualify you as a “Centrist”…?

By taboga

July 15, 2005 08:53 AM | Link to this

Eaton,

You’re getting boring. Is there any Liberal out there that can come up with some original thoughts?

And in all your pouting, you forgot to call me a “Racist”.

By Ken

July 15, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Taboga… I think you may need to rethink you definition of Centrist. The Repbulican Party is not Centrist. On your scale it would be, IMO, about an eight (8). The Democrats would be about a two (2) and the middle right around five (5).

There will always be citizens that reflect the centrist mindset, but those folks do not vote in primaries, therefore those folks do not choose our candidates.

What would the Presidential race had been like if Lieberman had faced off against McCain? Very different b/c the candidates are closer to the middle rather than the fringes. that would actually be a great ticket… Lieberman/McCain. This country might actually get something done for everyone.

By Blablabla

July 15, 2005 09:02 AM | Link to this

Eaton: You hit the nail on the head as to why so many don’t trust the international community…

“One wonders why that august body spoke out so strongly against our invasion, if that were the case”.

That is PRECISELY the question that I would love to hear an answer for. Is it because they (and when I say “they”, I’m going to refer broadly to the UN and its leaders, but also more specifically France, Germany and Russia) really didn’t believe that the threshold for war had been met?

Perhaps it was a few other reasons: 1) they were selling arms illegally to iraq 2) they were getting paid off in the oil for food fiasco

A funny thing happened after we went in to Iraq - we found weapons and accessories made in France, Germany and Russia in the hands of Iraqi soldiers including recent model kalishnikovs and night vision scopes, among other things. These munitions were sold to Iraq in direct contravention of UN sanctions by those three (and other) countries.

that’s why so many people don’t trust that “august” body. you have members of the security council running around breaking the rules. look how many people in the UN profited from the food for oil scam? they put libya on the human rights committee, for crying out loud.

IMO, there are many in our country who think that Europe has some kind of moral superiority to the US…as though Europe’s position on issues is based on its greater sophistication and maturity. I don’t buy it. Their objections to war were every bit about covering their own behinds for their behavior as it was giving diplomacy more time to succeed. what we know now that we didn’t know then is that they were violating UN rules.

and for the record, i think the US has a responsibility to be a leader in the international community and solicity the input of other nations. but when the international community disagrees with us, i don’t think we have to necessarily change our mindset or course of action. we should see their objections for what they really are: not some altruistic view of the world, but rather their own self interest.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

Topeka, you’ve been tedious from the get-go, and apparently you are to stupid to realize that you have been unable to defend or substantiate a single thing you’ve said and just jump from topic to topic whenever challenged. But please - continue to go after me. I find it entertaining. Particularly after reading your almost laughable comments about the Republican party being centrist.

Bla, how many American corporations, including Haliburton, were selling illicitly to Iraq? More than one. And, since we’re talking about hypocrisy in international affairs and Libya in particular, let us not forget how we embraced Libya with open arms when they made cursory claims about voluntary disarming. We were more than willing to overlook their human rights violations then, for certain.

Personally, I wonder what might be accomplished by supporting the UN and taking an active leadership role, rather than playing constant adversary to it.

By Ken

July 15, 2005 09:35 AM | Link to this

Eaton… Bla just laid out specific facts that we know about other members of the U.N. Security Council and your response was basically… Well, U.S. companies were doing the same thing…

Do you have a better response than that? These are facts that make a large group of folks here, including myself, uneasy about trusting the international community implicitly the way you have led us to believe you would. The U.N. would be a much stronger group if EVERYONE actually bought into the original ideals of the organization… Unfortunately, I don’t think any nation does, the U.S. included.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 10:01 AM | Link to this

First Ken, I never said trust “implicitly”. But my point in bringing up Haliburton, et. all was that Bla used the scandal to suggest that the UN was untrustworthy and corrupt. How, then, are we any better, particularly since it was under the watch of our very own Vice-president that Haliburton engaged in its illegal commerce with Iraq?

Almost certainly, there are corrupt officials within the UN, as pretty much any organization of that size handling that many diverse sources of funds is going to have some corruption. To excoriate the one group while ignoring our own complicity seems to be a bit one sided, you would agree?

By taboga

July 15, 2005 10:14 AM | Link to this

I see we are back to the same old “UN” silliness.

There isn’t a person out here that could point to any amount of experience the UN has at fighting and winning wars. But hey, if you need someone to throw you up a tent and pass out some box lunches - those dogs will hunt!

And considering the makeup of the UN, suggesting we work through them to fight terrorism, is about like working with Al Capone to stop racketeering!

The difference between a Communist and a Liberal: The Communist is smart enough to know he is one.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 10:19 AM | Link to this

See there you go again, toboga, calling people Communists. Are you just willfully stupid, or are you just incapable of doing anything but regurgitating talking points from Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity? We haven’t even discussed anything that would be remotely close to Communism.

Before you go insulting people’s intelligence, maybe you should develop some of your own.

By Ken

July 15, 2005 10:26 AM | Link to this

Eaton… I agree the we should look at ALL who may have acted inapproriately, but, it appears to me that you take every opportunity to bash this administration and rarely, if ever, point out the flaws in organizations you support (i.e. the U.N. in this scenario). That is also one-sided.

Taboga… Please stop with the harassment! I don’t agree with the libs on this board on some issues, but that doesn’t mean I should call them names. And please don’t say they did it first, b/c except for Norman (and his aliases) the name calling doesn’t usually start until they get labeled as either devient, un-American, communist, etc.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 10:40 AM | Link to this

Ken,

You’re missing the point. I am not calling them “names” - I am calling them “Communists”.

Conservatives on message boards are called: Conservatives. No one complains then about “name-calling” and rightfully so.

The Communist Party Leaders in this country gave-up the name “Communist” because as one of their leaders stated:

The American people will never accept *Communism - but they will accept all aspects of it under the name of Liberalism.

The ideas remain the same - all that was changed was the “name”. I am simply referring to them by their original name: Communists.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

I suppose from your perspective, you’re right Ken. I guess it’s because this administration has gone to such great lengths to avoid responsibility or blame for anything they have done wrong and to such great lengths to crucify anyone who has either spoken out against them or can be made a scapegoat that I look at my being one-sided as providing balance.

By Ken

July 15, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

Taboga… You undoubtedly realize that calling someone a communist has certain overtones that resemble that of calling someone “names”.

The best response, on this board at least, is to simply discuss the issue in question and respond with fact or opinion whe your ideas are discussed. That can be done without calling anyone, anything.

And, for your quote… I liked it, and that person is probably pretty accurate, however, I would say based on how elections have gone recently, the American public isn’t accepting “liberalism” either, at least not in its current form. If the politicians heading up the liberal movement put forth plans of action for the issues we face, then they may get more support.

Unfortunately, right now they aren’t. I would very much like to see some of their ideas, b/c that would give us another option. For example, as much as I do not like Hillary, I heard about her EBay idea for small businesses in up-state NY. Excellent idea that is paying off for those folks, and I will give her credit for driving it to completion.

Right now we have the Republican party putting forth ideas (and many of them are not so great) and the Democratic party telling us how bad they are. That’s it!? That’s the best we can do?!

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

Ken, the actual quote, yielded by a little research, is about “Socialists” and “Socialism”. Of course, modern Liberalism is neither Socialist nor Communist, but people like toboga will continue to claim that all liberals are “red”. I suppose they enjoyed McCarthyism.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 11:55 AM | Link to this

Ken,

Let me ask you something. Do you consider it “name-calling” when people are called:

Just to name a few…

And these labels are thrown around as commonly as the words “the” and “is”.

But call someone a *Communist” and we’re going to get all concerned about: “Name-calling”…?

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 11:57 AM | Link to this

Laugh of the day: Now the White House is trying to tell us that the MEDIA leaked classified information TO KARL ROVE. Hahahahahaha! Rii-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ight. Sure Karl. That’s how it went down. Uh-huh. How STOOOOOOPID do they think we are? Oh yeah, that’s right. We’re ‘Muricans! We watch American Idol. We buy Kuntry Muzik recerds. We think Applebee’s is eatin’ good in the neighborhood. We can’t identify seven other countries on a map, and most of us can barely speak our own language, let alone another one. We think sticking a magnet on the car constitutes supportin’ the troops. Hahahaha! GOOD ONE, KARL!

By Ken

July 15, 2005 12:07 PM | Link to this

Taboga… I absolutely consider that “name calling” as well. The concern, howver, was about how you respond with name calling, rather than with actual responses.

Kimberly… Shouldn’t we at least wait to see if the media individual who “supposedly” gave this information refutes the allegation before we hang the man out to dry on this particular issue?

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 12:16 PM | Link to this

The difference, tobago, is that we actually know what those words mean, and typically they fit the person they are being directed at. For instance, when Ray compares gay people to pedophiles, he is a homophobe, and is rightfully refered to as one. When someone pops on and starts telling everyone how their religion is the only real one and that everyone else is going to hell, they are called religious fanatics, and rightfully so.

However, when YOU pop on and call people who are, by training and chosen profession, obviously Capitalists of the highest order Communists and Socialist, you are demonstrating an utter lack of knowledge about the names you are throwing around.

See the difference, tomato?

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 12:18 PM | Link to this

Hello Ken. If the issue is of interest to you, I’d suggest you do some reading on the life & times of Karl Rove. He’s an interesting fellow to to say the least. He holds his position for good reason: he has always been focused on the methodology and techniques involved with attaining and retaining POWER. I might consider today’s argument if it were about someone else, but anyone who has ever worked with Rove will attest that he does nothing that isn’t intentional and well-planned. Previously on this board, someone posted something about Goebel’s handbook. I guarantee you Rove has studied it well.

By Mara

July 15, 2005 12:28 PM | Link to this

Hi Bobb…just my two cents on the Bosnia/Iraq viewpoint. I see a difference because in Bosnia, people were being actively and systematically executed. They were rounded up by government agents to be tortured, assaulted, and/or murdered. It was active genocide in progress. In addition, most of the free world, including the neighboring countries, supported such a military action and were willing and able to provide help. Our NATO allies were there with us, extending substantial aid and manpower. In Bosnia, there was something we could do to help, at little cost to our people or our reputation. To have ignored the situation (as we are currently doing in Darfur) would have been beyond immoral. It was explained to us as a military action for humanitarian reasons. In contrast, Iraq was sold as a WMD power that, if not stopped, could (and would) endanger America. As an aside, we heard about the massacre of Kurds in the north (using toxic gas, which they got from us to use against Iran. Remember the photo of Cheney glad-handing Saddam?), and about individuals being arrested and tortured. While one abhors tyrannical and abusive governments that abuse their own citizens, Saddam was doing nothing that other despots didn’t do, and we had no problem with the other despots. Interestingly, few of Iraqs neighbors, (not even Iran their arch-enemy, after the US) wanted to participate in the overthrow. Even Kuwait was content to stand aside. Oh, they’d provide logistic support, a stance aided by foreign-aid heavy “carrots”, but very little in the form of manpower or money. Despite the rhetoric about the “coalition of the willing” it was obvious that most of the “willing” weren’t all that ready or able. That being said, there was NO immediate danger of genocide. NO immediate danger of WMD. NO immediate danger of Iraq becoming any kind of power. NO support from the greater international community.
What many are saying now is the “Clinton believed the same info Bush did, but he was too busy screwing around to take care of business.” It seems to me that Clinton actually saw the caveats in the intel and believed that we didn’t really have any proof. Bush saw the caveats, erased them, and acted as though (to quote one of his lackeys) “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.” I supported the Bosnia action because the need was obvious, immediate, and ally-supported. I did not support Bush’s’ war because it was a war of choice against an enemy that was all but impotent. Even in the beginning, our allies were warning us that we were overestimating the danger from Iraq and underestimating the trouble invading would cause. Time has shown that they were right. This war has strained our military capabilities, emptied our treasury, and stained our reputation.

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Eaton, you are still saying it: international support made the difference, but now with the caveat of “cultural genocide”. Forgive me this time for being callous, but cultural genocide and the Balkans have been synonomous since God only knows when. Not much of a tie breaker since Saddam had done the same. By reflexive repeating of international support, I mean you were repeating one of the Democrats favorite mantras leading up to Iraq. I’m not hearing much more from you now. What if the world community is flat out wrong about something, do we just follow along because everyone else is? I can’t believe you mean that. Let me try another way. Three scenarios:

1) Bosnia - Cultural genocide was at an all time high even by Balkan standards. The US looked at Bosnia and said to the EU/NATO/UN, “Jeez, enough is enough. We gotta’ stop talking about this and do something”. EU/NATO/UN, says, “No. Period”. What should we have done?

2) Iraq - All the cirumstances are the same as actually occurred over the preceding 10 years, including the Congressional and UN resolutions giving authority for action if Saddam doesn’t comply with all the other resolutions telling him to comply, or else. This time it’s the UN that gets fed up first and says, “Okay, that’s enough”. We all go off to war. No WMDs are found, but Iraq is free and Saddam’s “just another bad dictatorship” is ended. We did what the UN wanted us to do. Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

3) Iraq - Same as #2, but when the UN says, “Okay, that’s enough”, the US responds, “No, lets keep up the embargos, overflights, and have more negotiations and try to have a peaceful resolution. Give Blix more time - if we can get him back in”. The UN says, “Screw you US, it is the right thing to do”, and goes in on their own. No WMDs are found, but Saddam’s pesky just another bad dictatorship is ended. We defy the world community. Who is right?

Saddam was as bad - worse - than Milosevic ever thought about being. He wasn’t just another “bad dictator”. He slaughtered ethnic groups and whole villages. Tortured. Murdered. He started an international conflict only a few years before. He lived like a king while his people straved on top of oil reserves. There was no concern about missing WMDs in Bosnia, or even that they were ever there in the first place as was the case in Iraq. Saddam ruled a gangster state in the middle of one of the most strategic and volitile areas on the planet. He defied the UN repeatedly. And if memory serves, the UN never sanctioned war in Bosnia; Europe/NATO made the decision and Kofi just stood by. But Bosnia is justified and Iraq is not?

By Ken

July 15, 2005 12:32 PM | Link to this

Kimberly… My only interest is trying to keep a level head about the issues and assess what we know about each individual situation.

And yes… I know a lot about Karl Rove… He is a very intelligent individual who conduct business in a very calculating way. You may compare him Goebels, and that is your prerogative. I kinda liken him to the “dirty” players in sports… No one likes to play against them, but everyone wants on their team. The fact is the Dems would LOVE to have him running their campaigns… They might actually start winning a few.

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

Ken, good sports parallel. (How many weeks ‘till football? Squeeeeeeeeaaaaaallll!) True. No one would be happier than I would to see the Dems start winning a few. Don’t know that I’d invite Rove to join the team, though. He’s totally in bed with Jack Abramoff, a name we’ll be hearing more about. He’s the lobbyist who’s got Ralph Reed in a mess o’ contradictions. Also, if you look up our Senators and Congressmen (the R ones), you’ll see Abramoff has funnelled a LOT of money into the current governments to ensure his business success. (Personally, I’m tired of having the laws of our land being written and endorsed by lobbyists, but I’m veering from my point.) Actually, I’m thrilled to have Howard Dean aboard. Why? ‘Cause he’s NUTS? ‘Cause he’s p******? Nah. ‘Cause he actually has the kajones to speak the truth without apology, a characteristic that has become rare amongst Dems of late. Yes, people react with anger and horror and outrage when he speaks. That’s because the truth hurts. Who among us can deny that truth is painful?

Back to the Rove issue, there will likely be no consequence, as that is not something that happens in the Bush Admin. Ever. No mistakes were made. Period. That’s their story and they’re sticking to it, facts be damned. If there’s a mistake, it’s always the fault of some soldier, minion, underling, or of course, one of the Clintons. After five years, the current administration remains in an unprecedented state of blemish-free.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 12:50 PM | Link to this

Bobb, I’m not going to argue this with you any more. Whatever you may think, I’m not repeating a mantra, any more than you are just regurgitating conservative dogma. You don’t like my answer - fine. You think the US should be able to invade anyone at anytime just because we think it’s the right thing to do - fine.

I disagree. I think we are as subject to international law as anyone else and that might does NOT make right. I think, that if you were REALLY concerned about doing the right thing, you’d be urging for action in places like Rwanda, the Sudan, the Congo… where people are busy making Hussein look like a teddy bear.

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

Eaton, don’t forget Uzbekistan, where it is widely reported that dissidents are boiled.

By Dakotawoman

July 15, 2005 01:07 PM | Link to this

I hope you all have a magical weekend and take some time to be with kindred spirits and people you love.

The Great Goddess shines as the brightest Moon Goddesses dance beneath Her, both night and noon Sacred magic of the Goddess is happening all over the Earth Enter this Sacred Grove and share in Goddess wisdom, joy and mirth.

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 01:13 PM | Link to this

You aren’t arguing or debating squat, Eaton. You might as well just give, “Because” as an answer. State your opinion and then start insulting anyone who challenges you. I expected better.

I agree that action is needed in Rwanda, Sudan, and the Congo. Do we let them keep slaughtering each other while awaiting international support, or go in alone?

By Blablabla

July 15, 2005 01:20 PM | Link to this

eaton: what was halliburton doing in iraq that was illegal while cheney was ceo?

i did not intend for my example to construed as one sided. if halliburton did something illegal then they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. but the problem is that the UN is completely undermined when the leader and his son are getting paid off as part of the oil for food scandal, and members of the security council, the real heart of the UN, are disobeying their own rules and regulations.

on one hand you have a publicly-owned company that dos something illegal. on the other you have several nations on the security council disobeying their own international law. those aren’t really apples to apples in terms of perspective.

i don’t see giving libya some love for advertising that they would voluntarily disarm as some sort of hypocrisy. we certainly don’t like things about libya, but extending them an olive branch when they do something we think is right isn’t hypocrisy; it’s diplomacy.

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Anyone looking for a more level headed assessment of the Rove “affair” might want to check out the lead editorial on today’s Washington Post web site, as well as the Dick Morris column at http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/DickMorris/071405.html

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 01:21 PM | Link to this

Where is this sacred grove, what time do the goodies arrive, and do we need to bring our own munchies? {;->

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Or how about Uganda, where the Lord’s Resistance Army has been kidnapping children for years and years, raping and murdering some, and forcing the others to fight in their armies. Thousands and thousands dead and missing. Where’s our righteous outrage there?

I guess I just have a real hard time accepting any claims of compassion from the average conservative today. When it comes to supporting a war, they’re all about “doing the right thing”, but anything else is just frivolous “Bleeding-heart liberal” crap. Any international agency that is dedicated to helping out in these situations - Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, UNICEF, etc. is either corrupt or anti-American because they dare to criticize some of our behaviors.

I’ll believe they care about peace and doing the right thing the day they stop obsessing about guns and blowing things up.

By TT

July 15, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

The problem I have with going to war in Iraq is a matter of logistics. Saddam could have been taken out by a group of covert operatives (assuming the administration had not encouraged the CIA to alter facts and then let the organization take the fall for failing to make us secure at home and abroad). We could have nabbed Saddam in the first Gulf War, or we could have handled him without tearing up the country, damaging its infrastructure, and killing nearly 9,000 Iraqis. Similar claims could probably be made about Bosnia under Clinton’s watch. However, a company affiliated with our Vice President was not contracted to clean up the mess that bombings created in Bosnia. That is what I mean by Halliburton profiting from the war. Just because they made money in the past repairing Iraq doesn’t mean that they are in the black now. The fact is, they made money cleaning up after the war. Whether Halliburton has its head above water on Wall Street currently has nothing to do with that fact. Not to mention, as several others have noted, that Bosnia was not sitting smack in the middle of oil reserves or next door to Iran. This war has done nothing but make our country less safe, render Iraq the new all-inclusive resort for insurgents, and cost us billions of dollars, thousands of lives, and our reputation. Please wake up America! There were no WMDs in Iraq, and if they have caches of weapons, it’s because they were furnished with them by us and European nations. Just like the militants in Afghanistan using our own planes with rockets we gave them to fight the Russians! Saddam was a dictator, but by no means the most atrocious of those in our world. And our President just recently began citing democracy and human rights as reasons to continue the battle in Iraq when faced with the facts that his original premise for going to war was false. This war was about revenge, money, misperception, and oil.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 01:29 PM | Link to this

Well, it looks like the smart Liberals have fallen on their face yet again. Painstakingly, the Lib Media is now having to admit that Karl Rove is involved in no wrong-doing.

But to those of us who are entertained by the smart Liberals making fools of themselves, have no fear - next week the useful idiots (little Stalin term there for you devout Communists) will be back at it again.

But I do agree with Kimberly - Howard Dean is the man! In fact, if I were you Democrats/Liberals/Communists (sorry for the redundancy), I would run him again in 2008. I’d gladly cough-up the cash to watch that screaming lunatic on pay-per-view!

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 01:31 PM | Link to this

By the way, thanks, Mara, for your comments. I’ll give them some thought.

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 01:39 PM | Link to this

Bobb, to balance out your information in the Rove affair, you can also check out Joe Wilson’s letter to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/05/07/con05233.html

A legal commentary from FindLAw: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/dean/20050715.html

Yahoo news has some background on Rove’s dealings: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/usnw/20050714/plusnw/campaignforacleanercongressrovetiedtohouselobbyingscandalthroughformeraides106xml

An editorial in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05196/538086.stm

Paul Krugman in the New York times: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/15/opinion/15krugman.html

By TT

July 15, 2005 01:44 PM | Link to this

Hey T— Maybe you can Tivo Howard Dean along with your WWF matches, Jerry Springer, and Geraldo on Fox News. And enough with the communist backlash. That must be the new buzz word in the trailer park! You’re such a child. Sounds like most of us here are more conservative about spending, government interference in people’s private lives, and real solutions to party differences than you are. And if you consider the Republicans to be the Centrist Party, then I’ll have to vote Libertarian. Whatever it takes to keep uneducated rednecks like you from deciding our next president. By the way, I don’t believe all Conservatives are ignorant, religious fanatics. You alone share that distinction. Maybe you can look at it as the high school diploma you never had. And yes, I’d like to Super Size my combo.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

I wasn’t insulting you, Bobb - I just realize the futility of the discussion. I give you reasons, and you tell me they aren’t reasons because they aren’t the reasons you want to hear. There’s no point in continuing with that argument because it’s just not production.

Basically, you want me to break down and say that the UN is worthless and that the US should be the final arbiter of international law. Sorry, but I find that frightening. I’m not a big fan of Empires. So, let’s just agree to disagree and move on, OK?

Bla: http://www.truthout.org/docs_01/02.03E.Hallib.Iraq.htm

And…it wasn’t nations violating the agreements, it was individuals given the authority to run the program profiteering from it. So, not really apples and oranges.

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 01:46 PM | Link to this

Give it a rest, Eaton. How does your liberal mantle give you any special lock on compassion and caring? I haven’t heard any great outcry from the liberal leaders in this country about stopping African genocide. Not even from the black leaders. They are all too busy refighting the 2000 and 2004 elections - Rove being the latest distraction to having a functioning republic.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 01:51 PM | Link to this

When I was the Vice President - I had a hard choice to make.

I simply couldn’t make up my mind whether I wanted to use my influence as the VP to get my rich buddies at Halliburton a gig on one of the Caribbean Islands or in the middle of a war in the Middle East.

It basically came down to this: Make billions of dollars in Puerto Rico upgrading the infrastructure and sitting on the beach sipping Cuba Libres while watching half-naked women walking down the beach as the money rolls in endlessly…

OR…

Starting a war in the Middle East, where terrorists would actively seek contractors for a beheading as they were working in the desert with 100 degree heat, or sitting in their compounds playing a good game of solitaire with the armed guards assigned to them.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

Yes, toboga. You could be part of a double-billing. Raving Lunatics: Blue vs. Red 2008.

And I see you still don’t know what a Communist is.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 02:07 PM | Link to this

WHAT?

What is all this talk about Rwanda, The Congo, Bosnia and the rest?

I simply refuse to believe that all those problems are going on! Because I happen to know for a fact that the United Nations has taken the lead and has solved all those problems!

You folks are not going to fool me for a minute! And how dare you suggest that the United States should get involved and try and force our beliefs on those people!

By TT

July 15, 2005 02:10 PM | Link to this

T-bag, The Veep has some things that you don’t. Mainly an education and an annual income more than $14,000. Do some reading (if it’s not too difficult). Or is all of the media too communist for you? The government filed suit against Halliburton for overbilling them for services it provided in repairing Iraqi infrastructure. You can choose to live your life confined to your double wide, working the fryer at Mickey D’s, and burying your head in the sand because you don’t want to face up to the corruption in our government, or you can come back to reality where the real Communists— China—have been approved for a multi-billion dollar venture by (gasp) your beloved Dubya and the Big Business-Loving Republicans.

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 02:13 PM | Link to this

Gee, Kimberly. I thought the Washington Post and Morris would be centerist enough opinions for most folks. Seriously, I’ll check the others out as well. Thanks

By TT

July 15, 2005 02:15 PM | Link to this

Anyone one else see the eerie resemblance between Jack and T-bag?

By taboga

July 15, 2005 02:22 PM | Link to this

The government filed suit against Halliburton for overbilling them for services it provided in repairing Iraqi infrastructure.

I don’t understand how that could be happening? I thought the Government was controlled by Right-wing fanatics who are doing nothing but looking out for the welfare of their rich buddies?

Now you tell me that this same right-wing government is filing suit against Halliburton?

By TT

July 15, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

You see, T, there are different departments and branches in our government. Say, there’s an executive, which is headed up by a Republican administration, the legislative, which is largely conservative, and the judiciary, which, holy hell, is being run by the damn communists! And then we have the DOJ (no, not dog, T-bag), The Department of Justice, and The Department of Defense. And sometimes they stand up to the Administration and conduct grand jury trials and investigate corruption (you know, the whole Watergate and Whitewater snafus). So, keep it up with your idiotic attempts to diffuse the fact that you’re clueless about what goes on in our world. I’m surprised you knew the U.N. existed. Why don’t you look at the facts, and then try to structure your argument. Didn’t they teach you that in remedial English?

By Brian Curtis

July 15, 2005 02:33 PM | Link to this

Taboga is doing an excellent demonstration of dodging and mudslinging… classic tactics for when you don’t have anything of substance to say.

Know what a communist is yet, Taboga? I’ll bet you can’t define one.

By Brian

July 15, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

The question is without merit. Private property is private property. Wether it’s owned by an individual, a church, a company or an auto club, the government should not be able to take it except under the most extreme situations.

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 02:43 PM | Link to this

Bobb, I ALWAYS get news from a variety of sources, no matter what the topic. It’s just too hard to trust the “news” media anymore, so I’m always seeking verificiation of a claim, regardless of who makes it. If something is “provably true,” it usually keeps coming out the same way. If something is PR spin, or opinion punditry, it’s oft-repeated but without supporting facts. Even and especially when the news item is something I WANT to hear and repeat, I verify it even more, so that I can support what I say and my reasons for saying it.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 02:47 PM | Link to this

tt,

I am going to help you out. You’re embarrassing even your Leftist pals now. And that’s hard to do. They’re wishing right now that you would just hush with the juvenile juvenile rebuttals. “Mickey D’s”…? I of course - happen to like them. But I am starting to feel embarrassed for you.

BTW - You would think that Vice President Cheney would use his power to stop the suits against Halliburton, wouldn’t you?

I mean, after all, he started a war just to help them make money - the least he could do is keep them from getting sued!

By taboga

July 15, 2005 02:50 PM | Link to this

Know what a communist is yet, Taboga? I’ll bet you can’t define one

Brian Curtis.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 02:56 PM | Link to this

Personally, I think the only group embarrassed was Mickey D’s - for the suggestion that they would lower themselves to hire you.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 03:04 PM | Link to this

And the point goes to - Brian Curtis, for correctly predicting that tomato would be unable to define a Communist and would lack the ability to do anything but call people leftists.

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 03:15 PM | Link to this

The lesson that we should take from Communism is this: When it was implemented in Eastern Europe in the 20th century, it was purportedly based on the Marxist writings, but the reality of it was not like the Marxist ideals. Not that I agree with those ideals in the first place, but the reality is that corruption in high places negated the principles it supposedly upheld. AND, they called themselves the United Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, which were NOT socialist, nor were they republics, nor were they truly united. Again, the Nazis called themselves socialists too, but clearly they were fascists. These labels mean nothing really. They’re just what people throw at each other when sticks & stones aren’t handy.

Question: If you were an outside observer, would you call the United States a democratic republic?

By Bobb

July 15, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Eaton, bud, you miss the point a lot of the times because you let your preconcieved notions and prejudices about people distract you. The discussion was not about the UN or its worth. The discussion was about doing the right thing. You seemed to be arguing that only international support justifies action regardless of the intentions or the value of the cause. I didn’t think that is really what you were meaning to say, but maybe it was. You are right though, the discussion is going nowhere.

However, if you want to know what I really think about the UN, here goes. Admittedly it doesn’t instill much faith in me - in its current state anyway. It needs reforming badly. It has a strange sort of inferiority/superiortiy complex all rolled into one. It probably didn’t have much chance to develop a stable personality given that it was raised during the Cold War and the era of superpowers.

On the other hand, bitting the hand that feeds it is not real smart. Much like US indifference rendered the League of Nations meaningless, US support is probably the only thing that has kept the UN from the same fate. I don’t just mean financial support either. I think it can be saved or evolve into a more credible organization for today’s world. I think we can take the lead in helping it to become that - if they want us too. The US has probably behaved peevishly at times towards the UN, but I don’t think its members have much love for the US whatever we do. That comes with the territory though and we have been pretty good about sucking it up and not letting that turn us off completely

I don’t see it as a world government, or as something we are subordinate to. I think it is - or can be made to be -a place where consensous about issues can be reached and joint actions taken if agreed upon. I don’t think a lack of concensus is necessaraly a barrier to action if the reason is just. That is a calculated risk. The world is a complicated place. Hopefully the right choices get made.

By DeltaX

July 15, 2005 03:21 PM | Link to this

Kimberly, Just for my idiot opinion on your question.

Yes, I would consider the U.S. a republic that is dominated and controled by a corrupt democratic process.

Off the cuff, but think I like that description.

By Blablabla

July 15, 2005 03:22 PM | Link to this

eaton: Thanks for the link - i read it. but you’d said halliburton had illegal dealings with iraq. the article says in multiple occasions that its dealings were legal.

nations sold arms illegally to iraq b/c we found them there when we invaded. on that particular point i was referring to both the oil for food scandal, where yes, individuals profited, but also the actions of those nations that sit on the security council. so at least on the second part, you’re back to comparing apples and oranges when you compare halliburton to what russia, france and germany were doing in selling arms. besides, from the link you gave me it doesn’t indicate that halliburton did anything illegal. all its dealings with iraq were done through joint ventures that halliburton did not have corporate control over.

those aren’t the same things, nor are they particularly close.

By Blablabla

July 15, 2005 03:30 PM | Link to this

delta x - just curious for your opinion - what makes our democratic process corrupt?

By TT

July 15, 2005 03:34 PM | Link to this

T-bag, please see yourself out before we have to question your blue-collar musings any longer. You have no facts to argue, you just dodge the good points others make and hurl insults. I thought it was time to dish some back at you. And, I personally, am still cracking up at being called juvenile by someone who likely doesn’t even have a GED. Still haven’t really defined the word Communist, have you? Do you have any facts to present, you ostrich, because I am getting tired of everyone poking fun at you. I’m ready to get back to big girl and boy issues and get out of the sandbox with wittle Toboggan.

By TT

July 15, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

P.S. Tomato, I’m a libertarian, not a leftist, as several on this blog seem to be. Definitions really throw you don’t they?

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 03:50 PM | Link to this

Blabla: OH! OH OH! OH! Let me! Ummm (1) Lobbyists (2) Lack of meaningful regulation for campaign finance that would level the playing field and let people focus on issues (England has this crap under control, actually) (3) Voting machines that are designed, manufactured, delivered and tested by friends of those in power (4) Lack of media attention to CLEAR conflict of interest, i.e. the Secretary of State for a state, in charge of securing fair and accurate elections in that state, ALSO and CONCURRENTLY being on the official committee to ELECT one or the other candidate (5) Lobbyists: in particular the banking, insurance, pharmaceutical, and energy lobbies.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 03:54 PM | Link to this

Question: If you were an outside observer, would you call the United States a democratic republic?

Kimberly,

Whether you’re an outside observer or an inside observer — we are a representative republic.

Felt it my duty to pass that on to all you smart Leftists.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 04:08 PM | Link to this

And all the comrades are now doing Google searches…

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

I think I actually said “illicit”, which is not quite the same as illegal. Given our relationship with the nation at the time, I think that Haliburton’s involvement qualifies as illicit.

I would, however, like to see some of the evidence you are relying on to suggest that actual governments were involved in dealing weapons to Iraq. I mean, I have a friend who owns a Galil and a Kalashnikov but she sure didn’t buy them from the Israeli or Russian governments. There IS a substantial black market trade in weapons around the world, so I don’t consider the presence of a Russian gun to indicate the colusion of the Russian government.

Of course, I don’t really trust Putin either. He’s a little too authoritarian for my tastes.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

P.S. Tomato, I’m a libertarian, not a leftist, as several on this blog seem to be. Definitions really throw you don’t they?

And could you explain what it means to be a Libertarian…?

That oughta be a real treat!

By Jack

July 15, 2005 04:13 PM | Link to this

Everyone have a good weekend. (even you Eaton)

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

toejam, give it a rest. No one is impressed by your infantile repetition of meaningless and ignorant accusations of communism. Which, you…still..have yet to provide a definition of.

By Crystal

July 15, 2005 04:25 PM | Link to this

Well, thanks, taboga. You have kept this week’s Liberal Dog & Pony Show sorta interesting. I drop by occasionally to see how the name-calling is going. The sensible contributors don’t stay long. So, hang in there. The pretentious and the paranoid are out to get you.

By DeltaX

July 15, 2005 04:27 PM | Link to this

Bla-

I first off believe what most historians do, a democracy will become corrupt over time bc the rich and selfish will control, or at least effectively influence, the officials who will always be swayed by such.

I believe all parties involved share in this responsibility. I also believe it is encouraged by the corrupt, and alowed by the masses who wish to “just live their life.”

For our system to begin to work, either:

The govmt would have to be re-work to heck and back removing all the loopholes. Yet this would need the adult co-operation of most everyone - hard to see that happening.

or, every person would have to have a ray of enlightenment that would instill a new sense of responsibility. So that we would no longer have to keep finding ways to keep people/officails/etc in line with some virtuous standard that has never been decided.

Bottom line: US is corrupt bc everyone is in it for themselves.

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 04:31 PM | Link to this

Oh geeze, Crystal has crawled out from her hole and actually called taboga a “sensible contributor”. I’m not sure if that’s more of an indictment on Crystal or Tobaggan. I suppose that toboga’s style of unflappable ignorance and labeling would appeal to Crystal and her languid superiority complex.

Go back to la-la-land, Crystal. Jesus loves you, but no one else does.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 04:47 PM | Link to this

Comrades,

After I’ve give you enough rope:

Communism would be a type of egalitarian society with no state, no privately owned means of production, and no social classes.

The government is the solution and the provider, right Libs?

All property is owned cooperatively and collectively, by the community as a whole, and all people have equal social and economic status and rights.

Need I point out the striking similarity to Liberalism?

Human need or advancement is not left unsatisfied because of poverty, and is rather solved through distribution of resources as needed.

Taking from the wealthy and redistributing it via our tax system - ring a bell?

This is thus often the system proposed to solve the problem of the capitalist poverty cycle.

Getting better and better isn’t it? Ever heard of Welfare, Medicare and the “War on Poverty”…?

Perhaps the best known maxim of a communist society is “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Hitting home, Comrades!

This economic model is also referred to as a gift economy.

We’re rounding third and heading home!

The communist movement differentiates itself from other branches of the socialist movement through their wish to completely do away with all aspects of market society under the final stage of the system, as well as some communists’ commitment to armed revolutionary strategies for overthrowing capitalism, and their focus on the international working class as key in that revolution. As a practical matter, however, all successful major Communist revolutions have resulted in the creation of totalitarian dictatorships.

Promise the “working class” a quality standard of life, education, health care and equality - and they become Lenin’s Useful Idiots.

By TT

July 15, 2005 04:53 PM | Link to this

I’m guessing by the reappearance of Jack and the strange cosmic vibrations on the blog, that Crystal and T-bag, as well as Wacky Jacky may be in cahoots. BTW T-Bag, libertarians such as myself believe the government should stay out of people’s private lives, that the government can’t be trusted to spend money wisely, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. We also believe that other people shouldn’t dictate who we marry, whether we carry a gun, whether we have children, or what we worship. I know, that whole Constitution thing trips you up. We also believe that uneducated, religious fanatics like you, or the “I’m saved” and “dere ‘aint no such thing as a bad man, ‘cause they beez superior, coordin’ to the reverend” types like Crystal are crazy and dangerous impediments to a democracy. Just like liberals, we know how to read and think for ourselves, but we just don’t trust the government to look out for anyone but the rich, the rednecks, and the right-wingers.

By taboga

July 15, 2005 04:59 PM | Link to this

TT,

I thought you were throught “playing in the sandbox” with me?

Are Libertarians liars too…?

By Eaton

July 15, 2005 05:00 PM | Link to this

I’m having too hard a time laughing here to get really in depth, tomato, but just want to point out that, while I acknowledge your ability to cut and paste a definition from Wikkipedia, your ability to interpret and relate to modern liberalism is still lacking.

Just a couple of high points - no liberal in this country wants to place the means of production into state hands. We’re all pretty happy as capitalists. And second, I think you’ll find that the philisophical origin of the social programs you are ridiculing are not communist but in fact result from the works of Kant and Rousseau.

But 5 points for actually being able to use the search function on your browser.

By TT

July 15, 2005 05:01 PM | Link to this

T-bag, you idiot. Everyone on this blog is a p rofessional, except maybe you and Crystal Ball, and Wacky Jacky, the stay at home bigot. We all work in capitalist society, we take responsibility for ourselves, we read the Manifesto in college (which you definetly did not attend) and we know it’s a bunch of bunk. Moreover, we probably live very well in this capitalist society, thanks to Dubya’s tax breaks for the wealthy, so we are by no means advocating the abolition of classes because that would help trailer park inhabitants like you at the expense of our bottom line. We just feel that the government nor the Church (shocker, I know) should tell people how to live. Only an ignoramus has to be told what to do. But keep feeding into the right-wing tactic of calling peoplewho don’t agree with you names you don’t understand, instead of coming up with a valid argument. You’re a sorry excuse for a conservative.

By kimberly

July 15, 2005 05:07 PM | Link to this

T-bag: The boogeyman sleeps in your closet, and he’s coming for you tonight! BWOOOOOO-Hahahahaha!

Tomorrow morning you’ll wake up, put on a tie-dyed t-shirt, eat some granola, and go for a bike ride. HAHAHAHAHA!