AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2008 > June > 20 > Entry
What’s behind the liberal - conservative ideological divide in America?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Andrea Cornell Sarvady, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The fault for the widening liberal-conservative divide can be laid largely at the feet of an unwitting minority: those liberal intellectual elitist university professors and media leaders who are disproportionately influential in society. They probably have no intention of being agents of intolerance, division or elitism, but they are.
Barack Obama infamously commented that small-town, economically disadvantaged folks, “get bitter [and] cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them … as a way to explain their frustrations.” Hiding in those words are two chilling assumptions held by many a liberal elitist. First, Obama assumes the worst motivation for conservative values — social policy disagreements must be rooted in “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” Second and more scary, liberal elitists believe no rational person would even hold conservative beliefs unless there was something incredibly wrong in that person’s world - those couldn’t possibly be a sane person’s real values.
As the late television journalist Charles Kuralt once put it, “What on earth did conservatism ever accomplish for our country?” Or as New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger proclaimed at a 2006 graduation, “You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it’s …the rights of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose… For that, I’m sorry.” Or actress-activist Janeane Garofalo: “The dumb and the mean find a nice home in the GOP…..What you have now [are] people that are closet racists…[and] homophobes … identifying [themselves] as conservative.”
Most liberals aren’t this elitist and condescending. But the small minority that are tend to have built strongholds in positions to spread their beliefs and influence how others think. For example, a 2007 American Enterprise Institute study found that liberal professors outnumbered conservatives five-to-one in fields like political science, and 20-to-one in fields like sociology. And the volume of bias is staggering. The Institute for Jewish and Community Research found that 3 percent of professors viewed Jews unfavorably, Nine percent viewed non-evangelical Christians unfavorably - but 53 percent viewed evangelical Christians unfavorably.
It is ironic that in their evangelical fervor to spread their beliefs, surrounded by others of like mind, liberal elitists may not even see how dangerous is their own “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.”
Rebuttal
We all come across as patronizing at times. That’s human nature. Yet to suggest in this day and age that “a certain type of liberal intellectual elitist” is responsible for the division between left and right is downright laughable. With daily battles playing out in the media, with commanders like Karl Rove and foot soldiers like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity, the epicenter of the fault line can be emphatically traced to….political science professors? Charles Kuralt?
Though the left has its share of verbal missteps and deliberate put-downs, it simply can’t compete with the far-right arsenal when it comes to divisive rhetoric. Janeane Garafalo’s Air America is no match for legions of followers addicted to the bellicose braying of Rush Limbaugh and Bill O’Reilly, the top junkyard dogs of political discourse. I won’t pretend that Democrats lack the stomach for down-and-dirty name-calling — the blogosphere proves otherwise every minute. Yet, for some reason, liberals aren’t drawn to the siren call of major media provocateurs in nearly the numbers that conservatives are. Keith Olbermann’s blistering attacks on the current administration have made his MSNBC show “Countdown” a money-making hit, yet fellow word warrior O’Reilly has more than twice as many viewers.
Rather than keeping score, however, why don’t we look at facts that indicate a new reality? The current election cycle is proving that many of us are putting down the weapons, trying to find a way to work together; it’s why John Edwards’ battle cry of “two Americas” rubbed voters the wrong way. You know that instead we’re looking at a New America when some young evangelicals find themselves drawn to Barack Obama and some older Democrats find a compatriot in Republican John McCain.
I’m as guilty as anyone for engaging in the childish “Mom, she started it!” debate about who created the poisoned atmosphere between liberals and conservatives. So let’s agree that, no matter who widened the divide, we’re all responsible for moving past resentment and blame. I propose the following plan for liberal Democrats and Christian evangelicals alike: We won’t think you’re insane for holding your beliefs if you won’t think we’re going to hell for ours.
Can I get an amen?
.JPG)
-1.JPG)
Services »
Comments
Commenting is now closed for this entry.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 9:16 AM | Link to this
Ann Coulter books: “Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right”, “Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to Terrorism”, “How to talk to a Liberal (If you Must)”, “Godless: The Church of Liberals”, and “If Liberals had any Brains, they’d be Republicans”
Jonah Goldberg “Liberal Fascism” (the question is, is he a Truth wannabe or is Truth a Jonah wannabe??? hrrrmmmmmm.), Mona Charen “Useful Idiots”
Media personalities/pundits/clowns on parade: Pat Buchanon, Dinesh D’Souza, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Joe Scarborough, Tucker Carlson, Bob “It isn’t treason if it helps a Republican” Novak, George Will, David Brooks, Nicholas Kristoff, Thomas “6-more-months” Friedman, Atlanta’s own Neil Boortz … then there’s Bill O’Reilly and his “War on … ” (fill in the blank, Christmas, Easter, Christians, falafels)
… but, yeah other than those guys … the media is SOOOOO flippin liberal.
and any divide we have in these United States is aaaaalllll the fault of the meanie “liberal elite” - a handful of university professors no one has ever heard of and the media that is SO FLIPPIN COWED by their corporate owners, they don’t dare ask the president any questions in the lead-up to the war in Iraq.
go peddle it elsewhere, Shaunti, we’re not buying your crap.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 9:19 AM | Link to this
I’m as guilty as anyone for engaging in the childish “Mom, she started it!” debate about who created the poisoned atmosphere between liberals and conservatives. So let’s agree that, no matter who widened the divide, we’re all responsible for moving past resentment and blame.
and
I won’t pretend that Democrats lack the stomach for down-and-dirty name-calling — the blogosphere proves otherwise every minute.
Coded message to the blog?
By Truth
June 20, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
I propose the following plan for liberal Democrats and Christian evangelicals alike: We won’t think you’re insane for holding your beliefs if you won’t think we’re going to hell for ours.
That pretty much sums it up. the vast number of conservatives are not Christian evangelists, but Andrea is more than willing to march the goose step in vomiting the same old hate speech. The hate for anything religous is displayed on this forum daily, so that is certainly a good excuse to brand all conservatives as “evangelists”.* Any reason to hate will do just fine, thank you.
And Andrea please be sure to tell us when The current election cycle is proving that many of us are putting down the weapons, trying to find a way to work together;. Right.
Do you ever read the blog that carries your name? Can you point to a single post by anyone claiming to be a progressive that has in any way compromised ANY issue? This week has been post other post claiming that the domineering policies of progressives in forcing their beliefs upon others was first denied, but after one obvious example after another were presented, the discussion often became why that domineering stance was justified.
“We will stand up for our right to force our beliefs upon others.” Many constantly referred to that domineering as being “freedom”. It is a matter of “freedom” that Americans are now relegated to specific geographic or property boundaries before they can practice their right to worship how they please. Not exeacly laying down weapons.
When I first heard about Obama, I was impressed with his stance that he wanted to bring America together. He even had stated positive remarks about conservatives and Ronald Reagan. That didn’t last long. As soon as the liberal media started grilling him on those statement, he folded like a piece of paper.
My liberal friends are sending me the same propaganda that is being spread by e-mails on a daily basis. It is ALWAYS unsubstantiated garbage, put out by sites that are sponsored by the likes of George Soros, certainly not someone that has this country’s betterment in mind. But you would rather talk about a political opinion show like Limbaugh or Bill O’Rielly. which are all open to criticism by the dozens of liberal “political watch” foundations.
Look at the reaction I get for bringing up one of the most powerful, anti-American billionaires in the world, but go back and search and see how many times Rush Limbaugh is mentioned: a radio talk show hosts that is usually relegated to AM as held up as such a strong voice. In fact, you brought him up, just today. What a surprise.
Obama just folded (yet again) so he could collect over half a billion in campaign funds. How noble!! Folding a main point for the sake of the almighty dollar: Something that most anti-capitalistic progressives can really embrace. So it looks like Obama is anybody’s man. It’s just a matter of having a big enough bankroll. How much do you think he would charge to become a Republican?
By PreacherMan
June 20, 2008 10:19 AM | Link to this
AMEN
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
That pretty much sums it up. the vast number of conservatives are not Christian evangelists,
You simply choose to read it that way. She is pretty specific in addressing “Christian evangelists” in that statement and does not address all of the conservative or republican party.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 10:27 AM | Link to this
Hooray!!! Just in time for Truth … from today’s WaPo
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/19/AR2008061902197.html?hpid=sec-religion
A group that advocates separation of church and state filed a federal lawsuit Thursday to prevent South Carolina from becoming the first state to create “I Believe” license plates.
wait! wait! here’s the kicker …
Washington-based Americans United for Separation of Church and State filed the lawsuit on behalf of two Christian pastors, a humanist pastor and a rabbi in South Carolina, along with the Hindu American Foundation.
but, wait! there’s more!!
But a Methodist pastor who joined the lawsuit, the retired Rev. Thomas Summers of Columbia, said the plate provokes discrimination.
“I think this license plate really is divisive and creates the type of religious discord I’ve devoted my life to healing,” he said.
Another of the ministers, the Rev. Robert Knight of Charleston, said the plates cheapen the Christian message.
“As an evangelical Christian, I don’t think civil religion enhances the Christian religion. It compromises it,” Knight said. “That’s the fundamental irony. It’s very shallow from a Christian standpoint.”
<<< waiting for Truth’s head to e’splode >>>
By Truth
June 20, 2008 10:33 AM | Link to this
“liberal elite” - a handful of university professors no one has ever heard of
But they have heard of Caralt and the certainly have heard of Dan Rather and Kary Couric all as politically biased as Ann Coulter, but hiding behind accepted media outlets while they spread their propaganda. Of course that’s OK. After all they are spreading the only real truth, right? They are justified in spreading stories that were not true because the end result is FREEDOM. Right?
Ahhh Freedom. Now pardon me while I go into the back room of the house to say my morning prayer. Don’t worry. I’ll keep it quiet. Wouldn’t want to hurt anyone’s feelings. Your freedom is in tact.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 10:35 AM | Link to this
“As an evangelical Christian, I don’t think civil religion enhances the Christian religion. It compromises it,” Knight said. “That’s the fundamental irony. It’s very shallow from a Christian standpoint.”
hrmmmm … now what quote does that remind me of??? Oh, I know:
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government James Madison
<<< poking the bear >>>
<<< poke >>>
<<< poke >>>
<<< poke >>>
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 10:40 AM | Link to this
But they have heard of Caralt and the certainly have heard of Dan Rather and Kary Couric all as politically biased as Ann Coulter
If the best you can do is a guy who died in the mid-1990s, another guy who hasn’t been on the air in 8 years and a dimwit (“Airborn RAWKS!!!”) that nobody watches, then I think you prove my point for me.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
USinUK,
Nice find! Although the with us or against us policy dictates that they are now double-agents in the liberal agenda to tie every americans hands to the facets of freedom for all!
Damn us for limiting everyone to limitlessness unless it tramples on others freedoms!
I also like how the liberal side once again offers an olive branch and even THAT is offensive to THE TRUTH.
How goes your day sweetness? (hope you do not mind the casual address)
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
Jokesy -
How goes your day sweetness? (hope you do not mind the casual address)
are you kidding??? 1) it’s Friday. 2) it isn’t raining (always a good thing in London). 3) talk about fun fodder!! between Shaunti and Truth today, it’s like a birthday TREAT with all the pinatas to bash around!! Life is GOOD, my friend!!
:-)
And you?? How’s my favorite dicto-fascist-islamo-terror-symp-elitist??
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 10:59 AM | Link to this
And you?? How’s my favorite dicto-fascist-islamo-terror-symp-elitist??
Doing darn well. Won all three of my pool games this week and also $40 off a total a$$ that always causes crap;)
Have work to do for a bit…so posting will be in spurts.
By MB
June 20, 2008 11:06 AM | Link to this
Puritanism
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
Jokesy -
don’t know if you were in Atlanta back in the 1980s/early 1990s, but my fav place to play pool USED to be Aunt Charley’s. Although it was right in the heart of Buckhead (blech), it was one of the most UN-Buckhead-y bars around! The staff was cool as were most of the customers (weekends were a toss-up) … Pool table inside, Bacci court outside.
aaahhhh … good times.
By MB
June 20, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Greed vs. altruism
By MB
June 20, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
Greed vs. altruism
By MB
June 20, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
Greed vs. altruism
By Truth
June 20, 2008 11:20 AM | Link to this
USinUK
LOL!! So you found two Christians, a humanist, a Rabbi and some Hindus who support your point. Oh yea. You are really bringing out the big guns to poke the bear. Ouch, ouch, ouch. I only had Dan Rather and Katy Couric, people that are hardly known by anyone.
I was just reading about the policies of sharia that is being practiced in many parts of the world. Now those guys really follow your brand of freedom. if what liberals do to Christians in this country is freedom, what they do is nirvana.
You guys should really look into that. Four Muslims are killed by Israeli rockets and it is the headlines for days. 1,000 Christians are slaughtered in the name of freedom and it is never mentioned in the news. It’s the perfect combination of hate and media control that is the “ideal environment” for progressive information systems. It is the perfect separation of church and state. And like America, it only goes after the Christian Church.
Now we are talking about REAL progressive freedom. Let’s strip down and have a parade!!!
By Mara
June 20, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
“You weren’t supposed to be graduating into a world where we are still fighting for fundamental human rights, whether it’s …the rights of gays to marry or the rights of women to choose… For that, I’m sorry.”
I’m confused…what exactly is Shaunti saying when she accuses a professor of being divisive (and maligning conservatives) because he admits he was wrong for thinking equality, freedom, and fundamental human rights would be secured for everyone by 2006 and apologizing for not having done more to ensure those freedoms for all people? How, exactly, is that an attack on conservatives?
And she brings up “Bitter-gate”? Again? Where, and when, did Obama say that bitterness and religiosity in the face of poverty and abandonment by government is a bad thing? As you all probably know, I grew up in a teeny tiny middle-of-nowhere town and when the one large employer moved out, people DID get angry and bitter (“19 years of loyalty and all they give me is a pink slip?”) and the church services WERE better attended. So? How is that an insult to ANYONE, let alone a conservative?
Bah-humbug. For every liberal you name who’s said something divisive, I bet I can name two or three conservatives who’ve said worse.
By Question
June 20, 2008 11:29 AM | Link to this
Let’s strip down and have a parade
going to be any nice bodies there or just old uglies?
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I only had Dan Rather and Katy Couric, people that are hardly known by anyone.
yep - someone no longer on the air and someone no one watches.
It’s another Count Floyd moment “ooooo … scary”
re: sharia and liberalism - yep, forcing women to wear a burkha, honor killings, and forced separation of the sexes is exactly like removing a nativity scene from the Capitol grounds. you just keep making those arguments, Truth. I just KNOW Harvard will be calling you to lead their debate team any. day. now.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 20, 2008 11:44 AM | Link to this
EXPAT: I take it you don’t like Ann Coulter. She is very funny, you should read her books. That Jean Garafalo woman is pretty brutal in her own right. Have you listened to her? She is mean Jean. Don’t forget that little guys book, “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them”. That was pretty mean spirited… Air America is a failure because of it’s content and the fact that it has no substance. Conservative talk radio is successful because it’s entertaining, at least to a large enough group to make a profitable venture.
I had a revelation yesterday: Successful people who are liberal are guilty about something. They feel they don’t deserve the wealth they have received, and want to help people who made bad choices. Not help them make better choices, just help them stay down. Liberalism truly is a mental disorder. Why not help them make good choices? That is what will keep America great. People need to be coming together, not pushing apart.
Anyone in hear know any Afroamericans? Are you an Afroamerican if you come here legally from Africa and become a citizen? What about someone from Jamaica? Are the Jamerican? Am I a Euroamerican? What is an Asianamerican? Someone of asian descent or someone who came from Asia and became a citizen?
Divisiveness is the root of many of our problems. I want everyone reading this to declare that they are AMERICAN today.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
GtG -
hey buddy!! my father is a very proud Italian American (first generation born here) - he loves this country, but also loves his heritage. (oh, and he’s a republican - socially liberal but very fiscally conservative republican). I do like Jamerican, though - especially the strawberry kind. I guess what I’m saying is that I don’t see that saying one person is a Polish American and another is an Italian American or Irish American or whatever is really that divisive - for better or for worse, we ARE a country of immigrants who share a common link that our forebears came here for a better life.
Well, most of our forebears - some were brought here so OTHER people could have a better life, but that’s a different discussion.
Successful people who are liberal are guilty about something. They feel they don’t deserve the wealth they have received, and want to help people who made bad choices. Not help them make better choices, just help them stay down
Well, you’re close, but not quite correct. I think you’re right on the liberal guilt - while I can’t speak for others, I do believe there’s an element of “there but for the grace of god go I” when we think of others who are less fortunate.
However, I disagree with the “help them stay down” part - that’s why we believe that education is key to help people have options in their life, so that they can make healthy/positive decisions.
As for the radio bit - I don’t listen to any of it - life’s too danged short. As for Ann Coulter being “funny” - I disagree with you there - she’s a one-trick harpy. But, that’s just my opinion, YMMV
By Archie
June 20, 2008 12:30 PM | Link to this
JokesOn, are you in a pool league??? Won all three of my pool games this week and also $40 off a total a$$ that always causes crap;) Now, I want to meet you and RF.
My response to the topic question is that money is behind the liberal conservative divide. Hell, Limbaugh and Hannity couldn’t make the money they make if they didn’t make outrageous statements. Coulter is a sharp lawyer and she is smart enough to see two guys that just graduated from high school make a ton of money talking s..t, so Coulter says I am smarter than them so I’ll just talk even more s..t. Oreilly sees the formula and now he’s a multimillionaire. Basically these people throw out a few facts and a whole lot of prejudice to keep reeling in their audience like suckers. You don’t have to be prejudiced to be a conservative for example see Colin Powell,Jack Kemp, and others. But if you want to make big bucks you have to bash a minority every now and then. Hell, bash Mexicans even though it’s mostly the rich,white guys illegally hiring them because most get angrier at the Mexicans than they do at the guy violating the law by hiring them. Fools that don’t understand this ride with shotguns to the border.
As for Democrats and the money they kinda steer certain contracts towards their friends. See former mayor Campbell or the mayor of Detroit or some ex-members of the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Some, some, I said some democrats really want to help all people but some just want to keep power amongst folk that look like them. They hate Bush but if it means giving up the power to control the money they’ll vote another Bush into office.
By Mara
June 20, 2008 12:34 PM | Link to this
Examples of Coulters side splitting humor -
“If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
I have never seen people enjoying their husband’s deaths so much.” - on 9/11 widows who have been critical of the Bush administration
“We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee.”
“Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole.”
“There are a lot of bad republicans; there are no good democrats.”
“We need to execute people like (John Walker Lindh) in order to physically intimidate liberals.”
“Whether they are defending the Soviet Union or bleating for Saddam Hussein, liberals are always against America. They are either traitors or idiots.”
“My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times Building.”
“Not exactly smashing stereotypes of liberals as mincing pantywaists, the left’s entire contribution to the war effort thus far has been to whine.”
“Liberals become indignant when you question their patriotism, but simultaneously work overtime to give terrorists a cushion for the next attack and laugh at dumb Americans who love their country and hate the enemy.”
“While the form of treachery varies slightly from case to case, liberals always manage to take the position that most undermines American security.”
~~ HA. HA. HA. ~~
By Truth
June 20, 2008 12:45 PM | Link to this
USinUk CBS evening news 5.23 million viewers, nightly during April. The worst showing ever for CBS News.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/TV/04/30/nielsens.ap/index.html
The O’Reilly Factor Averaged 412,000 viewers nightly for April.
http://www.newshounds.us/2006/05/10/oreillylyingabouthisratings.php
O’Reilly is the top rated political opinion show on Cable and it draws 1/10th the viewership of Couric’s failing program on her worst week.
But nobody watches Couric.
that’s why we believe that education is key to help people have options in their life, so that they can make healthy/positive decisions.
Bwa-ha-ha-ha-ha
Do you mind if I take my laptop down the the housing projects that the democrats built and talk to the kids down there that the democrats have ran their education since the 60s and see what they think?
Man. What you need to believe in order to be a liberal.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 20, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this
MARA: glad to see you enjoy her humor too! She is one funny lady!
By Truth
June 20, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
Mara
Some of her things aren’t meant to be funny, but almost all of it is true. But some of it is world class funny.
This is my favorite:
“Liberals love America like O.J. loved Nicole.”
I love that. It is so true.
I am hated on here because I say a lot of things that are true. Liberals don’t like to hear that Obama just folded one of his greatest stances and he did it purely for the money. It is like the old joke:
Man asked a woman if she will have sex with him for a million bucks. Without giving it a second thought, the woman said: For a million bucks? Yes I will. The man then says, OK. Will you have sex with me for 5 bucks. The woman instantly said: Hell no. What do you think I am? The man said: Oh we have established what you are. We are just negotiating a price. Obama now has a price. And I was wondering why Soros loves him so much.
Humor is always in the eye of the beholder. You thought the 1957-2007 post yesterday was about liberals. It was about America as a whole.
Conservatives have listened to most comedians since Johnny Carson attacking conservatives. If we were as closed minded and as thin skinned as most liberals, non of us would have laughed since 1968.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 20, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this
EXPAT: You missed my point about the use of the hyphenated American monikers. I have nothing against celebrating the culture of you ancestors. Was your dad born in Italy? Then he may claim to be an Apennine-American. It would be un-PC to use the name of a country, he must relate to the geographical location in which from he or his ancestors emigrate, but I digress.
Honor you ancestors, but live in the here and now. American is the word we should use to describe what we are, not some hyphenated b******* of American. Identifying with and normalizing to the current version of American society is what immigrants have done for centuries. The Irish, the Germans, the Italians were all hated when they came over; the Chinese had to build our railways, the poor Africans were traded by their own people into that horrible institution of slavery. An institution the REPUBLICANS put an end to by the way. But they all are better off today living in this great country of ours, yes even the descendents of Africans. We should strive to become a part of the whole, not a piece of it. Unite for a stronger America!
By Truth
June 20, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Gandalf
She’s fuuny in the “you need an open mind” kind of funny. You know, the way we laugh at Robyn Williams, George Carlin and Steve Harvey when they launch into one of their anti-conservative rants. You know, how Johnny Carson staged a personal vendetta against Dan Quaile. But his jokes were very funny. I once saw a Carson show that had Mel Brooks on the show. The Nixon jokes were as funny as anything I have ever seen. And of course this was during the Carter administration.
Comedians understand that liberals will not laugh at anything anti-liberal but conservatives have had to live with it for years so we usually have a much better sense of humor. (Or at least a much thicker skin)
There are a few comedians that go the other way, but they are banned from the mainstream media.
I like Seinfield. Larry David is a screaming liberal and it shows in “Curb Your Enthusiasm” (perfect name for a liberal show) but the old Sienfield Show was pretty balanced.
By Jeez Louise & Criminy too!
June 20, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Does this f#%$&^%$#&(&^ moron have an off switch? What does he call himself? “Truth?” Wouldn’t that be kind of like James Carville calling himself “Pretty,” Jessica Simpson calling herself “Brainy,” Brittney Spears calling herself “Modest” or George W. Bush calling himself “The Pronouncer?”
You want to know why America is divided? Scrotumheads like this “Truth” fellow and finger-pointing WHINERS like Miz Feldhahn (“Ooooo, professers are librul and they’re supposed to be teaching patriotic, one-religion-specific values to my children! Wah wah wah!” No they’re not, Ditz. Professors tend to be smart, and are supposed to teach higher learning, which is why they make the likes of YOU uncomfortable.)
Let’s drop this “Truth” loser and his kind down a deep, deep well and put the lid back on. Then Americans will finally be able to talk to each other with some measure of respect and cooperation needed to solve our problems — WITHOUT BEING INTERRUPTED by Scrotumhead! “STFU, go have your kool-aid and arsenic cookies, so the grown ups who actually care about this country can have a conversation!”
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
Archie,
JokesOn, are you in a pool league??? Won all three of my pool games this week and also $40 off a total a$$ that always causes crap;) Now, I want to meet you and RF.
Yep. Pretty good too.
By Mara
June 20, 2008 2:03 PM | Link to this
“I love that. It is so true”
uh, no it’s not. You believe it’s true, but that doesn’t make it so.
“I am hated on here because I say a lot of things that are true”
uh, no you aren’t. You’re “hated” because you are rude, insulting, apt to misquote and mischaracterize other people’s words, and represent your opinion as fact.
“Conservatives have listened to most comedians since Johnny Carson attacking conservatives”
the difference is that a comedian’s job is to make jokes. Coulter doesn’t even represent herself as a comedian. She refers to herself as a polemicist. If you can’t see a difference between someone who is paid to make fun of something and someone who makes money representing the thoughts of a particular group…well…buy a dictionary.
(BTW, Johnny Carson was an equal-opportunity mocker. He commented on the news. Who ever was in the news was who was getting skewered. Since you are still so p.o.’d at Carter, this one’s for you - “On Jimmy Carter: Carson as Carnac the Magnificent held up the envelope to his head, divined the answer — “Yes and no, pro and con, for and against” — opened the envelope and said, “Describe Jimmy Carter’s position on three major issues.”)
“There are a few comedians that go the other way, but they are banned from the mainstream media”
Yeah, nobody ever gets to see Drew Carey. Nobody’s heard of Dennis Miller. Cheryl Underwood isn’t on Comedy Central. Brad Stine has never been on “Nite at the Improv” and the Right Stuff comedy troup doesn’t get booked in any mainstream venues. Sheesh.
And those are just names this little liberal knows from memory. Had I decided to google “conservative comedians”, I don’t doubt I’d have found more…
maybe the problem isn’t a dearth of conservative comedians, it’s a shortage if funny conservatives comedians.
By screamitbrother
June 20, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
A poster with a semi-clever name appears with nothing to say but line after line of one personal attack after another against the poster called truth. And strangely enough, JokesOn appears as the next poster, being cool, calm and above the fray. Now that’s funny.
Why JokesOn must have an abusive little cowardly dim witted twit of a “bot” that follows him around and automatically knows when he is about to appear. That’s even funnier.
By Archie
June 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Yep. Pretty good too. Is it a 8-ball or is it a 9-ball league? I was in an 8-ball league more than 8 years ago. I don’t like 9-ball but when you see me blogging about my hanging out in bars and the stories I tell about women and their choice of dress, I am out shooting pool primarily 8-ball. It does feel good when you beat a jerk. JokesON, you probably understood a lot of stuff I blogged about women in those bars and you probably understand I never meant my words to apply to all women. Now I understand even more why you defended me. I visited Atlanta about 5 months ago and I didn’t hang out because of parental responsibility but please let these ladies know that most things I blog about may not apply to them and I will point out that I had several ladies on my first pool team. They didn’t win much but the guys on the other teams liked them and I had the most diverse team at the time.
By hillbilly ragger
June 20, 2008 2:16 PM | Link to this
Andrea, just let me take this opportunity for me to express my deep appreciation of your incredible patience.
If I were handed a piece of bomb-throwing claptrap like Shaunti’s composed, I’d have simply typed “That sh!t’s retarded! GFY!” in response.
But I guess that’s why they pay ya the big bux…
Mara @ 11:24, I’ve been wondering the same thing about this stupid “Bitter-gate,” which has really turned into more of a right wing dogwhistle than a serious club to use against us. Why is what Obama said even remotely offensive to anyone? What is wrong about pointing out that people do cling to stuff that they find comforting when they’ve been treated like crap? What’s wrong with identifying those sources of comfort?
More to the point, what evidence is there that actual Americans who’d have even a slight inclination to vote for Obama, would take serious offense to those comments?
By Truth
June 20, 2008 2:21 PM | Link to this
screamitbrother
I think you are way out of line, Pal. JokesOn is a good guy. We have our differences, but he has ALWAYS been very fair to me. And his honesty is beyond reproach.
No. You are very wrong. JokesOn would never pretend to be someone that would be so abusive. After all, he likes watching children on the internet. He has talked about it dozens of times. How bad could he be if he likes watching children.
Now pardon me. I need to go and care for a crippled kitten, and maybe a butterfly.
By Dana Carvey
June 20, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this
I totally skewer Al Gore in my latest HBO special for at least six minutes, and believe me, I throw in oodles of sexist humor about Hillary while wink wink nudge nudge understanding why Bill strays. I did a brief snicker at they way Bush’s eyebrows go up when he actually gets a sentence out right, and a good har-dee-har about Cheney blasting buckshot all over an elderly lawyer and getting respected for it instead of chastized. All in all, I’d say money has made me favor the Republicans and give them special treatment. Like Dennis Miller. Like Tim Russert. I’m going to miss that guy.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
By Mara
“I love that. It is so true”
uh, no it’s not. You believe it’s true, but that doesn’t make it so.
It’s not to you, but I see it everyday. OJ loved Nicole and it cost her her life. I see a very strong parallel.
uh, no you aren’t. You’re “hated” because you are rude, insulting, apt to misquote and mischaracterize other people’s words, and represent your opinion as fact.
That would be the exact same way you address myself and other conservatives. So does USinUK, Copyleft, JustaJew and of course the big joke. I am responding in kind. We could take any week and break down the posts and you would clearly (well anyone with an open mind) see that I answer civility in kind and I answer rudeness in kind. You and others just don’t like to be treated like you treat everyone else. Hell, the big joke even tries to hide under other names so he can be like the rest of you guys, but at least he realizes that he should be ashamed of what he does.
the difference is that a comedian’s job is to make jokes. Coulter doesn’t even represent herself as a comedian. She refers to herself as a polemicist. If you can’t see a difference between someone who is paid to make fun of something and someone who makes money representing the thoughts of a particular group…well…buy a dictionary.
Do you get out much? Have you seen any of the Film Makers Michael Moore’s films. It is one laugh after the next. People use laughter to prove their points. You may want to demand that Coulter isn’t a comedian and because of that, she isn’t allowed to be funny, but I disagree. I think it is funny that you think that way.
(BTW, Johnny Carson was an equal-opportunity mocker. He commented on the news. Who ever was in the news was who was getting skewered.
Not true. He did occasionally tell a joke about Carter, but they were so sad that few people laughed. Nixon, Reagan and Quaile were his favorite targets.
Since you are still so p.o.’d at Carter, this one’s for you - “On Jimmy Carter:
Carter? When have I ever been PO’ed at Carter? He knows me by name. I’ve worked with him several times, including traveling to Mexico for a job with habitat. I have spent the weekend in his and Rosalyn’s B&B in plains. Carter is one of the few democratic leaders that I like and respect. I said that Carson made fun of Nixon during the Carter administration because I was pointing out how far back Carson was reaching to find a republican to make fun of. If you spent half the time that you spend looking for things to attack me about, reading what I actually write, you might find that I am actually pretty fair.
Carson as Carnac the Magnificent held up the envelope to his head, divined the answer — “Yes and no, pro and con, for and against” — opened the envelope and said, “Describe Jimmy Carter’s position on three major issues.”)
Funny Stuff. Not exactly like the 8 minute diatribe against Dan Quaile that dominated the monologue on his final show, but funny stuff. (The diatribe was actually pretty sad. Most TV critics even pointed it out)
Yeah, nobody ever gets to see Drew Carey.
Nobody gets to see Carry making anti-liberal jokes. He is fine as long as he doesn’t attack liberals.
Nobody’s heard of Dennis Miller.
Not since he became a Republican. When he was on SNL, he was a rabid liberal.
Cheryl Underwood isn’t on Comedy Central. Brad Stine has never been on “Nite at the Improv” and the Right Stuff comedy troup doesn’t get booked in any mainstream venues. Sheesh.
Never heard of them.
And those are just names this little liberal knows from memory. Had I decided to google “conservative comedians”, I don’t doubt I’d have found more…
You should. And then I should google liberal comedians. Who do you think would find more? Who do you think would find many, many more that are allowed on the mainstream?
maybe the problem isn’t a dearth of conservative comedians, it’s a shortage if funny conservatives comedians.
We will never know. They usually aren’t allowed on TV.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 2:51 PM | Link to this
A poster with a semi-clever name appears with nothing to say but line after line of one personal attack after another against the poster called truth. And strangely enough, JokesOn appears as the next poster, being cool, calm and above the fray. Now that’s funny.
Why JokesOn must have an abusive little cowardly dim witted twit of a “bot” that follows him around and automatically knows when he is about to appear. That’s even funnier.
I actually and cool and calm, but I like to call out THE TRUTH since conversation is impossible with him. And for the rest of your comments: as my niece says, Whaaaat-evvvvvver.
I respect those who respect themselves. And people posting under bs names obviously are ashamed (as they should be). That includes the one liners from the various lurkers - even though I agree with their ribbing;)
Archie,
Now I understand even more why you defended me.
More that that, although I do believe we would see eye to eye, is that it is quite obvious who here means well but occasionally mis-speaks when trying to convey a subtle point in a hostile area of the subject.
My league shoots 8-ball BCA rules, which I really enjoy. And yes, the things you witness in a pool hall are trends worth speaking about, even if they are not the “norm” (if a norm exists).
By screamitbrother
June 20, 2008 3:00 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
He took up for you. Guess that kind of character isn’t in you.
What a stupid little twit.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
screamitbrother
Pal, you are out of line. Even though all these new posters have appeared since JokesOn has shown up and they all have the same diction and sentence structure, not to mention the exact same political stance and all have a unified attack against me, JOKESON SAYS IT ISN’T HIM AND WE SHOULD BELIEVE HIM.
I do and I’m sure everyone her does.
Just back off.
By Adam
June 20, 2008 3:11 PM | Link to this
as in ribless ribber, get it? hahahahaha
this is sticking up for someone? More delusions it seems.
JokesOn would never pretend to be someone that would be so abusive. After all, he likes watching children on the internet. He has talked about it dozens of times. How bad could he be if he likes watching children
this from someone who equates all porn with child porn.
kinda like blaming GM for auto-accidents.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 3:14 PM | Link to this
He took up for you. Guess that kind of character isn’t in you.
What a stupid little twit.
Maybe after his 3:05 post you will realize what I knew: Sarcasm. It is THE TRUTHs favorite way to be condescending.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 3:22 PM | Link to this
That would be the exact same way you address myself and other conservatives. So does USinUK, Copyleft, JustaJew and of course the big joke. I am responding in kind
I’m such a meanie. grrrrrrr …
By Truth
June 20, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Mara
I’m sure you are going to run away because of the lack of tact in my last post to you. In the beginning of your post, you staged a personal attack against me. For that, there was the same kind of lack of civility in the return post.
THAT IS HOW IT WORKS. I have answered you taking a lot of care in being very tactful in the past because you didn’t attack me. Of course you don’t answer those posts.
If you and others really want this blog to become civil where people can actually exchange ideas, try being civil to people who disagree with you. RF was civil to me and we had a great conversation earlier in the week. USinUK and I used to have great conversations.
But DO NOT expect civility after you go out of your way to launch a personal attack. That is the way life works. I know you don’t like it, but it is the way it works.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
Adam
Who mentioned Porn?
By Truth
June 20, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
JokesOn
Just trying to help.
Sounds like you may be a little paranoid. Is everybody really against you?
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 3:33 PM | Link to this
Truth -
your idea of civility is to accuse people of supporting child pornography, of conflating liberalism with the shia sect of the muslim religion, of saying that liberals have caused religious people to go into hiding
nobody here hates you, but, man, your condescension and sanctimony can be a pain in the patoot
you want to calmly discuss ideas, then great. put the hyperbole down and nobody gets hurt.
By Archie
June 20, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
My league shoots 8-ball BCA rules, which I really enjoy. And yes, the things you witness in a pool hall are trends worth speaking about, even if they are not the “norm” (if a norm exists). I am thinking about going out tonight. I am older than most of the people that hang out so I can observe certain things. 8-ball is a strategy game as well as a skill game as you know but I am tickled that we have that in common. I am trying to get you,JokesOn to vote for Obama. As for experience he’s going to have an experienced general and a good secretary of defense so as the old saying goes “no man’s an island”.
By Mara
June 20, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
personal attack?!! What personal attack?
Is saying that your opinion that something is true doesn’t make it true feel like a “personal attack”?
Is listing the reasons people don’t like you an “attack”, especially when it’s a correction of what you cite as a fact (i.e. - I am hated on here because I say a lot of things that are true)?
Hmmph. I can’t think of any topic where you weren’t the one to start the insults and name calling.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I don’t think you are a meanie, but you have very thin skin. And if you cannot prove me wrong, you get pretty insulting, which I return. Because of that, we don’t have civil discussions anymore.
You know how abusive the big joke has been while hiding behind other names, but he is your big buddy because he agrees with your politics. it doesn’t matter what he does, how unfair he is or how many unwarranted attacks he stages, nothing matters but the fact that he agrees with your politics.
I had a lot of respect for you and your opinions before you started doing that. I really used to look forward to talking to you, but you lay down with rats and you will soon be infested with fleas. The big joke is a coward and an idiot. You chose your side. And it certainly wasn’t the side of civility.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 20, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
No one will be able to afford pool if Nobama is elected. No one will be able to afford gas if Nobama is elected. No one will be able to afford food if Nobama is elected.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 3:48 PM | Link to this
Truth -
And if you cannot prove me wrong, you get pretty insulting, which I return. Because of that, we don’t have civil discussions anymore.
please. show me one insult. show me one personal attack. show me one time I’ve called you a name.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
USinUk
You said it. I accuse people. Did I accuse you? Do you understand what a personal attack even is? If you want to see a personal attack, read anything the big joke has written toward me in the last 6 months.
Yes, anyone who claims that “Yes occasionally some 17 year old might be involved in pornography” is like me saying that just because I had sex with a 17 year old, why am I going to jail?
the big joke is an abusive idiot, That’s not name calling. That’s a fact. He has brought more discourse to this forum than I ever could. Don’t believe me? Go back two weeks when I ignored him all week. Look at the dozens of personal attacks even though I wasn’t even answering.
Have you ever said one damned word to him about the constant string of attacks that he obviously can’t live without posting. EVEN ONE SINGLE WORD?
Don’t preach at me about anything I have said until you are ready to preach to the most abusive poster on the blog that just happens to believe in your brand of politics.
By Adam
June 20, 2008 3:56 PM | Link to this
Adam Who mentioned Porn?
Thank you. By playing ignorant about what YOU had posted, you have supported and verified what people here are saying.
Thank you.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 3:58 PM | Link to this
Sounds like you may be a little paranoid. Is everybody really against you?
Pro-jec-tion;)
Regarding the comments:
I can’t think of any topic where you weren’t the one to start the insults and name calling.
I’m sure you are going to run away because of the lack of tact in my last post to you. In the beginning of your post, you staged a personal attack against me.
You know what everyone? I do not agree with the notion of treating others how you are treated. A adult should (as hard as it is with THE TRUTH) have integrity in acting how the want to be perceived no matter what insults get thrown their way. So, in that light, I am going to stop any name calling even if some of those around are unable to do so also.
I know THE TRUTH will think I am also the posters ridiculing him under various names, but that cannot be helped.
Archie,
I am voting for Obama. I was simply looking at McCain seriously for what seemed like 2 months of him distancing himself from Bush. That was a tactic to get a few of us over and he has fell right into party lines after that brief period.
People can say what they wish, but I do look at everyone as an individual - it is just that sooo many people want others to label them and put them in a box. After they prove that, who am I to try to explain that they are more than a label?
By Adam
June 20, 2008 3:59 PM | Link to this
Adam Who mentioned Porn
Thank you. By playing the ignoramus about what you yourself had posted(and we know what you meant), you verify and support exactly what is being said about you currently.
Thank You.!
By Truth
June 20, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this
Mara:
Hmmph. I can’t think of any topic where you weren’t the one to start the insults and name calling.
You don’t remember an hour ago?
You’re “hated” because you are rude, insulting, apt to misquote and mischaracterize other people’s words, and represent your opinion as fact.
Now what did I say about you personally that was an insult that spurrec that respones? Not what I said about liberals, but about you personally, because there is no doubt about who you are addressing when you are saying what you said.
You never remember any conversation that I didn’t start being rude just like you didn’t see what you did as a personal attack, even though you were attacking me personally.
The standards for you are the same as for me. You are no better than I am. If I am not addressing you personally, you have no reason to attack me personally.
If you take the things I or anyone else says about members of your political party as being personal, you don’t have the temprement to be on a political blog.
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 4:05 PM | Link to this
Truth -
I accuse people. Did I accuse you? Do you understand what a personal attack even is? If you want to see a personal attack, read anything the big joke has written toward me in the last 6 months
I stay out of the fray between posters here on the board - you and Jokesy or Copy want to go after each other? then that’s between you guys.
However, when you say things like try being civil to people who disagree with you to Mara, it does sound a little like the pot. solly cholly, but that’s the way I see it.
I have never been rude to you or made a personal attack on you - nor have you on me. That’s the way I’d like for it to stay. We can argue like les chats et les chiens (and usually do) - but I attack your arguments and your logic, not YOU.
And, yes, 2 weeks ago in the Great Porn Bust-Up (no pun intended), you did accuse Jokesy of being pro kiddie porn when all of us said REPEATEDLY that our discussion was strictly about legal pornography (no kids, no pets). You decided to mischaracterize what we were saying - YOU did. So stop projecting.
So, I stand by my earlier post: your idea of civility is to accuse people of supporting child pornography, of conflating liberalism with the shia sect of the muslim religion, of saying that liberals have caused religious people to go into hiding
nobody here hates you, but, man, your condescension and sanctimony can be a pain in the patoot
you want to calmly discuss ideas, then great. put the hyperbole down and nobody gets hurt.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 4:14 PM | Link to this
USinUK
Look at what is happening right now. No two or three people can carry on a conversation with him going f*cking crazy. Post after post after post that is nothing but a long string of the most insulting string of personal attacks and everyone here sees it, but I am the villain.
We can be having a good day of just simple discussions, and he shows up with his troop of tag along sigs and you have what we are seeing right now. No one is answering what he is saying but literally dozens of posts, directed at me while you and the other self-righteous ones set and hold me in judgment.
I would respect what any of you said about me if you weren’t so damned blind at your own kind. It would be easy to just be mean. I would just need to sign on as a liberal and you clowns would back up whatever I said to anybody, as long asd they didn’t think like you.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 4:20 PM | Link to this
Do you understand what a personal attack even is?
You’re “hated” because you are rude, insulting, apt to misquote and mischaracterize other people’s words, and represent your opinion as fact.
Now what did I say about you personally that was an insult that spurrec that respones?
Maybe she simply believes that to be the truth, not an attack.
Before you call the kettle anyting…the big joke is an abusive idiot, That’s not name calling. That’s a fact.
So, no matter your ignorance to how condescending and abusive you are (is that a personal attack? I am going to need a handbook for your squirreliness); I am no longer going to expect you to be able to tell the difference.
That by no means states that I will not address your incredible posts and generalizations.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
Look at what is happening right now. No two or three people can carry on a conversation with him going fcking crazy. Post after post after post that is nothing but a long string of the most insulting string of personal attacks and everyone here sees it, but I am the villain.*
Simply not true. Sigh….
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 4:30 PM | Link to this
“No two or three people can carry on a conversation with him going fcking crazy. Post after post after post that is nothing but a long string of the most insulting string of personal attacks and everyone here sees it, but I am the villain”*
this is going effing crazy: (???)
I actually and cool and calm, but I like to call out THE TRUTH since conversation is impossible with him. And for the rest of your comments: as my niece says, Whaaaat-evvvvvver.
and this: (???)
You know what everyone? I do not agree with the notion of treating others how you are treated. A adult should (as hard as it is with THE TRUTH) have integrity in acting how the want to be perceived no matter what insults get thrown their way. So, in that light, I am going to stop any name calling even if some of those around are unable to do so also.
man. I wish the drunk people on the Tube would go that kind of crazy. it’d be a much nicer world.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 4:31 PM | Link to this
By USinUK
I stay out of the fray between posters here on the board - you and Jokesy or Copy want to go after each other? then that’s between you guys.
I call BS on that. You are defending the idiot right now, so don’t say you are staying out of the fray.
However, when you say things like try being civil to people who disagree with you to Mara, it does sound a little like the pot. solly cholly, but that’s the way I see it.
If I say bad things about liberals on a political forum, you think it is personal. I don’t. If what In say doesn’t apply to you, ignore it. Do you even know that I am not even a Christian? But I take the side of Christians because I don’t like how they are treated.
I have never been rude to you or made a personal attack on you - nor have you on me. That’s the way I’d like for it to stay. We can argue like les chats et les chiens (and usually do) - but I attack your arguments and your logic, not YOU.
I’d like it to stay that way too, but if you continue to take the side off an idiot, don’t expect the respect for your opinion,
And, yes, 2 weeks ago in the Great Porn Bust-Up (no pun intended), you did accuse Jokesy of being pro kiddie porn when all of us said REPEATEDLY that our discussion was strictly about legal pornography (no kids, no pets). You decided to mischaracterize what we were saying - YOU did. So stop projecting.
The question is why was it a great bust up?
If you go back and read my posts, I spent a lot of time explaining how porn shot in illegal states is sold as legal porn. Those videos have underage children in them, and that is according to every police pornography enforcement website you will visit. That was the only point I was trying to make. The screaming idiot would not allow civil discourse so getting that simple idea across to you was obviously impossible. You still didn’t know what the hell I was saying.
So, I stand by my earlier post: your idea of civility is to accuse people of supporting child pornography, of conflating liberalism with the shia sect of the muslim religion, of saying that liberals have caused religious people to go into hiding
nobody here hates you, but, man, your condescension and sanctimony can be a pain in the patoot
And so can yours and everyone else’s here. The problem is the problem we are having right now, at this very moment. You are a great person to discuss issues with until you start considering the side of the big joke. Did you even understand what I was trying to say about the porn industry or do you disagree with every law enforcement officer in the country?
When I first got here, I tried to talk about how religion played a part in ancient governments. Who in hell could disagree with that? But because of the screaming idiot, I was NEVER able to get that idea across and I would guarantee that you STILL don’t know what I was saying.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
Even now you are out of control.
Chill out.
If you go back and read my posts, I spent a lot of time explaining how porn shot in illegal states is sold as legal porn. Those videos have underage children in them, and that is according to every police pornography enforcement website you will visit.
Yet you could not provide a single link backing up what you stated. It was a fine conversation until you did in fact state liberals advocated kiddie-porn.
You used the word “liberals” to address us specifically yet want us to believe that at other times when you name call “liberals” it does not apply to us?
You double talk constantly and knowingly misrepresent what we post. I seriously do not think you can see that.
And god forbid any of us use the same tactics you have applied so liberally on this blog!
By USinUK
June 20, 2008 4:54 PM | Link to this
Truth -
You are defending the idiot right now, so don’t say you are staying out of the fray.
well when you say things that are blatantly untrue (such as the effing crazy comment above) I step in to correct the statement. It’s not in defense of anyone - it’s to correct a misstatement.
If I say bad things about liberals on a political forum, you think it is personal.
fercryingoutloud. Personal is saying someone supports kiddie porn and saying that all they want to do is look at kids on the internet. Personal is name-calling (such as “screaming idiot”). You have a problem with liberals - we all get that - but you take it WAAYYY beyond the political/socialogical sphere and you attack the people on this board.
Those videos have underage children in them, and that is according to every police pornography enforcement website you will visit <<>> Truth - ALL porn with kids in it is illegal, regardless of what state or, indeed, country it’s shot in.
As for why it was a bust-up - that was because you accused us all (but primarily Jokesy) of supporing child porn.
By Jeez Louise & Criminy too!
June 20, 2008 4:58 PM | Link to this
nobody here hates you, but, man, your condescension and sanctimony can be a pain in the patoot
I do. I hate him. So what? He’s what’s wrong with America. There it is: the elephant in the room. I can point to it if I want to. I love my country, and he’s what’s wrong with it. Deal.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 4:59 PM | Link to this
When I first got here, I tried to talk about how religion played a part in ancient governments. Who in hell could disagree with that? But because of the screaming idiot, I was NEVER able to get that idea across and I would guarantee that you STILL don’t know what I was saying.
I agreed with you that it did in the PAST, but then you went on to say that it should in the present. The same argument of government sponsored religion that you made this week. That is when everyone argued against you.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
USinUk
I really mean it when I say to have a good week next week. I’ll be in Virginia.
By JokesOn
June 20, 2008 5:06 PM | Link to this
Honestly, I did not refer to you as anything else but “truth” until I got sick of your name calling. BigJoke this and dimwitted that….and not just to me. I can take it, and laugh at the childish nature of these things (including my own contribution to it, fyi). But, as soon as anyone confronts you directly, you call them halfwit or such and when they reply in kind, you state they cannot post without name calling.
Facts are facts. We can own up to ours, but can you do the same?
Either way… No name calling from me; if for no other reason than personal integrity.
By Truth
June 20, 2008 5:26 PM | Link to this
USinUK
I never accused anyone of supporting child porn except the person who was saying that the porn industry never exploits women or children. Did you say that? No you didn’t. I know what you said. Does it even matter what I said? You are going to believe what you want to believe and that is why I really couldn’t care less what you think about me.
Good luck with the big joke. You guys seem to have a lot in common. (snicker)
By William L. Fell
June 22, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
When are the republicans going to admit they know why so many more academics are left? It’s because the profs are mentally brighter and can see the better way to form a good society. The right is made up of a small number of smart people who know how to push the buttons of their slow witted dupes and gain the power to enrich the rich and widen the wealth gap. That’s what it’s all about folks.
By USinUK
June 23, 2008 8:18 AM | Link to this
Truth -
I really mean it when I say to have a good week next week. I’ll be in Virginia.
on the off-chance you check in, see if the band Carbon Leaf is playing anywhere near your location - great local group!
By lovelyliz
June 23, 2008 8:34 AM | Link to this
What’s behind the liberal - conservative ideological divide in America?
Could it be that Democrats don’t look at a person who works hard but is struggling financially and blames it on said person not being blessed by God? Now, the Democrats love $$$ as much as the next person, but that isn’t their ultimate standard of a person’s success/worth.
By Truth
June 23, 2008 9:45 AM | Link to this
USinUk
I’m driving out at noon. I will be in the Southwest part of the state, down in the coal mining towns. Probably not going to be eating Sushi, but some really good brown beans and cornbread. The area is known for it’s apple orchards, country ham and home-made corn liquor. (When in Rome … )
Looks like this is going to be a lively week here. I didn’t realize that we blamed poor people for not being blessed by God. LOL!! See? If you would just vote Republican, you could be rich, like all those people living in mobile home parks that now vote Republican.
Sad news about old George Carlin. As soon as I woke to the alarm clock, they were telling he had died. Before they even mentioned it, I said the 7 words you can never say on television. I bought his and Bill Cosby’s albums. I think I still have most of them.
Have a good week. I am looking forward to getting out from behind the editors and breathing some fresh air.
By USinUK
June 23, 2008 9:59 AM | Link to this
Truth -
Carbon Leaf is a UVA band (I think) - I know you’re there on a ghost shoot, but if you have an evening free, see if they’re around (they do a mean accoustic cover of Ozzy’s Crazy Train - on the mandolin, no less). Cool band - hint of bluegrass, but only a hint.
Enjoy the good eats - corn bread is proof of a kind and loving god, if you ask me.
Safe travels. Watch out for the ghosties.
By Archie
June 23, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
I am voting for Obama. I was simply looking at McCain seriously for what seemed like 2 months of him distancing himself from Bush. That was a tactic to get a few of us over and he has fell right into party lines after that brief period. Alright JokesON, If you played 8-ball this weekend I hope you did well. I didn’t play this weekend,I just kinda hungout and watched the female bar fights. It was incredible the amount of trouble females got into this past weekend and in protecting them the men started fighting as well.
As for the topic it’s all about the money and I sorta agree with the poster named William Fell. If there were a way to stop people from earning any money from these silly books attacking liberals or conservatives I guarantee you people would look at the facts closer and I believe we would have universal healthcare with a single payer and I believe the war would end and I believe college tuition would be cheaper. Basically you would have liberal people recommending marriage because once you take money out of politics you’re left with proposing common sense solutions and people don’t dig in to protect their precious politicians who manipulate them so easily.
By Victoria Eiland
June 23, 2008 10:16 AM | Link to this
“Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”
—Francois Guisot (1787-1874), later cribbed by (and mistakenly attributed to) Winston Churchill
Andrea won this argument. After all, the comments shows here illustrate her point that we all contribute to the problem.
By USinUK
June 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Re: George Carlin - While the 7 Deadly Words routine is funny, the thing that still gets me into a kink is Baseball vs. Football:
Baseball is a nineteenth-century pastoral game. Football is a twentieth-century technological struggle.
Baseball is played on a diamond, in a park.The baseball park! Football is played on a gridiron, in a stadium, sometimes called Soldier Field or War Memorial Stadium.
Baseball begins in the spring, the season of new life. Football begins in the fall, when everything’s dying.
In football you wear a helmet. In baseball you wear a cap.
Football is concerned with downs - what down is it? Baseball is concerned with ups - who’s up?
In football you receive a penalty. In baseball you make an error.
In football the specialist comes in to kick. In baseball the specialist comes in to relieve somebody.
Football has hitting, clipping, spearing, piling on, personal fouls, late hitting and unnecessary roughness. Baseball has the sacrifice.
Football is played in any kind of weather: rain, snow, sleet, hail, fog… In baseball, if it rains, we don’t go out to play.
Baseball has the seventh inning stretch. Football has the two minute warning.
Baseball has no time limit: we don’t know when it’s gonna end - might have extra innings. Football is rigidly timed, and it will end even if we’ve got to go to sudden death.
In baseball, during the game, in the stands, there’s kind of a picnic feeling; emotions may run high or low, but there’s not too much unpleasantness. In football, during the game in the stands, you can be sure that at least twenty-seven times you’re capable of taking the life of a fellow human being.
And finally, the objectives of the two games are completely different:
In football the object is for the quarterback, also known as the field general, to be on target with his aerial assault, riddling the defense by hitting his receivers with deadly accuracy in spite of the blitz, even if he has to use shotgun. With short bullet passes and long bombs, he marches his troops into enemy territory, balancing this aerial assault with a sustained ground attack that punches holes in the forward wall of the enemy’s defensive line.
In baseball the object is to go home! And to be safe! - I hope I’ll be safe at home!
RIP George!! you will be missed
By JokesOn
June 23, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
Archie,
Alright JokesON, If you played 8-ball this weekend I hope you did well.
Had some goods shots, closing with a long green kick-back on the eight in corner pocket that was on the rail right past the side pocket;)
Did not plan to drink much but the guys I was playing kept wanting to shoot for drinks and I won a lot. Was hurting saturday morn…
By me
June 23, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
amen
By Truth
June 23, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
USinUk
UVA. I think we are interviewing a prof at UVA. But I think he is going to drive down to meet us and do the interview at the Inn. I will ask him about them.
I am a great fan of good bluegrass. Bluesy-Bach. All the intricate cradenzas of Bach, but with a dominate seventh blues feel. And the really good stuff is from the 30s and 40s. My great grandmother played hammer claw and my cousin is a studio banjo player. When Maw-maw was still alive, our family reunions rocked. I know people will call me a hick, but I am a pretty decent jazz piano player, but I can’t touch good bluegrass. As Maw-maw used to say: it’s music that people learn to play who have too much time on their hands.
This is real country corn bread. I was raised about 50 miles from the old Inn. Not too sweet like yankee corn cake, but just right. And add some sweet relish and poor good soup beans over it, wow, I am hungry already.
Ghosties. The whole damned area is haunted. The mountains up there are the oldest on earth. They used to be taller than the Rockies.
Should be good and scary. I plan on getting up as early as I can to get the “mist in the hollars. The location scout sent me a bunch of pictures and the area is very green and lush right now. Should be fun and cooler than Atlanta has been. it is averaging about 80 up there.
Damn, I need to get going. Ya’ll take it easy on us evil Republicans this week.
By Truth
June 23, 2008 11:07 AM | Link to this
UsinUK
Great routine.
I could hear his crazy inflections as I read that. I had forgot about that. I heard the Andy Griffith football piece the other day on XM Comedy. They also played his Romeo and Juliet.
I found a DVD set of the old, old tonight shows, some with Jack Parr. Carlin is on there several times. He is always dressed in a suit and tie and he is skinny as a rail.
By lovelyliz
June 23, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
COntemporary Conservatives are better at hiding their pecadillos than are the liberals.
By USinUK
June 23, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
COntemporary Conservatives are better at hiding their pecadillos than are the liberals.
I’m not sure Larry Craig, David Vitter or Newt Gingrich would necessarily agree with that.
By ShortJoke
June 23, 2008 2:54 PM | Link to this
I’m not sure Larry Craig, (…) would necessarily agree with that
Why did Eliot Spitzer recently have to resign? He was caught with a WOMAN.
hahahahahaha
By RF
June 23, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
once you take money out of politics you’re left with proposing common sense solutions and people don’t dig in to protect their precious politicians who manipulate them so easily
Couldn’t have said it better myself!! I also believe that if the name-calling and bashing the other side weren’t so profitable, the intent of having a two-party system could be realized- push and pull until you reach an equitable compromise. Unfortunately, decisions follow money now more than common sense. You can buy a politician faster than you can a Big-Mac these days!
By RF
June 23, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
And these days if you offer a “toy surprise” in airport bathrooms, you can get a politician for a lot less than the D.C. madams charge. Okay, that was lame, but it’s been one of those days when even a lame laugh is better than nothing!
By Mara
June 24, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
if the topic question is “What’s behind the liberal - conservative ideiological divide in America?” then I’d have to answer that the divide exists because liberals and conservatives simply define freedom differently. Liberals are more “live and let live” while conservatives tend toward “live as I live”.
Plus, the way we define each other doesn’t leave much room for meeting in the middle.
as amply demonstrated by the comments above, conservative accept as fact their belief that liberals hate America and everything it stands for. They seem to believe that liberals are all homosexual atheists, too lazy to work and interested only in forcing decent, hard-working conservative to pay for them to lay around smoking dope and corrupting children.
Liberals, (well, this liberal anyway) believes that the stereotypical conservative doesn’t respect the Constitution, is hostile to a free society, and wouldn’t actually mind living in a repressive theocracy as long as that religion was Christianity. Conservatives live by the ideals of “I got mine, you get yours” and “every man for himself”. For the most part, they are judgemental, selfish, self-satisfied and arrogant.
but, of course, as a liberal I’m ideologically required to admit that this is just my opinion and not an actual, provable fact. :^)
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 11:42 AM | Link to this
Mara,
I tend to characterize the divide as Liberals being an inclusive group and with that mindset we do get more fringe elements which conservatives hate and use as propaganda. Just look at peta or aclu for examples: I believe both have done wonderful things, but also occasionally reflect some extremist views.
Conservatives are an exclusive group that is accurately characterized by that GWB phrase “you are either with us (believe and adhere to our specific ideals) or against us.”
As long as conservatives have such rigid lines, which are greatly dictated by evangelical beliefs, there will be a divide no matter what the liberal view is.
By Mara
June 24, 2008 12:36 PM | Link to this
Jokes, you may have a point about inclusive/liberal vs. exclusive/conservative. I hate to continue returning over and over to something chuck posted a while ago, but it sort of goes to the core of things. Since I don’t feel like trawling through the archives I’ll paraphrase, but what he said was on the order of “While liberals hope people will choose to do the right thing, conservatives believe in making the “right thing” the only choice.”
As for the ACLU, I think they are one of the most valuable assets for freedom. Though I find the statements of NAMBLA and the KKK to be repugnant and offensive, I understand that in order for me to be assured of my free speech rights, I have to defend their right to speak. As the saying goes, “I don’t agree with what you do/say, but I will defend to the death your right to do/say it.” I don’t think the conservatives understand this mindset, elsewise they’d understand that in order for them to enjoy their freedom of religion, they need to defend other people’s right to their religion.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 24, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this
Conservatives think you should take care of yourself, your family and your friends, Liberals think the goverment should do it.
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this
GTG,
Conservatives think you should take care of yourself, your family and your friends, Liberals think the goverment should do it.
Depends. The conservatives sure like to (try) to pass a lot of legislation to MAKE SURE you are taking care of yourself how they think is best.
By USinUK
June 24, 2008 1:25 PM | Link to this
GtG -
Conservatives think you should take care of yourself, your family and your friends, Liberals think the goverment should do it
no - conservatives think that government should be a safety net to BUSINESSES (airline bailout, bank bailout, etc), but not people … liberals think that government should be a safety net for PEOPLE, but not businesses.
By Mara
June 24, 2008 1:49 PM | Link to this
Conservatives think you should take care of yourself, your family and your friends, Liberals think the goverment should do it
actually that’s a favorite characterization of conservatives, but it’s a caricature. I don’t know any liberal who thinks the government should be taking care of everybody, but I know plenty of people who think that “the government” (which is really just “we the people”) has a wider reach and better resources to help those who are in crisis and/or unable to help themselves. And after all, having 30 million people put $1 each into a fund to help those in need is much more pragmatic than hoping the desparate can fend for themselves. We are, after all, a civilized society not a collection of tribal families competing for resources.
In addition, from your statement it could be extrapolated that the average conservative would have no problem with shoving the mentally ill out of their hospitals and onto the streets, as cruel and dangerous for society as that’d be.
Or with old people starving in their homes because they weren’t smart enough to know that the pensions they were promised would be negotiated away when their erstwhile employer convinces a judge that if they don’t ditch their “liabilities” they won’t be able to make as much money.
as selfish and self-satisfied as I believe “conservatives” to be, I don’t really think that even they would condone such things.
By Mara
June 24, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
USinUK - I’ve always said that “democrats think people should be free and business regulated. republicans believe the opposite.” LOL!!
By USinUK
June 24, 2008 2:10 PM | Link to this
Mara -
TESTIFY!!! ;-)
By Archie
June 24, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this
Conservatives live by the ideals of “I got mine, you get yours” and “every man for himself”. For the most part, they are judgemental, selfish, self-satisfied and arrogant. Yes, that’s true and I have a frat brother and a friend that act as you describe. Years ago I tried to explain to a frat brother that there were things on the job that were unfair, well he went on about Sidney Sheldon and he proceeded to tell me what I should be doing to better myself. Well, the management really lit into him over a mistake he made and that same frat brother ended up telling me that he could now see how things were unfair and he semi-apologized after he found out I was doing something for a career change. My ex-coworker conservative friend is a homophobe. He is a nice guy in that he does not do drugs or behave rudely but he is a homophobe and I am not sure if he likes blacks but since he is black I believe he likes me and a few others including his family well… Mara is correct that liberals don’t believe the government should take of everybody and I like this:the government” (which is really just “we the people”) has a wider reach and better resources to help those who are in crisis and/or unable to help themselves. And after all, having 30 million people put $1 each into a fund to help those in need is much more pragmatic than hoping the desparate can fend for themselves. We are, after all, a civilized society not a collection of tribal families competing for resources I told someone the first part of this statement and the guy said we aren’t the government and at that point I let the conversation die because I was at work and this guy is a good guy but way too loyal to the party line.
By Mara
June 24, 2008 2:34 PM | Link to this
Hey Archie, thanks for the support. Even though we’ve had our differences of opinion, I think you’ve got a good heart. :^)
I told someone the first part of this statement and the guy said we aren’t the government
I wonder what, or who, he believes “the government” is. I think that the so-called ‘military-industrial complex’ has far too much influence in government policy but, after all is said and done, the work of government really is done by Joe-down-the-block, Mary-in-4B, and Todd-the-fast-talker. Civil servants and bureaucrats aren’t pod people looking to suck out human brains! They’re our fellow Americans.
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 2:39 PM | Link to this
I bet this discussion could be tied to the 17+ pregnant girls at the Catholic school. Parents won’t teach them about the realities of pregnancy or birth control and also restrict their school from teaching comprehensive sex ed either (i know it is a private school, but it provides a nice vacuum for proof).
Most liberals would rather not HAVE to teach a completely comprehensive sex ed at school, believing it should be covered at home, but what is the alternative when the consequences are this dire?
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Sorry -
After thinking about it some more I take that back. No matter the circumstances, I think that education of the body’s functions and how to cope with them should be a part of our guaranteed education.
By James
June 24, 2008 3:08 PM | Link to this
It’s very simple:
Ecclesiastes 10:2 “The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left.”
But, if you don’t like that try these top 10 reasons ……..
10) Conservatives believe that individual Americans have a right to defend themselves and their families with guns and that right cannot be taken away by any method short of a Constitutional Amendment, which conservatives would oppose. Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes.
9) Conservatives believe that we should live in a color blind society where every individual is judged on the content of his character and the merits of his actions. On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups.
8) Conservatives are capitalists and believe that entrepreneurs who amass great wealth through their own efforts are good for the country and shouldn’t be punished for being successful. Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs.
7) Conservatives believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child and since we believe that infanticide is wrong, we oppose abortion. Most liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother.
6) Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens. Liberals believe in using law enforcement measures to deal with terrorism, which means that they feel we should allow terrorists to train, plan, and actually attempt to kill Americans before we try to arrest them — as if you can just send the police around to pick up a terrorist mastermind hiding in Iran or the wilds of Pakistan.
5) Conservatives, but not necessarily Republicans (which is unfortunate), believe it’s vitally important to the future of the country to reduce the size of government, keep taxes low, balance the budget, and get this country out of debt. Liberals, and Democrats for that matter, believe in big government, high taxes, and they have never met a new spending program they didn’t like, whether we will have to go into debt to pay for it or not.
4) Conservatives believe that government, by its very nature, tends to be inefficient, incompetent, wasteful, and power hungry. That’s why we believe that the government that governs least, governs best. Liberals think that the solution to every problem is another government program. Even when those new programs create new problems, often worse than the ones that were being fixed in the first place, the solution is always….you guessed it, another government program.
3) Conservatives are patriotic, believe that America is a great nation, and are primarily interested in looking out for the good of the country. That’s why we believe in “American exceptionalism” and “America first.” Liberals are internationalists who are more concerned about what Europeans think of us and staying in the good graces of the corrupt bureaucrats who control the UN than looking out for the best interests of this nation.
2) Conservatives, most of them anyway, believe in God and think that the Constitution has been twisted by liberal judges to illegitimately try to purge Christianity from the public square. We also believe, most of us anyway, that this country has been successful in large part because it is a good, Christian nation and if our country ever turns away from the Lord, it will cease to prosper. Liberals, most of them anyway, are hostile to Christianity. That’s why, whether you’re talking about a school play at Christmas time, a judge putting the Ten Commandments on the wall of his court, or a store employee saying “Merry Christmas” instead of “Happy Holidays,” liberals are dedicated to driving reminders of Christianity from polite society.
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work. Liberals believe in pursuing policies because they’re “nice” and make them feel good. Whether the policies they’re advocating actually work or not is of secondary importance to them.
By Mara
June 24, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
Parents won’t teach them about the realities of pregnancy or birth control and also restrict their school from teaching comprehensive sex ed either.
LOL!! Well, obviously they teach them all they really need to know about sex…that it’s a dirty, shameful, filthy business and a sin. Oh, and that when you get married, your husband will expect you to want to “do it” often and with vigor.
so what’s wrong with that!?
(/snark)
By Facts
June 24, 2008 3:28 PM | Link to this
17+ pregnant girls at the Catholic school.
That is actually a public high school(Gloucester High School) in a primarily Catholic(Irish/Italian/Portuguese) community. A little distinction there.
By Mara
June 24, 2008 3:34 PM | Link to this
good thing James is here to tell us liberals what we think and why we think it.
at least I had the honest to admit that my definitions were influenced by my perceptions and were, after all, strictly my opinion…but then, I guess I wasn’t far off the mark with this one: conservative accept as fact their belief that liberals hate America and everything it stands for
I suppose I should have said that “conservatives accept everything they believe about liberals to be fact…
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 3:39 PM | Link to this
James,
Easy to disagree with your list. We will begin with #1.
1) Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work.
Like abstinence only programs? Or the war on terror? Or “go it alone/with us or against us?” Or a federal ID program? Or filling jails with non-violent offenders?
Your post does not hold water.
As for #2 The framers are pretty clear that america was not based on any religion. Also, look up the definition of democracy and its two requirements.
3See “go it alone” policy and how much it has hurt us directly and indirectly.
4I believe in that description, but it simply is not what the conservative party legislates. Government has grown under conservatives and put questionable people in charge of an already “inefficient” machine.
5Low taxes for the rich would be correct.
Someone else want to address the other 5 or so?
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
That is actually a public high school(Gloucester High School) in a primarily Catholic(Irish/Italian/Portuguese) community. A little distinction there.
Thanks for the info.
By Facts
June 24, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
James’ list is from this website: (big surprise, there, heh?)
http://www.rightwingnews.com/mt331/2007/04/mylatesttownhallcolumn10_d.php
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 3:49 PM | Link to this
Oh, and that when you get married, your husband will expect you to want to “do it” often and with vigor.
As USinUK says “your mileage will vary.” Both sexes that come from this environment are generally pretty non-jubilant in bed.
By James
June 24, 2008 3:52 PM | Link to this
To Jokes On & Mara:
HA ! HA ! LOL !! I knew that would get you going.
Conservatives aren’t perfect but guess what? We are the ones that basically (with a very few exceptions) keep you safe by fighting your wars and policing your streets. We give you the freedom that you so easily tamper with. By that’s o.k. We know it and that’s all that matters to us. You are kept by better men than yourselves.
Liberals are sheep. Conservatives are sheep dogs.
But what about that verse in Eccliastes? Does the Lord know something you don’t ??
By JokesOn
June 24, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
James,
Not really effecting me;)
I thought we were going to actually have a discussion, but name calling and put-downs is what many of you conservatives do best.
Thanks for letting me down. Would like to see more conservatives that could talk and debate but that would make them a liberal I guess.
By Gee
June 24, 2008 4:28 PM | Link to this
Bible in Basic English(Ecclesiastes 10:2) The heart of the wise man goes in the right direction; but the heart of a foolish man in the wrong.
Gee, wonder who even coined the phrases Right and Left?
(it actually has to do with the progressive attitudes of all the free-thinkers/artists gathering on the Left Bank in Paris)
By RF
June 24, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
I just had to read and see how long it would take for another name-caller to appear, and sure enough one came along. I really don’t understand the fearful rant from the right these days and the insistence that putting down the left is both necessary and makes the right look better. It most emphatically doesn’t! It worries me sometimes when I’m around a person who just has to put others down. It hints at insecurities and a general feeling of inadequacy. As a political moderate, I’m worried about the fear the right is trying to invoke and the threat that they perceive from the left. What they forget is that many liberals supported the attack on Iraq and have supported escalating funding of the war. However, what they won’t admit and need to realize is that we’ve been there too long, our resources are spread too thin, and the stated goal of war on terrorism isn’t really accomplishing anything at this point besides pushing us further into debt as a nation.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 8:24 AM | Link to this
Jokes-y …
Someone else want to address the other 5 or so?
I’ll take a stab …
Liberals believe by taking arms away from law abiding citizens, they can prevent criminals, who aren’t going to abide by gun control laws, from using guns in the commission of crimes
no, we believe that making guns harder to get in the first place will make it harder for NON-criminals who commit crimes/have accidents to get guns (kids who use their grandparents arsenals to shoot up schools, kids who accidently shoot their friends, husbands who shoot their wives)
On the other hand, liberals believe that it’s ok to discriminate based on race as long as it primarily benefits minority groups
considering it’s primarily the minority groups (including women) who are discriminated against in the good-old-boys network, I have absolutely no problem with this “discrimination”
as for the conservatives judging people on the content of their character - as long as they went to the same school you did or have the same friends you do, yeah, you’re happy to judge them on the content of their character. otherwise, you don’t want to know.
Liberals are socialists who view successful business owners as people who cheated the system somehow or got lucky. That’s why they don’t respect high achievers and see them as little more than piggy banks for their programs
wow. what a simplistic world you live in. good/bad, left/right. liberals have no problem with successful business owners - in fact, we’d be happy if they’d just pay their fair share, considering most businesses don’t pay ANY taxes due to the use of loopholes. Same goes for rich folks - if they’d just pay their fair share rather than dodge and weave, we’d be happy if we all paid the same rate. As long as they don’t, then, no, I have no problem with them paying a higher rate.
Most liberals, despite what they’ll tell you, believe that abortion ends the life of an innocent child, but they prefer killing the baby to inconveniencing the mother
no, we believe that abortion ends the life of a fetus and that pregnancy and having a child is more than an “inconvenience” - it can be traumatic, life-threatening, expensive, and even dangerous to one’s physical or mental health. Lastly, we believe that women are intelligent and moral enough to make their OWN decisions about their OWN bodies and their OWN lives without others putting their noses in.
Conservatives believe in confronting and defeating enemies of the United States before they can harm American citizens
So, how’s that working out, hmmm??? 17 sailors were killed on the SS Cole in 2000 by a suicide bomber using the exact same technique used on September 11, Bush takes office and ignores terrorism warnings from Clark, Bush gets a memo saying that Bin Laden is an urgent threat and he tells the guy “well, you’ve covered your butt” - yeah, you guys take security sooooooo seriously. And, lest we forget, there HAVE been attacks since 9/11 - you guys seem to love to gloss over the anthrax attacks that happened after. But, I guess that’s because it doesn’t neatly fit into your narrative.
And, lastly, yes, we DO believe that law enforcement is the best way to monitor and prevent terrorist attacks. All we’ve done in Iraq is create a new generation of terrorists. When we bomb and kill innocent people, we plant a seed of hate that will do nothing but bloom and grow for future generations.
I hope you’re proud of your legacy.
By James
June 25, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
To Jokes On, Facts & Gee, et al ……………
1) Boy you guys need to lighten up! Don’t you know the meaning of the word hyperbole? Some of my best friends and relatives are liberals - but they know us conservatives REALLY DO fight their wars and police their streets and they are not afraid to say they appreciate it. You’re still sheep and we’re still the sheepdogs. It takes both to have a herd! Get over it!
Plus, where else do you think I would get those 10 points? From a liberal website?
2) Now to Gee : You can use any “translation” you want but check Ecclesiastes 11:2 in the original Hebrew. And then after you do that - it’s a Biblical JOKE knucklehead. It has nothing to do with being conservative or liberal. Good grief you’re no fun.
3) Next: Regarding the Judeo/Christian founding of this Democratic Republic (it’s not a democracy thankgoodness) I recommend you read “The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States” by Benjamiin F. Morris and “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution” by Kevin R.C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D.
4) Then: Someone out there please review the following exact wording from the U.S. Constitution:
Article I, Section 7:
“If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law …….”.
Do you see anything unusual here ???
5) And finally:
“The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses. The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from St. Matthew and St. Paul. If we don’t have a proper fundamental moral background, we will end up with a totalitarian government, which does not believe in rights for anybody except the State”!President Harry Truman - 1950 “God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever.” Thomas Jefferson - engraved on the Jefferson Memorial. “As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, so they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishes national sins by national calamities.” George Mason (Father of the Bill of Rights) - speaking at the Constitutional Convention
By James
June 25, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
To USinUK:
You sound like you would be fun to debate (as opposed to be emotional) so regarding the abortion issue I would like your thoughts on this:
When I was a young man of 19 I found myself in Vietnam as a Marine grunt. 58,000+ were killed in that war and approximately 17,000 were draftees who didn’t want to be there. I served with many of them.
At that time, the “state” could tell a young man that they (the state) were going to control his body not for just 9 months but for 2 years. Unlike a pregnant woman, they forced you to leave your family, home, wife, girlfriend, job, school, dog and FORCED you to go to a country and a war you did not support where other men would try to KILL or maim you for life. Many returned with physical and emotional scars that can never heal.
Here’s the kicker, the U.S. Supreme Court during that time ruled that the DRAFT was Constitutional. What was their reasoning? They said the drafting of a man in military service was the most serious invasion of his right to privacy that could be done but it was NECESSARY as the “state had the right to exist” in time if war. I submit that telling a woman she has to carry that child to term is the most serious invasion of her right to privacy that can be done BUT it is NECESSARY as “that child has the right to exist”!
Granted, we are not drafting now but it’s just a matter of time until we get into another big one. By the way, the Supreme Court has also ruled that women can’t be drafted. Interesting!
Now you tell me HOW the Supreme Court could draft men to be killed (17,000 drafted men in the V.N. war alone died not to mention WWII and Korea) and turn around at the same time and say women have a right to privacy for their bodies?
1) The men drafted did nothing wrong. The women (and their partner) let “themselves” get pregnant. 2) Shouldn’t the decision to go to war be between just a man and his minister ? 3) Women always say “if men could get pregnant”……well, “if women could be drafted” ……
You can say it’s apples and oranges if you want to but for the apples (the men) it’s much worse because when your dead your dead.
By Mara
June 25, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this
USinUK - And, lastly, yes, we DO believe that law enforcement is the best way to monitor and prevent terrorist attacks
isn’t it interesting that with “mere” law enforcement techniques and working within the existing legal system, Bill Clinton’s administration managed to capture, try, and incarcerate the terrorists responsible forthe 1994 World Trade Center bombing? Using the oh-so-unworkable law enforcement and judicial systems, we took down the mastermind of the plot, his leading henchmen, and destroyed their ability to do any more harm.
For someone who insists that “Conservatives believe in pursuing policies because they’re pragmatic and because they work” you’d think that the conservative’s failure to do anything more than inconvenience Bin Laden and his network of terrorists would lead them to maybe reconsider their contempt for law enforcement.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this
James,
Name calling is for children and I for one am not addressing points made by people that have such limited restraint.
Saying “lighten up” just shows you are already on the path of being able to dish it out and not take it.
Post somewhere else. We have enough tools that only want to cause crap and argue here already.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 9:24 AM | Link to this
The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses
really??? I must have missed the law forcing me to honor my father and mother. Not to mention, how do we codify not envying our neighbor’s (donkey) when that’s the basis for our entire consumer economy?? And, other than the occasional Blue Law, where does it say that we have to keep the Sabbath? And, where in the constitution or any law does prohibit any lord above God and/or ban idols?? And, while there are FCC laws about the 7 deadly words on broadcast TV, there is no LAW against saying GD, GDMF, god or any other “taking my name in vain” iteration.
really, only 4 of the 10 are codified (murder, theft, adultery, libel/slander) - and they’re pretty common among EVERY major government or society for reasons of stability.
as for our legal system - 2 words: Magna Carta. it may not predate the 10 commandments, but it has a whole lot more to do with how we operate than the book of Exodus does.
By lovelyliz
June 25, 2008 9:25 AM | Link to this
Maybe it’s that coservative believe in corporatate welfare and liberals believe in social welfare.
Maybe it’s that conservative want to place all the blame on the individual and no responsibility on the corporartion and the liberals want to blame the corporations for everything.
By lovelyliz
June 25, 2008 9:26 AM | Link to this
Maybe it’s that coservative believe in corporatate welfare and liberals believe in social welfare.
Maybe it’s that conservative want to place all the blame on the individual and no responsibility on the corporartion and the liberals want to blame the corporations for everything.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses. The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from St. Matthew and St. Paul.
Yawn…
Laws are based on a single moral premise of rights. Ten commandments predate moses and can be found in many different texts. Xians just prefer to think that the coincidence was actually a planned parallel; but it is not so.
Over many years our laws have been filtered/distilled through the legal process slowly (what the founders wanted to avoid knee jerk reactions) making them more accurate. That is based on plato’s belief that through conversation and discussion one will reach truth over time.
What people point to as proof of what was “right” is usually just one of the steps involved in a potentially endless process; given technology and new info is always emerging.
To say “this example is absolutely right” shows you are further from truth than ever.
By lovelyliz
June 25, 2008 9:29 AM | Link to this
Liberals wanting to use the government to protect the individual from the corporations and conservative wanting to use the government to protect the corporations from the individual.
By lovelyliz
June 25, 2008 9:32 AM | Link to this
By USinUK
as for our legal system - 2 words: Magna Carta. it may not predate the 10 commandments, but it has a whole lot more to do with how we operate than the book of Exodus does.
Amen!
By James
June 25, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
To Jokes On:
If you can’t debate point by point (and take a joke) then you should change your “handle”. I post where I want inspite of the fact that you guys want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”. By the way ……… If the “Fairness Doctrine” comes back for talk radio will it also include Hollywood movies, television sit-coms, television news and all newspapers across the country? Hummmm ……………….
By lovelyliz
June 25, 2008 9:37 AM | Link to this
Conservatives tend to lay all the responsiblities for actions on the individual while at the same time absolving businesses from any responsibility for what they do.
By James
June 25, 2008 9:39 AM | Link to this
To Jokes On:
“The fundamental basis of this nation’s laws was given to Moses. The basis of our Bill of Rights comes from the teachings we get from St. Matthew and St. Paul.”
Your not debating me ……… your debating Former Liberal Democrat President Harry Truman. It’s his quote !!
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
James -
interesting argument - individual motherhood vs. the State’s right to defend itself.
first of all, in regards to the draft, you conveniently overlooked the fact that you can be a conscientious objector, which many draftees - going back to WWI - invoked. so, while they may still be conscripted, they didn’t have to fight - so, yes, they did have some modicum of control over their situation.
a pregnant woman can’t really decide the degree of pregnancy or what kind of pregnancy she’s going to have
secondly, The women (and their partner) let “themselves” get pregnant.
wow. so birth control NEVER fails??? tell that to the FOUR women I know who got pregnant while taking the pill.
Shouldn’t the decision to go to war be between just a man and his minister
see conscientious objector status above. now, you don’t even have to have a religious reason for claiming CO status.
You can say it’s apples and oranges if you want to but for the apples (the men) it’s much worse because when your dead your dead.
for some women, carrying a pregnancy to term could end in the same result.
By James
June 25, 2008 9:48 AM | Link to this
P.S.
I’m patiently waiting for someone to respond to my:
1) Draft vs. abortion scenario
2) Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 9:49 AM | Link to this
Your not debating me ……… your debating Former Liberal Democrat President Harry Truman. It’s his quote !!
I am not debating. I am informing. What I posted is fact and can hardly be debated. As for liberals vs conservatives: The roles have changed over time. There are many times in history that I would be one and not the other, interchangeably, with no bias. It just happens that I live in a time when conservatives, in general, want to align government and evangelical beliefs.
Joking is not referring to blogers as “You are kept by better men than yourselves” or calling them names.
You would be disqualified in any moderated debate. Be honest, it is for insulting purposes only and we have enough of that here.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
James -
I post where I want inspite of the fact that you guys want to bring back the “Fairness Doctrine”. By the way ……… If the “Fairness Doctrine” comes back for talk radio will it also include Hollywood movies, television sit-coms, television news and all newspapers across the country?
please learn the difference between Hollywood movies and newspapers which do NOT use government-leased airwaves and broadcast TV, which does. after you grasp the difference in that arena, then try learning the difference between NEWS and ENTERTAINMENT.
(reminds me of a certain poster who doesn’t seem to grasp the difference between COMEDIANS and REPORTERS/NEWS ANCHORS)
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 10:06 AM | Link to this
James -
I’m patiently waiting for someone …
learn a little patience, whydoncha
Your not debating me ……… your debating Former Liberal Democrat President Harry Truman. It’s his quote !!
GAH!!!!! YOUR = possive pronoun (your car, hour house)
YOU’RE = contraction of YOU ARE (you are committing the cardinal sin that drives me absolutely bat-$hit crazy)
finally, please learn the difference between debating and refuting.
debate - a discussion of various points of view refute - to prove false or erroneous
we REFUTED Give ‘em Heck Harry’s claim, we’re not debating it.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 10:09 AM | Link to this
Draft vs. abortion scenario
As I see it, one (abortion) has a 1-to-1 ratio regarding rights; fetus and mother. The other (draft) deals with the rights of all americans vs a single persons.
By that simple basis alone I would deem them apples and oranges.
Dealing with the topic of draft individually: Although I hate the idea of a draft, if the whole country was in jeopardy, I would be up for being sacrificed, but the american people HAVE to be well informed and pass such a law otherwise it is a cruel manipulation.
By James
June 25, 2008 10:17 AM | Link to this
To USinUK :
1) Ah, but it’s all liberal propaganda and that’s what makes it fair game !
2) Your “comeback” on the draft/abortion thing was pretty weak. Got you thinking didn’t I? You still didn’t answer how the SCOTUS could rule one way and then the other. By the way, objectors were put into combat as medics and those were VERY dangerous jobs! Bottom line: If the state can control a man’s body for 2 years they can control a woman’s body for 9 months !!!
To Jokes On:
Boy, you sure get your feeling hurt easily. If you are a man, I sure wish I could have had you in my Marine Corps platoon. If you are a woman - I apologize for hurting your feelings.
To Anyone:
How about that Article 1, Section 7 ?????
By James
June 25, 2008 10:23 AM | Link to this
To USinUK: Is “whydoncha” a word? Plus, you forgot to capitalize some of the first words of your sentences. Maybe, “YOU’RE” just typing to fast. Why don’t you take a deap breath and slow down ?
P.S. I’m so glad “YOU’RE” in the UK ! Are you working to become a citizen there? They have no written Bill of Rights but you should be o.k.
By Mara
June 25, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
a-HA! James isn’t so much a “conservative” as he is a Dominionist/Reconstructionist. Now it all makes sense….
what makes his whole argument so deliciously ironic is that George Mason, for all his personal religiosity, was a devout Seperationist, as was Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, Washington, et al.
James Madison, principal author of the constitution -“The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State.” (1819).
“In the course of the opposition to the bill in the House of Delegates, which was warm & strenuous from some of the minority, an experiment was made on the reverence entertained for the name & sanctity of the Saviour, by proposing to insert the words “Jesus Christ” after the words “our lord” in the preamble, the object of which would have been, to imply a restriction of the liberty defined in the Bill, to those professing his religion only. The amendment was discussed, and rejected by a vote of agst.” - James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance
“The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history…It will never be pretended that any persons employed in…[government] service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses….” (John Adams, 1787)
“I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta [Constitution] of our country” - George Washington, 1789.
and speaking of the Constitution…we all know people like James really, really believe that the christian decalogue is the basis of our legal system bu in reality it decended more from the Magna Carta and English common law than any religious base.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 25, 2008 10:25 AM | Link to this
How much did Obama give to that wacked out church of his before last year? How much has Michelle done to help anyone? Look here for the NYTimes article outlining it. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/politics/26taxes.html?ex=1364270400&en=94c02b1ee84232ea&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
Compare this with Mr. McCain http://articles.latimes.com/2008/apr/19/nation/na-mccaintaxes19
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 10:30 AM | Link to this
James -
1) it’s all liberal propaganda and that’s what makes it fair game legally, no it doesn’t. that’s why cable doesn’t fall under the same FCC regulations that broadcast does, for instance.
(and talk about a “weak argument”)
2) as far as the difference between the 2, I think the Supremes answered your question already: conscription applies to issues of national security - motherhood doesn’t
(and SOME COs were medics, many opted to be imprisoned because they thought that any support of the military was wrong, some served the country by working on farms - so, no, not all were in dangerous duty)
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
Boy, you sure get your feeling hurt easily.
Nope. I just have this persistent foolish notion of adults should speak to each other like adults;)
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 10:34 AM | Link to this
James -
Why don’t you take a deap breath and slow down
as opposed to a deep breath???
I’m so glad “YOU’RE” in the UK !
I’ll bet you are - my experience with folks like you is that you hate being challenged - especially when you’re proven incorrect.
Are you working to become a citizen there
nope - I love my US citizenship and don’t ever plan to give it up.
By James
June 25, 2008 10:41 AM | Link to this
To Mara:
Good Grief ….. and where to you think English Common law came from? And by the way, separation of chuch and state meant simply no state sponsored and taxed religion (i.e., as Virginia was doing with the Church of England over the Baptists). It had nothing to do about keeping religion out of government.
Have you checked the preambles to all of the 50 state constitutions lately? Just Google it. I think you will be surprised. Let me know what you think.
Finally, I’m still waiting for Article 1, Section 7 regarding the fact that the President doesn’t consider a bill on “Sunday” …………… well ?
To Jokes On:
I thought this was about “individual rights”. The right of a man (women can’t be drafted - how convenient) not to have to die in a war he doesn’t want to be in ??? What if it was your son ??
By Mara
June 25, 2008 10:53 AM | Link to this
USinUK - I love my US citizenship…
and here I thought you were a “liberal” LOL!!! :^)
btw…Hi, liz!
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 10:55 AM | Link to this
James -
where to you think English Common law came from? And by the way, separation of chuch and state meant simply no state sponsored and taxed religion (i.e., as Virginia was doing with the Church of England over the Baptists). It had nothing to do about keeping religion out of government
ohfercryingoutloud … please go back and reread last week’s very LONG debate with Truth on this issue so we don’t have to rehash it again and again and again … the separation of church and state has EVERYthing to do with keeping religion out of government (AND government out of religion) …
they may be 2 great tastes, but they do NOT taste great together.
Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government
and
The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries
and
Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history
all quotes by James Madison
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 10:57 AM | Link to this
Mara -
and here I thought you were a “liberal” LOL!!! :^)
baaaaaaaahahahaha!! you funny lady!! ;-)
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 11:08 AM | Link to this
James -
The right of a man (women can’t be drafted - how convenient) not to have to die in a war he doesn’t want to be in
and the man has the right not to be drafted anymore - again, conscientious objectors which no longer have to serve at all.
I did a little poking around - the Supremes said that it was fair for women to be excluded from the draft since they are prohibited from serving in combat roles: “since women are excluded from combat service by statute or military policy, men and women are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft, and Congress’ decision to authorize the registration of only men therefore does not violate the Due Process Clause”
and
“the argument for registering women was based on considerations of equity, but Congress was entitled, in the exercise of its constitutional powers, to focus on the question of military need, rather than ‘equity’”
as Arte Johnson would say “verrrrrry interesting”
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 11:09 AM | Link to this
It had nothing to do about keeping religion out of government.
You can say that but you cannot prove it. We have already referred to many writing disproving what you are stating. Sorry for not wanting to go through it again;)
I thought this was about “individual rights”. The right of a man (women can’t be drafted - how convenient) not to have to die in a war he doesn’t want to be in ??? What if it was your son ??
Well, you have tree different points going at once: abortion, female draft and male draft. I addressed your abortion/draft point.
As for male vs female draft. I would think that it falls on the fact that, in general, women are not as strong as men. So, if the purpose is to defend the country at the expense of group rights superseding individual rights it would make sense that the draft performs this way.
Would it be an impasse if my son was drafted? Depends is the best answer I can give since some threats are real and others fabricated. My best solution is we as a people have to keep our finger on the pulse in those areas.
As for your article issue. I do not see the point you are trying to make. Please clarify.
By Mara
June 25, 2008 11:11 AM | Link to this
James - where to you think English Common law came from
actually English Common Law is usually attributed to Queen Martia Proba from a Celtic tribe (probably Gutiline) somewhere around the year 200. Her seat of power was in London, and as regent for her minor son, she was holding the reins of government so wisely as to receive the surname of Proba, the Just. She especially devoted herself to the enactment of just laws for her subjects, the first principles of the common law tracing back to her; the celebrated laws of Alfred, and of Edward the Confessor, being in great degree restorations and compilations from the laws of Martia, which were known as the “Martian Statutes”.
It had nothing to do about keeping religion out of government.
what part of “It will never be pretended that any persons employed in…[government] service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses” did you not understand?
Adams explicitly states that it will be acknowleged that our government was created NOT on belief in Gawd, but by reason and common sense.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this
James,
Thank you for backing off on the slander. Believe me, we have had enough of that and that is what you have perceived as “hurt feelings.”
As for references of god in government: Look up deist and note that it is not a religion. It is more of a philosophical belief. Xian’s are not the only ones that refer to “god.”
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 11:24 AM | Link to this
Jokesy -
As for your article issue. I do not see the point you are trying to make. Please clarify
he’s trying to say that, since Sunday’s aren’t included in the number of days the Prez has to sign a bill into law, that PROVES that this is a judeo-christian country.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this
Mara -
English Common Law is usually attributed to Queen Martia Proba
it actually predates that back to the Roman occupation of Britain back in the first century …
(and, before you even try it, James, they weren’t Christian when they invaded, but were polytheists at the time …)
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 11:34 AM | Link to this
he’s trying to say that, since Sunday’s aren’t included in the number of days the Prez has to sign a bill into law, that PROVES that this is a judeo-christian country.
I was hoping that was not his (weak) point.
Sunday is just a good day for everyone to have off;) You gotta fish on some days;)
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 11:36 AM | Link to this
Mara -
now that I think about it, wergild was applied by the Saxons, involved a trial and testimony as well as reparation … so, really, you could say THAT was the basis of English Common Law.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
Jokesy -
(Sunday is just a good day for everyone to have off;) You gotta fish on some days*
yep. a day off on Sunday. that proves it, alrighty.
By James
June 25, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this
To All:
1) “Much learning doth make thee mad” !
“A people unschooled about the sovereignty of God, the Ten Commandments, and the ethics of Jesus could never have evolved the Bill of Rights, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution”. Florida Supreme Court
2) If you will do your research you will find that nothing (repeat nothing) moved on Sundays back then - talk about “blue laws”! Sunday was the “Christian Day of Rest” and that is exactly why it was included. If you don’t like that - there is a process - have it amended.
3) 17,000 of my comrades died in V.N. alone because the “state” forced control of “their bodies” for 2 years and sent them to a place they did not wish to go to in a war they did not wish to fight in. You can debate, argue, refute until the cows come home but you know in your heart that court decision was wrong as compared to the rights of women to “control” their bodies.
4) By the way: Has anyone checked those 50 preambles ? I’ll just give you the last one in 1959. The rest are even better:
Hawaii 1959, Preamble We , the people of Hawaii, Grateful for Divine Guidance … Establish this Constitution.
5) Hey USinUK: How’s my grammer (oops grammar) ?
6) Finally, I read a great book once (the title escapes me at this time - please let me know if you have read it) regarding a study of the laws of all of the world’s civilizations. Bottom line - unless it desceded from Judeo/Christian prinicples you would not want to live there (ancient or modern). Can you imagine a world without that influence in the arts, law and government? Basically, what you are left with is the Taliban X 10. For example, even Japan and India today are not too bad because their systems are highly influenced by ours and the British as opposed to what they used to have. Right after WWII, McArthur grew impatient with the Japanese effort to write theirs so he had two Army JAG officers write it for them ….. but I digress.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 12:46 PM | Link to this
James -
thanks for the chance for one final post before I head home:
1) citing the Florida Supreme Court as proof that the Bill of Rights, etc, was founded on the 10 C’s and Judeo-Christian law??? just because they say it doesn’t make it so. again - the Magna Carta was the foundation of our legal system - that evolved from the Saxons and the right to trial - all of which predated the birth of Christ.
2) as far as Sunday being the day of rest - you’re absolutely right. but, so what? all that means is that one day isn’t counted in the work calendar, it doesn’t institutionalize religion as a part of government.
3) we don’t have to debate/refute/argue til the cows come home - the Supremes did it for us. one of the State’s primary roles is national defense (one thing liberals and cons can agree on) - which is why the Supremes have decided on more than one occasion that conscription is legal and doesn’t even qualify as slavery. there is NO role or national interest for the State in motherhood (either collectively or singlely), so that is why you can’t use the same arguments.
if you and/or your friends didn’t want to fight, they could declare themselves conscientious objectors. or stay in school. or do what Dick Cheney did and have kids.
either way, there were/are legal ways to maintain control over your own body and avoid the draft.
4) Grateful for Divine Guidance - and what religion IS that, exactly? the founding fathers were deists and talked about the divine and a creator - that doesn’t mean they wanted to establish a State religion or a government endorsement of any religion. they didn’t and said as much repeatedly in their writings.
5) Hey USinUK: How’s my grammer (oops grammar) much better. we have a beautiful language - treat it with the respect it deserves.
6) from Judeo/Christian prinicples you would not want to live there (ancient or modern) oh, really? the Romans and Greeks were pretty sound civilizations for thousands of years without the benefit of Judaism or Christianity - and contributions to the arts (you mean like theater, poetry, song, architecture … those kind of arts that we got from the Greeks) law and government - that came directly from the Greeks and Romans???
(and let’s not forget things like epic poems we received from our norse ancestors … who knew nothing of Christianity of Judaism, either) … and, as I mentioned a little while ago, the concept of trials before a judge, testimony by witnesses and formal reparation were started by the Saxons looooong before Christ - and by folks who didn’t wear a yarmulke.
By Mara
June 25, 2008 1:04 PM | Link to this
USinUK - it actually predates that back to the Roman occupation of Britain back in the first century - now that I think about it, wergild was applied by the Saxons, involved a trial and testimony as well as reparation … so, really, you could say THAT was the basis of English Common Law
well, yes…you could say that and I see where you’re coming from. But isn’t what distinguishes Common Law from Roman civil law is that Roman law operated as a summary process instead of through rights and “due process”?
I’m not as familiar with the Saxon thing, so I’ll defer to you on how well it fits into the discussion. :^)
By James
June 25, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this
To Jokes On, USinUK, et al:
When you look in the mirror tonight do three things :
1) Thank a soldier for the freedom you have and enjoy (especially if you did not feel the call to participate in maintaining it).
2) Thank a police officer who is willing to risk his/her life thereby allowing you and your loved ones to sleep in relative safety.
3) Thank your mother that she did not abort you for any reason (selfish or otherwise) so that you could experience God’s wonderful creation.
See you around ……………………
By Winslo
June 25, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this
Matthew 7:6
And Jesus said, “Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to swine.
By Mara
June 25, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
1) Thank a soldier for the freedom you have and enjoy (especially if you did not feel the call to participate in maintaining it)
okie-dokie. I’m sure my two brothers (Navy and National Guard, respectively) will really enjoy that. And maybe I’ll even go out to the cemetary where rests my grandfather (army), my father (army) and my oldest brother (also army) and put some “thank you” flowers on their graves.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this
By the way: Has anyone checked those 50 preambles
Already did and responded. Now how about you looking up deist and forefathers? Xian’s do not have a monopoly on the word “god.”
1) Thank a soldier for the freedom you have and enjoy (especially if you did not feel the call to participate in maintaining it).
No one has stated disliking or being against soldiers. Only your interpretation of some of our positions covey a position like that.
2) Same answer as above, as well as all blue laws that have been addressed have been repealed so far;)
3) Thank your mother that she did not abort you for any reason (selfish or otherwise) so that you could experience God’s wonderful creation.
Already have done that. The connection you would like to make is a failed one though.
from Judeo/Christian prinicples you would not want to live there
There were a lot of good (and some bad) in many that you do not address. Some facets of the Egyptian’s notion of love and gender equality are still way ahead of ours for example. Divorce could be initiated by any woman throughout roman law - something we still occasionally struggle with. With the help of xians though, that all changed.
See you around ……………………
As they say in “Stand By Me,” not if I see you first;)
By lovelyliz
June 25, 2008 1:59 PM | Link to this
A liberal might lie to you, but the consevatives tend to be hypocrites.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this
wergild basiclly formed a legal construct, complete with judges, in order to take the place of blood feuds and retribution for wrongs.
wergild allowed for a judge, witnesses to a crime (although the witnesses were in a sort of caste system with testimony by higher titled people weighing more than those of lower titles and much higher than those with no title). then, it also designated specific reparations for injury or death - again, the more important the person injured or killed, the larger the wergild that had to be paid.
it’s all pretty interesting, really - those Saxons, for all their raping and pillaging, were actually pretty darned organized and structured.
most important thing to remember: pillage BEFORE you burn.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this
1) Thank a soldier for the freedom you have and enjoy (especially if you did not feel the call to participate in maintaining it).
you mean, like my dad, departed mother, both uncles and good friend who has already done 2 tours in Iraq??? thanks, but I was raised with a healthy respect for the military - I don’t need your prompting to appreciate their sacrifices
2) Thank a police officer who is willing to risk his/her life thereby allowing you and your loved ones to sleep in relative safety.
tell ya what … how about YOU thank a nurse or other health care professional for all the work they do taking care of you, how about you thank a teacher for all the hard work s/he put in preparing you to be a productive member of society (despite the occasional grammical misstep), and how about you thank people in the legal profession for all they do to put the bad guys away and to protect your Constitutional rights???
3) Thank your mother that she did not abort you for any reason (selfish or otherwise) so that you could experience God’s wonderful creation.
considering I was born pre-Roe, she didn’t have much of a choice (not to mention, she didn’t have much access to birth control, for that matter) - her choices were carry to term and put up for adoption or use a coat hanger or go to a back-alley butcher. not particularly attractive choices, are they?? she really didn’t even have the choice to keep me.
so, please. peddle it elsewhere.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
Dontcha just love how they fly in here, condescend, demand to have their points discussed, ignore the facts posted in rebuttal, tell us what we in our “heart of hearts” feel, provide a nice catholic guilt ridden sermon, and then fly out?
Not a care in the world for how/what other people think, and they wonder why we get tired of it all.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 3:13 PM | Link to this
Dontcha just love how they fly in here, condescend, demand to have their points discussed, ignore the facts posted in rebuttal, tell us what we in our “heart of hearts” feel, provide a nice catholic guilt ridden sermon, and then fly out?
I have no problem with people bopping in and taking over the thread - it’s a message board, that’s to be expected. I was beginning to wonder if I was the only person who noticed that James’s points of discussion were batted and destroyed like a pinata … and that he completely ignored all evidence that ran contrary to his “argument” (using the term very loosely).
although the highlight of my afternoon was his “evidence” that government and religion shouldn’t be separate was citing the Florida Supreme Court. I mean, criminey, they weren’t even in the 13 original colonies - we bought FL from Spain in 1819 - a full 40 years after the Declaration of Independence was signed.
and what James doesn’t say is that the Florida Supremes said that back in the Cold War “we’re more godly than Russia” 1950s.
and Give ‘em Heck Harry??? we’re talking a little shy of 200 years since the Declaration … so, while I appreciate his opinion - it’s just that. it doesn’t carry quite the same weight as the writings of the founding fathers.
lastly, people who tell me what I should be grateful for set my teeth on edge. I’m not 5 - I’m a law-abiding, tax-paying, working-for-a-living grownup … so take your sanctimonious BS someplace else.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 3:15 PM | Link to this
USinUK,
Couple things we disagree on is that grammar matters on a blog and English is beautiful language.
I think we will see the English language changing to resemble texting over the next x years and welcome it. There is no reason for the different spelling of there and their and such.
But those are not points worth arguing over.
By Mara
June 25, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
USinUK - he completely ignored all evidence that ran contrary to his “argument”
JokesOn - ignore the facts posted in rebuttal
from my previous posts - “I wasn’t far off the mark with this one: conservative accept as fact their belief that liberals hate America and everything it stands for” & “I suppose I should have said that “conservatives accept everything they believe about liberals to be fact”
Perhaps I should take out all referrances to us liberals and amend it to simply say “conservatives accept everything they believe to be fact”…
outtie guys. Ta.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 3:30 PM | Link to this
I have no problem with people bopping in and taking over the thread - it’s a message board, that’s to be expected.
I do not mind that as much as the never-ending questions, especially when one is beat and three sprout in its place. I would like to see more courtesy in the world and less self-centered behavior. The (psychological) definition of maturing is becoming less self centered. As a baby, we think when we feel bad all of existence feels bad with us.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 3:32 PM | Link to this
Take care Mara.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 25, 2008 3:36 PM | Link to this
Jokes On: your an idiot.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Jokes On: your an idiot.
Great post from a person that could not finish the second or third LOTR novels and jabs from the sidelines!
Notice that your posts have no weight? They do not even get anyone rile up.
Have a great day though! It is very nice out there.
By Winslo
June 25, 2008 3:50 PM | Link to this
Winslo to James:
I repeat:
And Jesus said, “Do not give to dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to swine.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 4:04 PM | Link to this
“Only god knows the heart of a man.”
“Judge not least thee be judged.”
“He who is without sin….”
“Beam in an eye…”
I think you get the point.
By Winslo
June 25, 2008 4:22 PM | Link to this
“For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear.”
By Winslo
June 25, 2008 4:27 PM | Link to this
To Jokes on:
Take it up with the editor. I’m just the newspaper boy.
By USinUK
June 25, 2008 4:56 PM | Link to this
winslo -
Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear
right back at ya (and all the others who like to preach the “liberals are all going to hell in a purple polka-dotted handbasket” sermon)
most importantly - remember that yours isn’t necessarily the only true newspaper, regardless of what your editor tells you.
By JokesOn
June 25, 2008 5:00 PM | Link to this
Take it up with the editor. I’m just the newspaper boy.
I disagree.
You, I and every individual are the intended recipients and it is our job to do the reading and delivery; but not the judging of hearts.
Many a weak man simply stated “I was just following orders.” That gets compounded when those orders are conflicting depending on sect, language, and translation.
Everyone is culpable; except, possibly, The Rebel.
By Winslo
June 26, 2008 8:42 AM | Link to this
“and at the last day, many will say to Me Lord, Lord did we not preach in Your name, and heal in Your name and cast out demons in Your name? And I will say unto them, depart from Me you workers of iniquity for I NEVER (emphasis added) knew you.”
By Lyrazel
June 26, 2008 8:46 AM | Link to this
What’s behind the liberal - conservative ideological divide in America?
Media commentators that insist Americans must be divided into ONLY 2 opposing groups when in actuality American’s share common interests, aspirations, ideology. Its amazing to me how politicians listen to pundits but not constituents—same as it ever was.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 9:03 AM | Link to this
in Your name
Key words there. Not in your name, but in his;)
By Mara
June 26, 2008 9:13 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel - American’s share common interests, aspirations, ideology
good point. Most people I know are a mix of liberal and conservative pov’s. For example, I identify as a social liberal who is fiscally conservative. IOW, I believe in reproductive rights and gay marriage as much as I support a balanced budget and the Fair Tax.
By Gandalf, the Grey
June 26, 2008 9:42 AM | Link to this
Jokes On: Try grammer and spell check next time.
P.S, You’re still an idiot.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 9:56 AM | Link to this
Jokes On: Try grammer and spell check next time.
Of course you mean grammar?
PPS - You and your posts are inconsequential;)
By James
June 26, 2008 10:14 AM | Link to this
I love it when people try to change the arguement by coming back at grammar, or spelling, or punctuation or whatever. It happened to me yesterday instead of addressing my issues. The funny thing is you can always go back and find something wrong with theirs (and probably mine this time). People type fast - so what. I’t so lame to get into this kind of debate. Stick to the issues !!
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 10:50 AM | Link to this
James -
It happened to me yesterday instead of addressing my issues
baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaa….
stop. my sides.
I corrected your grammar a grand total of one time. once. the rest of the postings from both Jokes and me addressed your arguments which, frankly, we beat down like a pinata …
… and what happened? you ignored the fact that your arguments were soundly trounced and proceded to lecture us on things we should be grateful for.
which, come to think of it, you ignored that, too …
and now, in your little revisionist version of history, you say we only focused on your grammar and “changed the argument” ??? please. take some time and do a little scrolling.
refresh your memory.
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 11:04 AM | Link to this
which, come to think of it, you ignored that, too …
should read: which, come to think if it, you ignored our response to that, too
and, winslo: even the devil can quote scripture.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 11:32 AM | Link to this
James,
I will agree that spelling/grammar, especially on a blog, is not worth mentioning.
But saying your points were not addressed is laughable.
By Mara
June 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Link to this
Reverend Al understands…
“I may have some very conservative personal feelings but I feel you have the right to live your life differently. I may think that what you do, Anderson, is gonna put you in Hell, but I’m gonna defend your right to get there,” - Al Sharpton, to Anderson Cooper, on the air.
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Link to this
Mara -
Reverend Al understands…
for a second, I thought you meant the right reverand Al Green …
By Mara
June 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Link to this
gimme a minute to google Al Green…
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Link to this
Mara -
gimme a minute to google Al Green…
I just gasped and clutched my pearls!
child, RUN - do not walk - RUN to your local store and at least buy his greatest hits album (Tired of Being Alone, Let’s Stay Together, I Can’t Get Next to You) …
he’s brilliant!!! and I hear his new album is absolutely stellar, too
(and, yes, he really was ordained in the 1970s)
By Mara
June 26, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
LOL @ I just gasped and clutched my pearls!
doesn’t sound like he’s really my genre, but it certainly seems like he’s got a very successful career. Next time at the music store I’ll try to sample some of his music.
By James
June 26, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this
To USinUK:
1) You are not capitalizing the first word of your sentences.
2) I grow wearing of debating/rufuting you guys as you always come back with emotional rants. However ……..
3) By USinUK
“you mean, like my dad, departed mother, both uncles and good friend who has already done 2 tours in Iraq??? thanks, but I was raised with a healthy respect for the military - I don’t need your prompting to appreciate their sacrifices”
NO - I meant YOU ! What was YOUR military sacrifice ? If none - then thank a soldier or any of your relatives you want to.
“tell ya what … how about YOU thank a nurse or other health care professional for all the work they do taking care of you, how about you thank a teacher for all the hard work s/he put in preparing you to be a productive member of society (despite the occasional grammical misstep), and how about you thank people in the legal profession for all they do to put the bad guys away and to protect your Constitutional rights???”
Comparing a soldier or police officer who puts their life on the line each day (or gives it) in your defense to a nurse, teacher, or lawyer, or whatever is ludicrous - not in the same league.
“considering I was born pre-Roe, she didn’t have much of a choice (not to mention, she didn’t have much access to birth control, for that matter) - her choices were carry to term and put up for adoption or use a coat hanger or go to a back-alley butcher. not particularly attractive choices, are they?? she really didn’t even have the choice to keep me.”
And you prove my point !!! Be thankful you were pre-Roe vs. Wade (by the way “Roe” is very sorry she did that) or you might not be here.
4) P.S. I’m retired. Aren’t you supposed to be working?
By Jack
June 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Link to this
The blog has turned into a big p!ssing match. Blah, blah, blah. You guys need to get some good stew in ya and a baby wrap on the side.
The love you take is equal to the love you make.
By Mara
June 26, 2008 1:30 PM | Link to this
Jack!! << big hug >> How’s life treatin’ ya?
By Jack
June 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Link to this
Hi Mara. Life is going OK other than them trying to work me to death. Hope all is well with you. :) Big Hug Backatcha!
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 1:40 PM | Link to this
emotional rants.
Hmmmm. Have not seen any this week besides your second post where you started name calling.
I grow wearing of debating/rufuting you guys…
Have not seen a rebuttal of factual information. All I have seen is “i do not believe that” or ambiguous (incorrect i should add) references to the good old days.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 1:42 PM | Link to this
James,
I have a question for you.
What was your reaction to the “stop loss” put in place that (in some cases) tripled the time people enlisted for?
By James
June 26, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this
To Jack:
Then don’t read it.
By Mara
June 26, 2008 1:53 PM | Link to this
:^) for some reason the lyrics to “Old Man River” came to mind…
Tote that barge! Lift that bale! Get a little drunk and you land in jail.
I get weary, and sick of tryin’, I’m tired of livin’ and scared of dyin’.
By Jack
June 26, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this
Bite me James.
By Chilao
June 26, 2008 2:50 PM | Link to this
Bite me James
LMAO - good one JACK!
Hi.
(look what happens when I pop in…LOL)
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Link to this
James -
You are not capitalizing the first word of your sentences
hrmmm … where did I see someone whinging about petty things today???
oh, yeah, it was this:
I love it when people try to change the arguement by coming back at grammar, or spelling, or punctuation or whatever
would you like a little cheese with your whine???
NO - I meant YOU ! What was YOUR military sacrifice ? If none - then thank a soldier or any of your relatives you want to
gee, I didn’t know we still had national service … and, tell me, are liberals the only one required to thank the military? or are conservatives who “had better things to do” (as Dick Cheney said) required, as well?
Comparing a soldier or police officer who puts their life on the line each day (or gives it) in your defense to a nurse, teacher, or lawyer, or whatever is ludicrous - not in the same league
ah, so only people who put their life on the line are worthy of your respect and gratitude … nice attitude. I’d rather thank a nurse, teacher and lawyer - they do far more for us on a day-to-day basis and receive far less thanks.
Be thankful you were pre-Roe vs. Wade (by the way “Roe” is very sorry she did that) or you might not be here
Norma Macorvey has become a pawn of the religious right - she had no problem with her decision for 30 years, only became disgruntled when she felt taken for granted by feminist groups.
I’m here because the woman who bore me had no choice - I’d rather she had full access to birth control and freedom of choice than be forced to carry a baby to term and give it up.
By James
June 26, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this
Ah Jack:
You shouldn’t have read. Is your blood pressure going up ?
By GOB
June 26, 2008 3:10 PM | Link to this
I grow wearing of debating/rufuting you guys as you always come back with emotional rants. However
I’ve just been lurking lately (with the exception of the Flying Spaghetti Monster comment a few weeks back), but I am the only one who finds it suspicious that Truth is gone and James shows up and makes the above comment? Isnt that Truth’s standard reply?
Maybe I’m wrong, but it does seem a bit odd…
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 3:19 PM | Link to this
Maybe I’m wrong, but it does seem a bit odd…
Yes. Very similar, but I figured it was a conservative thing;)
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 3:20 PM | Link to this
GOB -
Maybe I’m wrong, but it does seem a bit odd…
you’re not saying that Truth would gasp!!! change names, are you???
By Archie
June 26, 2008 3:24 PM | Link to this
Even though we’ve had our differences of opinion, I think you’ve got a good heart. :^) Mara, I argue with people I know in person and we still like each other so welcome to the club. good point. Most people I know are a mix of liberal and conservative pov’s. For example, I identify as a social liberal who is fiscally conservative. IOW, I believe in reproductive rights and gay marriage as much as I support a balanced budget and the Fair Tax. I think I am a mix of liberal and conservative. I am far left according to some folk because I do support gay marriage but I am conservative to some folk because I think people need to stop shacking up!! I am conservative in that I think men and women need to dress a certain depending on where they are but I am liberal in that I believe consenting adults should be able to participate in the regulated vice of their choice. My examples are the Vegas brothels, gambling places in Jersey and Vegas, and drugs. I think all vices should be regulated and legal!!! Reading objectively can change one’s mind. I changed when about gays that had been together over 30 years!!! I changed when I read a business magazine featuring the producer of porn movies. Except for his line of work the producer’s lifestyle was very similar to mine in that he worked 9 to 5 and he worked out after work then he spent time with his family. I can tell you that people that want to do drugs are doing drugs and there are unofficial brothels all over the country, hell, Elliot Spitzer proved that.
By James
June 26, 2008 3:27 PM | Link to this
To USinUK:
1) “hrmmm … where did I see someone whinging about petty things today???”
You started it first yesterday (nanny, nanny boo boo). I don’t care about typos unless someone brings it up with me instead of debating the points. You did yesterday.
2) “gee, I didn’t know we still had national service … and, tell me, are liberals the only one required to thank the military? or are conservatives who “had better things to do” (as Dick Cheney said) required, as well?”
No - everyone does including you. “Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
3) “ah, so only people who put their life on the line are worthy of your respect and gratitude … nice attitude. I’d rather thank a nurse, teacher and lawyer - they do far more for us on a day-to-day basis and receive far less thanks.”
This really shows your ignorance as thankfulness is obviously a matter of degree. Your ranking is amazing. I thank the garbage man for picking up my trash also.
4) “I’m here because the woman who bore me had no choice - I’d rather she had full access to birth control and freedom of choice than be forced to carry a baby to term and give it up.”
Ah USinUK, you slipped up and used the phrase “baby to term” !! Your (excuse me - you’re) slipping but I guess the truth comes out eventually. Just remember, a mother is never more a mother than when that BABY is in the womb and totally dependent on her.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
(look what happens when I pop in…LOL)
Now, I know I am not the most liked here, but I find it ironic that many old-timers show up after the constant name-callers are away…
By James
June 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Link to this
To GOB:
I promise I’m not “TRUTH”. This is the first time (this particular question) that I have been on this blog. But ……….. I think I like TRUTH already .
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 3:42 PM | Link to this
You started it first yesterday (nanny, nanny boo boo). I don’t care about typos unless someone brings it up with me instead of debating the points.
Not a single one of your points/questions went unanswered. You through a hissy-fit when you did not like the calm, calculated and accurate replies.
More-over, you will be acting hypocritically if you are going to (falsely) rant about not getting your points addressed while not addressing mine and others posed yesterday or today.
By RF
June 26, 2008 3:47 PM | Link to this
Most people I know are a mix of liberal and conservative pov’s. For example, I identify as a social liberal who is fiscally conservative. IOW, I believe in reproductive rights and gay marriage as much as I support a balanced budget and the Fair Tax
Mara- I think that is a big part of what scares the conservatives. People have figured out that party-lines aren’t all that influence voters. It’s hard for them to tell who to trust when all us mixed-up folks are running around loose! I think the number of people who may be very willing to cross party lines to voter based on issues is growing and that could prove worrisome to those who blindly follow the conservative mantra.
By James
June 26, 2008 3:55 PM | Link to this
To Jokes On:
There’s a lot of stuff to look through here and there are several of you and only one of me (plus I am working on my book …… :o) Don’t worry. You won’t want to read it.
Just give me one at a time. Go.
By RF
June 26, 2008 3:57 PM | Link to this
Archie- prostitution is the oldest profession in the world for a reason, isn’t it? LOL I think you’re right- instead of shouting out against so many “sins” while secretly partaking of them, wouldn’t it be more productive to remove the appeal of the mystique and be open about them? I think a good many kids wouldn’t be so tempted to try drugs if the allure of them didn’t feed their rebellious nature. There are countries that have figured that out and seem to be surviving quite well.
By USinUK
June 26, 2008 4:26 PM | Link to this
I don’t care about typos unless someone brings it up with me instead of debating the points. You did yesterday
instead of?? try in addition to … there is not one of your “arguments” that went unaddressed.
“Every man thinks meanly of himself for not having been a soldier, or not having been at sea.” Samuel Johnson (1709-1784)
every man? wow. I’ve met plenty of men (both liberal and conservative) who haven’t served who haven’t felt at all meanly about themselves. and, btw - Samuel J never served, either. dictionary, yes. her majesty’s navy? not so much.
This really shows your ignorance as thankfulness is obviously a matter of degree. Your ranking is amazing
yes, I do realize that thankfulness is a matter of degree … which is why I’ll start with nurses, teachers, lawyers and firemen, thankyouverymuch … you have your list. I have mine.
as far as our views on choice - look, I’m not going to change your mind. you’re not going to change mine. the difference between us? I really have no problem with you feeling the way you do - don’t like abortion? don’t have one. personal choice.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 4:33 PM | Link to this
There’s a lot of stuff to look through here and there are several of you
Trust me. There is only one of me;)
If you do not want to take the time to do a ctrl-f and type in JokesOn, that is fine. Just do not rant about one of your points being missed.
By JokesOn
June 26, 2008 4:47 PM | Link to this
… you have your list. I have mine.
Don’t you get it yet! Their list is to be legislated so it is everybody’s list. If it does not get legislated, it is still your list in your “heart of hearts.”
Have a good day all.
By James
June 26, 2008 4:48 PM | Link to this
Your arguments are getting weaker by the letter.
I don’t have a problem with “your” feeling the way you do about abortion either. But I do have a problem about how the baby “feels”. Do you think the “baby” should be anesthesized before it is ripped apart in the womb? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do? We would do that for a small animal so I’m sure that baby feels pain. It has a spinal cord and nerves. I can’t even kill a squirrel in my yard without getting in trouble.
Also, what about that slip up of yours on the “baby” thing ? You need to get your terminology right.
By James
June 26, 2008 4:52 PM | Link to this
To Jokes on:
Fine with me.
How about poor USinUK. Weak…………….
By Lyrazel
June 27, 2008 8:47 AM | Link to this
So what does anyone think of Clinton asking for assistance to pay her campaign debts? Is this something the American people should support (considering now it takes millionaires only to run for major politic office) because special interest lobbyists control most candidates—or is it another tacky thing the Clintons are so good at? I am torn between how to justify this after months of campaigns where her rallies for votes from unemployed uninsured impoverished Americans were a focus point—these same people have $2500 to give her? Ms. Clinton is not out of a job. She is a state senator, makes more money than the average American, has a husband who can tour making speeches that command million dollar performances, has paid-for-life health insurance, has potential book deals and her campaigning wardrobe if sold at consignment shops would possibly make at least 50k. Do American’s have a financial obligation to loosing candidates who run for public office?
By USinUK
June 27, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
James -
I don’t have a problem with “your” feeling the way you do about abortion either. But I do have a problem about how the baby “feels”. Do you think the “baby” should be anesthesized before it is ripped apart in the womb? Wouldn’t that be the right thing to do? We would do that for a small animal so I’m sure that baby feels pain. It has a spinal cord and nerves. I can’t even kill a squirrel in my yard without getting in trouble.
I believe that qualifies as an emotional rant … whatever it is, it definitely isn’t debate.
please put this sentence in order:
at.
grasping.
straws.
By James
June 27, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this
To USinUK:
Say what you want but you are AFRAID to answer two simple questions:
1) Should an unborn baby be anesthesized before it is killed? 2) Why did you refer to this “mass of cells” as a baby?
Check this article out and another very simple question.
“BAYTOWN, Texas — A 14-year-old girl has been arrested and charged after her newborn was submerged in a school toilet, officials told KPRC Local 2 Thursday.
Baytown police Capt. Roger Clifford said the girl, who was not identified because she is a juvenile, was charged with capital murder. Investigators said the 5-pound, 6-ounce boy died April 2 in a restroom at Cedar Bayou Junior School, located at 2600 Elvinta. The baby had toilet paper stuffed in his throat, and suffered blunt trauma to his head and neck, according to an autopsy.”
May I ask is the difference between this and what a doctor would have done just a few days or weeks before ?
By USinUK
June 27, 2008 10:11 AM | Link to this
James -
last one for this thread … after this I’ll be in this week’s thread (the car thread) if you want to continue
1) Should an unborn baby be anesthesized before it is killed?
according to the Guttmacher Institute, 87% of abortions are done in the 1st Trimester with the majority of that take place in the second trimester to be EARLY in the second trimester (usually because of access to abortion providers, but that’s for another discussion).
At this stage, the fetus is about the shape and size of a lima bean and has the sensory perception of one, as well. In fact, doctors have said that a fetus can’t feel pain until the 26th week.
So, no. I don’t believe anesthesia is required for the more than 90% of abortions that take place in the states.
2) Why did you refer to this “mass of cells” as a baby?
I refered to it as such when it was brought to term and delivered. prior to that, the proper medical term is a fetus (or, if you’re here in the UK, a foetus … Brits and their spelling).
now, to keep from having to toggle back and forth, I’ll be on the new thread if you want to continue this dicussion there.
By USinUK
June 27, 2008 10:15 AM | Link to this
James -
shoot … forgot to add:
May I ask is the difference between this and what a doctor would have done just a few days or weeks before ?
for late-term abortions, a woman needs to have more than 1 doctor say that it is medically necessary
secondly, regardless of what you may think, women don’t wait until they are 8 months pregnant and decide on a whim to have an abortion. if someone goes through one, it’s because there is something critically wrong with the fetus.
that’s the difference.
By James
June 29, 2008 1:43 PM | Link to this
To USinUK and Kimberly:
1) So two doctors (or two Nazi officers, or two slave holders) makes it morally right? Good to know.
2) One step and one court case at a time until the U.S. Supreme Court reverses itself (just like they did over the slavery issue) and human life again becomes sacred.
South Dakota Doctors Have to Say Process Will End Life
By Chet Brokaw Associated Press Published on: 06/28/08
Pierre, S.D. —- A federal appeals court ruled South Dakota can begin enforcing a law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that “the procedure ends a human life”.
The 7-4 decision by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sends the case back to U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier of Rapid City for proceedings that will result in a decision on whether the law passed by the 2005 South Dakota Legislature is constitutional.
……………… The court said Friday that Planned Parenthood, which operates South Dakota’s only abortion clinic in Sioux Falls, had not provided enough evidence that it was likely to prevail. The 2005 law would make doctors tell women “that the abortion will terminate the life of a whole, separate, unique, living human being.”
Women also would have to be told they have a right to continue a pregnancy and that abortion may cause women psychological harm, including thoughts of suicide.
Planned Parenthood failed to show that the information to be given to women seeking abortions was ideological, untruthful, misleading or irrelevant to the woman’s decision, the appeals court majority said.
3) Our troops are being sent to Iraq right now through the backdoor draft called “Stop Loss” (last count was about 4,000 to 5,000 troops). They have served their time, they DO NOT want to go, they want “to control their body” so other men don’t try to kill them, the “state” says no “we control your body” - sorry soldier.
By James
June 29, 2008 3:29 PM | Link to this
To JokesOn, et al:
Have you ever stopped to consider how intelligent, enlightened, otherwise rational people could be so wrong on a subject. Oh, I know you’ll say “tag you’re it” but what about Jefferson, Washington and many, many other outstanding men and women of their day. They loved freedom and individual rights and were willing to die for that but yet slavery was not a moral problem for them. Oh, they would say “we need to reduce this, or fix this someday, or no new importation of slaves, etc.”, but they still condoned and participated in it. Were they wicked, evil people? Were they monsters? Did they have horns? No ………… they were just plain wrong on that important moral issue in the same way that “choice” people are today. You are not evil people with horns. You love your children, mow your lawn, maybe go to your place of worship, etc. but someday civilization will look back and say, “how could they have been so blind to the reality of another helpless, defenseless human being and have done that? How could our laws have allowed that?”
Time is on our side. We will prevail.
By JokesOn
June 30, 2008 8:54 AM | Link to this
Time is on our side. We will prevail.
Talk about emotional non-point driven rants. You won’t even discuss the actual facts of the issue. Instead, you favor grand generalizations and incorrect facts.
Look up the latest article that investigates how many woman have to carry a pregnancy to term just to birth a dead/dying child with broken bones due to restrictions already in place.
By James
June 30, 2008 9:22 AM | Link to this
To JokesOn:
1) You didn’t address my points 1, 2 or 3.
2) You look up the article. I looked up mine.
3) You say “I won’t even discuss the actual facts of the issue”? Give me one of your facts and I will address them one at a time as I have before but ONLY if you will debate instead of drivel.
By JokesOn
June 30, 2008 4:53 PM | Link to this
1) You didn’t address my points 1, 2 or 3.
Remember…you can’t whine about not having your points directly discussed seeing as you won’t do the same think in kind.
I addressed your 3:29 post which was a nonsensical rant.
2) You look up the article. I looked up mine. I did.
By James
July 1, 2008 9:06 AM | Link to this
To JokesOn:
Since you have trouble telling “rants” from points you don’t want to debate how about these two “judicial rants” ……….
1) By Helena Oliviero The Atlanta Journal-Constitution Published on: 06/30/08
“On March 30, 2004, Erin Dickerson gave birth to a 6-pound baby boy with curly brown hair and chubby cheeks.
But baby James, who kicked his way into the world, was born still, the medical term used to describe fetal deaths occurring after 20 weeks in the womb.
Dickerson left the hospital with a purple box holding a teddy bear and newborn’s baby bracelet. She had no answers. Only a death certificate.
She wanted, at the very least, a birth certificate, too.
And while that was not available to her four years ago, it is now, thanks in part to her lobbying efforts.
Beginning July 1, parents can request a Certificate of Birth Resulting in Stillbirth from the state Office of Vital Records. It costs $10.”
(Hummmmm …… I wonder if aborted babies will get a birth and death certificate ?)
2) Pierre, S.D. —- A federal appeals court recently ruled South Dakota can begin enforcing a law requiring doctors to tell women seeking abortions that “the procedure ends a human life”.
Finally …………….
3) Abortion is the first form of violence against children.
The door is slowly but surely closing. It’s just a matter of time.
By JokesOn
July 1, 2008 4:39 PM | Link to this
(Hummmmm …… I wonder if aborted babies will get a birth and death certificate ?)
Moot.
*Since you have trouble telling “rants” from points you don’t want to debate how about these two “judicial rants” *
Adding numbers before your ramblings does not make it a point. A clear position and facts backing that position up would be a discussion point.
Believe what you like, but the issue is, and always be, the mother’s rights versus a fetus’. You have yet to touch on that (valid) discussion. Instead, you just talk about emotional points that I am sure are dear to you, but are still not a point.
gl.
By James
July 1, 2008 5:07 PM | Link to this
Serious question. Not a trick. Would just like to know your answer.
“When” does a fetus “become” a human being in your opinion. In other words, a legal citizen (if born in the U.S.) protected by all of the laws and rights of this country. At what point in time or event does that take place ? I think we would both agree that 10 minutes after that “fetus” is born and breathing that a doctor can’t walk over to the table and kill it. But when “is” that exact moment that a doctor can no longer do that?
P.S. A court ruling in South Dakota and new legisation in Georgia are not my personal emotional points. Why do you choose not to respond to them ? Are you afraid to? Do you not have a good response? Just curious.
By JokesOn
July 2, 2008 10:51 AM | Link to this
P.S. A court ruling in South Dakota and new legisation in Georgia are not my personal emotional points. Why do you choose not to respond to them ? Are you afraid to? Do you not have a good response? Just curious.
Because you have no intention on answering the questions I posed to you. So, I answer the ones I feel like answering. No more, no less. If the answer is one I have covered too many times I disregard it or if the answer is too long.
Why should I dance around your questions all day when nothing is learned from the factual answers and links provided? No real incentive when we provide proof of a point and you disregard it with a shrug and go on believing what you want because it comforts you.
“When” does a fetus “become” a human being in your opinion. In other words, a legal citizen (if born in the U.S.) protected by all of the laws and rights of this country. At what point in time or event does that take place ? I think we would both agree that 10 minutes after that “fetus” is born and breathing that a doctor can’t walk over to the table and kill it. But when “is” that exact moment that a doctor can no longer do that?
No way of knowing. If you want my gut feeling, it would be that once a person has self awareness they are a sentient being. That would go into the 2nd year of a child’s life though and do not want it misconstrued that I think killing a 2yo is acceptable.
I would have to say that as soon as a baby is birthed it has begun is external sensory exploration, its path to self awareness, and is the “fine line” of having its own rights. At that point he/she is entitled to perform that exploration without (undue) interference like the rest of us.
If (big if here) it was somehow proven that a soul was totally unique at anytime after fertilization and was wasted by the act of abortion; I would be against the act. That goes for proof of a specific time that a unique soul “drops” into the fetus as well. I just cannot believe god would be wasting so many souls given the number of absorbed/stillborn/etc pregnancies that occur void of abortion.
By James
July 2, 2008 11:56 AM | Link to this
Question: “When” does a fetus “become” a human being in your opinion. In other words, a legal citizen (if born in the U.S.) protected by all of the laws and rights of this country. At what point in time or event does that take place ? I think we would both agree that 10 minutes after that “fetus” is born and breathing that a doctor can’t walk over to the table and kill it. But when “is” that exact moment that a doctor can no longer do that?
Jokes on: No way of knowing. If you want my gut feeling, it would be that once a person has self awareness they are a sentient being. That would go into the 2nd year of a child’s life though and do not want it misconstrued that I think killing a 2yo is acceptable.
James: Obviously, you corrected yourself on this part so I don’t have to.
Jokes on: I would have to say that as soon as a baby is birthed it has begun is external sensory exploration, its path to self awareness, and is the “fine line” of having its own rights. At that point he/she is entitled to perform that exploration without (undue) interference like the rest of us.
James: I assume you realize that babies can see (when light is presented), smell, feel, taste and hear at a very early time in the womb. Tests have been done to PROVE that and they even recognize music (and their mother’s voice …. hummmm) they heard BEFORE they were born. They have a heart beat and normal brain waves. The ONLY difference between before and after they are born is that their oxygen comes through their mouth instead of their unbilical cord (which begs the question if a human can no longer breath on their own are they human - you know my answer - but alas I disgress down the slippery slope). So, again I ask, when does human life begin?
Jokeson: If (big if here) it was somehow proven that a soul was totally unique at anytime after fertilization and was wasted by the act of abortion; I would be against the act. That goes for proof of a specific time that a unique soul “drops” into the fetus as well. I just cannot believe god would be wasting so many souls given the number of absorbed/stillborn/etc pregnancies that occur void of abortion.
James: I could give you biblical verses that say when the unborn is a soul but I doubt you would care to read them. Let me know if you would. However, even if one chooses to ignore God in this (but you did mention God with a small “g”) there is no place to put the soul but at conception. To do otherwise is to risk the arbitrary taking of human life by the millions somewhere along the nine month period.
Yes, there are natural abortions, stillbirths, etc. and unfortunately suicides and murders. We live in a fallen world. That does not mean we are right to “play God” on who has the right to be born.
Finally, may I ask your age and sex.
I am obviously male, age 61.
By JokesOn
July 3, 2008 8:55 AM | Link to this
I assume you realize that babies can see (when light is presented), smell, feel, taste and hear at a very early time in the womb.
Their (mental) perception is not one of “I” see x, or “I” feel x. They have no distinction between themselves and the mother; therefore, no “self.”
The agreed upon (psychological) definition of “maturing” is the gradual distinction between yourself and the world. This does not begin until after the baby is outside the human body.
I could give you biblical verses that say when the unborn is a soul but I doubt you would care to read them. Trust me, I am well versed in the bible and other religious texts. I could point to 3 examples to every 1 of yours that counters the sanctity of life. Plus, referencing the bible in a court as proof won’t fly. There is the “seed” being spilled on the ground and being a grave err would constitute abortion too. How many times have you “wasted” your seed in your 60+ years? (Biblical text is for faith and not law is my point. I like it that way as did the founders.)
Question for you. Should separating conjoined twins be a crime if one is most likely going to die in the process? How about if you knew that there was a possibility both would have a very short life because of being conjoined? How about if you knew they would not live a remotely normal/full life, one much worse than the other?
We live in a fallen world. Oddly enough it is more civilized than any other period in time.
Finally, may I ask your age and sex.
I am a 40+ male.
By JokesOn
July 3, 2008 8:57 AM | Link to this
However, even if one chooses to ignore God in this (but you did mention God with a small “g”) there is no place to put the soul but at conception.
This sounds like pure opinion. Can you back it up with any kind of sound reasoning?
To do otherwise is to risk the arbitrary taking of human life by the millions somewhere along the nine month period.
Unclear what you are saying here. Please elaborate.
By JokesOn
July 3, 2008 9:40 AM | Link to this
More info swiped from site:
Intellectual Development
« A young baby’s behaviour is controlled by his brainstem. This is the most basic, bottom part of his brain, which has to do with his reflexes and bodily functions. He does not use his “big brain” or cortex and cannot “think” as such! Thus any movement that your baby makes is involuntary and nothing that he does is on purpose.
« Because your baby’s behaviour is still controlled by his brain stem, his reactions are “programmed” and you can expect that he will react in certain predictable ways in response to his environment.
« These inborn, automatic reactions that your baby now exhibits are called “reflexes”. These reflexes enable him to perform all kinds of actions without having to be able to think, for instance to suck, to swallow, to cough, to blink his eyes and to urinate and have bowl movements when his body needs to do so.
« Because your baby is not able to do anything purposefully and still does not intend to achieve anything with his behaviour, there is no sign of “ intelligent behaviour” at this stage.
« Many of the reflex actions that babies exhibit are also present in adult behaviour, for example, when a person blinks his eyes in reaction to bright light. There are, however, many of these baby reflexes that disappear with time. This happens as a baby’s cortex (“higher brain”) gradually begins to play a more prominent role in the functioning of the child.
« The ages, at which baby reflexes disappear, vary from reflex to reflex. The grasp reflex will, for instance, start to weaken at the age of 3½ months, while the Moro reflex will only disappear fully at about six months. (This is the reflex that is seen when a baby swings out his arms when he feels as if he is falling.) Since the disappearance of the baby reflexes at different stages of development, is linked to the development of the cortex (“big brain”); it gives the parent peace of mind when certain reflexes are outgrown by certain ages.
« It is interesting to know that your baby does not yet realize that whatever he sees, can be connected to what he hears, feels, tastes or smells. He must still learn to integrate sensory information. This is why he will not always turn his head in the direction of a sound - he doesn’t realize that what is heard can often be seen as well. Your baby will also not reach out to objects during his first few months, as he does not yet realize that things that can be seen can often be touched as well!
« It’s also interesting to note that your baby does not realize that things around him exist. (This is understandable in view of the fact that he does not even realize that he himself exists!) He is only aware of things in his environment as long as he can sense it with one of his sensory organs. If he cannot hear, see, taste, feel or smell something, it does not exist for him. If a person or an object disappears from sight, a baby of this age will not look for the person or the object. He has no concept of “object permanence”.
« A baby doesn’t deliberately act or think at this age, but this does not mean that he is unable to learn. In fact, babies have the ability to learn even before birth. Babies that have listened to a specific recording of music in utero, recognize the music after birth, and even prefer to listen to that specific recording. (Studies have shown that babies are inclined to suck harder on hearing a familiar piece of music.)
Not exactly a sentient and individual being even at birth.
By James
July 3, 2008 10:24 AM | Link to this
To JokesOn:
1) You seem to be unable to place a soul in a child at any specific point in time. You say its not during the womb period and as I understand your reply, you can’t even pick a time in the first few years out of the womb. I was simply trying to get you to “pick a time”. Under your reasoning a society could agree with you and “abort” a baby out of the womb because it can’t “think” yet at the age of six months. Point - if we don’t know exactly “when”; we MUST err on the side of caution. 2) Regarding some of your biblical points you confuse O.T. ceremonial and sanitary laws that Christ did away with vs. moral law that He continued (i.e., He plucked grain on the sabbath and did not ceremonially wash his hands before eating (serious O.T. violations) but he told the woman taken in adultery to “go and SIN no more”). 3) Civilization and morality are two different things (i.e., Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s was perhaps the most “civilized and technically advanced” society up to that time). Yet they determined that Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and others were “subhuman”. Had they won the war - their morality might still be in vogue. 4) The twins thing is a very tough question (My wife and I had twins) but is totally different from terminating an unborn human life because “I don’t want it, I can’t afford it, I just got a promotion at work, my boyfriend just dumped me or whatever.” In the case of twins or any other tragedy like that it would be a case by case basis similar to saving the actual life of a mother in a very dangerous pregnancy situation. 5) Your “intellectual development” information is nothing new to me and it really doesn’t add to the debate. It is describing a baby after it is born and obviously the author uses the word “baby”. The same data applies to that “baby” in the womb as it develops physically. Obviously, I believe it already has a soul from conception and there is no other stage of development along the way that it reasonable to say - “there - it just got its soul” !If you want to say it gets its soul at its first heartbeat, or first brainwave then you still have a multitude of problems very early in the gestation process as to the human status of that child.
6) I have been honest and have told you when I believe the child is a human being. I am willing to stand before my maker on that belief.
I again ask you - give me the exact time (because there is one at some point) that YOU believe that happens. That is the question you have danced around and have not answered.
By JokesOn
July 3, 2008 10:58 AM | Link to this
1) You seem to be unable to place a soul in a child at any specific point in time. You say its not during the womb period and as I understand your reply, you can’t even pick a time in the first few years out of the womb. I was simply trying to get you to “pick a time”.
I answered with my opinion. I then returned to the non-speculative debate because that is all that is really relevant.
Under your reasoning a society could agree with you and “abort” a baby out of the womb because it can’t “think” yet at the age of six months.
No. It just shows how uncertain the answer is if the point of contention is “when does a baby have a soul.”
Point - if we don’t know exactly “when”; we MUST err on the side of caution. We agree here, just not on who’s caution; the baby’s or the mother’s.
2) Regarding some of your biblical points you confuse O.T. ceremonial and sanitary laws that Christ did away with vs. moral law that He continued (i.e., He plucked grain on the sabbath and did not ceremonially wash his hands before eating (serious O.T. violations) but he told the woman taken in adultery to “go and SIN no more”).
Paul himself was confused in his writings and frequently cited OT rules that jesus himself never mentioned, like homosexual behavior. No sects of Christianity agree on which apply and which do not, so there is no census of opinion even in the religious crowd. I agree that OT should be taught as history only. Yet, one still can look to it regarding the sanctity of life, and it was pretty flippant on destroying whole towns.
3) Civilization and morality are two different things (i.e., Germany in the 1930’s and 40’s was perhaps the most “civilized and technically advanced” society up to that time). Yet they determined that Jews, homosexuals, gypsies and others were “subhuman”. Had they won the war - their morality might still be in vogue.
Most of the country was duped and deeply ashamed of what a very small number of people did.
You can always point to individual atrocities, but as a whole this age is more moral and civil than any before it. Simple example: the number of countries (and people that agree with policy) that use god as a devisive tool is drastically lower that ever.
The twins thing is a very tough question (My wife and I had twins) but is totally different from terminating an unborn human life because “I don’t want it, I can’t afford it, I just got a promotion at work, my boyfriend just dumped me or whatever.”
What you do not get is that to regulate that would also tie the hands (and already does) of mothers everywhere. The mother being in jeopardy or the child being killed in the process of being born is not a small percentage of abortions and needs to be recognized. It is the one thing that comes up every time an anti-abortion bill comes up: it must have provisions for the other being involved.
If you want to say it gets its soul at its first heartbeat, or first brainwave then you still have a multitude of problems very early in the gestation process as to the human status of that child.
There is no reason picking an arbitrary time is better or worse than picking conception.
I again ask you - give me the exact time (because there is one at some point) that YOU believe that happens. That is the question you have danced around and have not answered.
Well, I personally believe a soul develops like the rest of what makes up a human. It is not a binary thing. Therefore, I have the opinion that a person who is never socialized may never develop a soul - hence why they are automatically “saved.” Why would I think such a thing? People left on their own in the wild return to animal like behavior - humans must push each other to become divine: hence the importance of “relationships” by/with jesus. The inverse can be witnessed as well: Animals that are socialized by humans take on more-and-more human traits (consciousness and conscience).
6) I have been honest and have told you when I believe the child is a human being. I am willing to stand before my maker on that belief.
Like my belief, yours is rooted in faith and opinion. I respect your belief, but see no reason to start making peoples beliefs law. That is a theocracy.
By JokesOn
July 3, 2008 11:18 AM | Link to this
As a closing to the conversation (starting vacation at noon):
Even IF all things are equal (baby and mother have souls/rights/etc) who’s rights are paramount is still the issue. One has to choose between the two and short-change the other. I think it is obvious that the developed/sentient being with history and the potential to suffer years outweighs the others. The baby’s loss is minuscule compared to forcing mother’s to birth every child they are carrying; whether it was by rape/foolishness or a threat to the mother’s life (mortally or putting her in a position that she cannot handle yet).
By James
July 3, 2008 12:11 PM | Link to this
To Jokes on:
1) Point - if we don’t know exactly “when”; we MUST err on the side of caution.
We agree here, just not on who’s caution; the baby’s or the mother’s.
James: But ………. it’s the baby (not the mother) that has a life ended. No comparison. If you contend the mother could die in a “back-alley” abortion that is true. But it’s her “choice”. She doesn’t HAVE to dot that. The baby has no choice.
2) Regarding the O.T. again you have to take that up with the Author if it’s an area that gives you pause (i.e., destroying whole towns).
James: It’s hard for the clay to tell the potter what to do.
Regarding homosexuality, Jesus may not have specifically mentioned it but he didn’t mention pedophilia or stock market fraud either. All three are still immoral and against God’s will.
Also, regarding Paul’s writings I refer you to the words of Peter:
15Bear in mind that our Lord’s patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. 16He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction. II Peter 3: 15-16
3) James: I thank you for your honesty on when a person becomes a soul but obviously I disagree (“I knew you before I formed you in the womb”, John the Batpist in the womb, Jesus in the womb, etc.)
Regarding a Theocracy, that is JUST what we will have when Christ returns to this earth to reign as King. But, let’s leave all of that for another discussion.
4) James: Regarding your second posting “all things are equal”, I am sensing something regarding your “faith” (even though we disagree on abortion) so let me hit you with this.
As a Christian I believe that any child (born or unborn) or mentally handicapped person, etc., etc. have not reached “an age or place of accountability” and therefore are “innocent” before God and will have the assurance of eternal life.
That said, then I believe that all unborn children will be o.k. for eternity. If they had all been born and lived a normal life maybe only 10 or 20% would be “o.k.” for eternity.
But ………… to abort them is playing God and I do NOT BELIEVE I HAVE THAT RIGHT. If I did, one could argue that we should abort every baby in the womb world wide and bring human kind to an end (since they will all go to heaven). That is NOT our right.
5) Finally: I am really appreciating this discussion as I am really trying to get into the mindset of someone directly opposed to mine on this issue. It takes a sanitized discussion like this between two people who don’t know each other. It doesn’t work with family or friends are there is little honesty in the discussion. Therefore, I propose this next question:
I am not equating slavery and abortion. Don’t get me wrong. I actually think abortion is worse but disregard that right now please.
My question is this:
How could enlightened, intelligent, refined men and women have EVER supported that monster. They argued their positions quite eloquently and legally but as we both know they were wrong. Very wrong. What could have been taking place in their minds or psyche to make them think as they did. As I said before, they loved their kids, didn’t have horns, weren’t “evil” per se, and many tried to take “good care” of their slaves.
How could they have justified slavery in their minds ?
By JokesOn
July 3, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this
But ………… to abort them is playing God and I do NOT BELIEVE I HAVE THAT RIGHT. If I did, one could argue that we should abort every baby in the womb world wide and bring human kind to an end (since they will all go to heaven). That is NOT our right.
I believe it is playing “mother” just as it is to play “god” and choose to bring a child into the world.
How could enlightened, intelligent, refined men and women have EVER supported that monster. They argued their positions quite eloquently and legally but as we both know they were wrong. Very wrong. What could have been taking place in their minds or psyche to make them think as they did. As I said before, they loved their kids, didn’t have horns, weren’t “evil” per se, and many tried to take “good care” of their slaves.
How could they have justified slavery in their minds ?
I see two different people in your scenario. One group condones treating a different group like property, while believing it was just. The other was lazy or weak enough to go with the flow. The group that actually thought it was ok and just to treat people as property was the minority.
By the same token I ask you how could the xian god believe that stating slavery was ok ever exist? There is plenty of OT text that treats groups like property. Pretty parallel in my opinion, except one example was a bunch of faulty humans and the other was god.
I think people can debase anyone if they do not have a relationship with them. That is why jesus tells us to have relationships. It greatly reduces the possibility of malicious wrongs.
BTW - I (personally) believe much of what you do. Yet, one conclusion I have reached is that we all are a part of god. That is the only explanation for free will and the ability to defy god.
By James
July 4, 2008 1:26 PM | Link to this
1) JokesOn: I believe it is playing “mother” just as it is to play “god” and choose to bring a child into the world.
James: Then you must be giving a human mother and “God” equal rank - disturbing. Only God can produce the life. Not the mother. She didn’t create herself. Kind of like the guy who said, I have found a way to create life just like God did from the dust of the earth. When he proceeded to do so God interrupted him and said, “Oh no, get your own dirt)!
2) What do you think of this short clip from the news yesterday?
Obama: Mental distress can’t justify late abortion
Jul 3, 6:01 PM (ET)
By JIM KUHNHENN
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama says “mental distress” should not qualify as a health exception for late term-abortions, a key distinction not embraced by many supporters of abortion rights.
In an interview this week with “Relevant,” a Christian magazine, Obama said prohibitions on late-term abortions must contain “a strict, well defined exception for the health of the mother.”
Obama then added: “Now, I don’t think that ‘mental distress’ qualifies as the health of the mother. I think it has to be a serious physical issue that arises in pregnancy, where there are real, significant problems to the mother carrying that child to term.”
3) Finally, regarding “my” faith, I would like to share it with you and it’s very simple.
1) There is one God who create the universe. Yet He manifests Himself to us in three ways as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Don’t ask me to explain that as it’s where the “faith” comes in. Mankind calls it the Trinity. One thing I believe is that no human would have made that one up.
For reasons known only to Him, mankind fell into sin. As a result, and for a "requirement" known only to Him, God sent His the Son in Jesus of Nazareth to die for our sins. Anyone (repeat anyone) can have eternal life by confessing their sins before God and trusting in Jesus as their Savior for what He did on the cross. He rose from the grave and will someday return to this earth to reign as King. Anything "more" than that for purposes of "salvation" is just human confusion, denominationalism or error. However, there is no other way or He did not have to come in the first place. Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."By JokesOn
July 6, 2008 11:01 AM | Link to this
2) What do you think of this short clip from the news yesterday?
Obama: Mental distress can’t justify late abortion
I would agree with that assessment. Unless you have not been paying attention, I do not believe abortion is an inherent right. The ability to stop a pregnancy very early in its progression is what I think should be available. Abortion is the only option right now in those circumstances.
James: Then you must be giving a human mother and “God” equal rank - disturbing. Only God can produce the life.
Do not jump to such conclusions. They do not have equal “rank.” A female and male can decide to create life, but you do not call that playing god. Only when they decide to stop the pregnancy do you equate the mother with “playing god;” kind of hypocritical.
3) Finally, regarding “my” faith, I would like to share it with you and it’s very simple.
1) There is one God who create the universe. Yet He manifests Himself to us in three ways as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Don’t ask me to explain that as it’s where the “faith” comes in. Mankind calls it the Trinity. One thing I believe is that no human would have made that one up.
I know. I was brought up presbyterian and believed like you do until I was 24 and saw that anytime I asked the hard questions my elders avoided them like you have on this blog. I realized that there is more truth to the world than whats in the bible. I saw the bibles message reflected in many other areas once I took my blinders off; while listening to music (be it pop, rock, jazz…etc), while reading great novels and in other religions. I quickly found the church administering shame, as you have on the blog, and guilt to coerce me back to not asking questions. I lost a lot of friends in that transition, but made three fold in the world that could talk about those questions that the church and you replied with “Don’t ask me to explain that…”
I am more solid in my faith than ever and as a testament I do not have to belittle others that are on a parallel, but different, path than I. I can receive and give support to these people like I never saw in the church. I now attend 12step based church which is non-denominational; although I do not drink or drug: I find the 12steps the nearest to christ’s message which is not corrupted.
Once again you ignored nearly all my questions. Makes me feel that this is a very selfish conversation. You want to explain how god himself endorsed slavery at one time also? Why conception is the only logical time for a soul to placed in a human? Or that children, especially daughters, were basically property? Or his disregard for life in destruction of cities and the whole earth? And lastly, the transformation of being a angry wrathful god to to NT where it begins describing him as loving and compassionate?
By James
July 6, 2008 1:31 PM | Link to this
To JokesOn:
1) I have answered all of your questions during our lengthy debate. Unfortunately, since you didn’t like the answers you choose to say I have not answered you. That is a common ploy but also a blindness I cannot debate.
2) There was a man named Job who once questioned God about what He did, or allowed, or proposes to do in the future with nations and individuals. Here is God’s reply:
Job 40 1 The LORD said to Job:
2 “Will the one who contends with the Almighty correct him? Let him who accuses God answer him!”
3 Then Job answered the LORD :
4 “I am unworthy—how can I reply to you? I put my hand over my mouth.
3) You were apparently raised in the truth so this one thing I know. Because of that you will have no excuse before God. “To whom much is given, much is required”.
4) Concerning the question of “eternal life”, if you are right and I am wrong - no harm done. We both tried to live the best lives we could. But, if I am right and you are wrong ……….. I am saddened by your responses. It is not too late.
5) I wish you well …………..
By JokesOn
July 6, 2008 1:54 PM | Link to this
I have answered all of your questions during our lengthy debate. Unfortunately, since you didn’t like the answers you choose to say I have not answered you.
Not true. But if this is the only reply you have, it proves my point even more-so.
That is a common ploy but also a blindness I cannot debate.
More condescending posts? What a shame. Especially when it is untrue that it is a “ploy.”
Concerning the question of “eternal life”
Where was this mentioned? You seem to like to change the topic anytime I pose a question to you.
But, if I am right and you are wrong ……….. I am saddened by your responses. It is not too late.
Dogma. You seem to follow it blindly, which saddens me. One should follow god, not man.
It is too bad that once again the blindly religious man lets me down. I hope one day you can re-read this with open eyes and see how it is you that follows mans law, and I that follow god’s. It is not your place to remove the freedom of choice god gives every man. It is simply your place to be an example of gods greatness so that others are curious and want the same. How the blind religious people live pushes people away from christ. Christ was inclusive, but most of you are exclusive.
Good luck and god bless.
By JokesOn
July 6, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this
If at some time you feel like answering my points, I will listen with an open mind always. I hope you find the same capability one day: we might have a good conversation then.
Hope you had a great holiday.
By James
July 6, 2008 4:06 PM | Link to this
SWEET FRAGRANCE OR SMELL OF DEATH ?
II Corinthians 2:15-17
15 For we are to God the aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and (also) those who are perishing. 16 To the one we are the smell of death; to the other, the fragrance of life. And who is equal to such a task? 17 Unlike so many, we do not peddle the word of God for profit. On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.
I WAS ONLY REQUIRED TO SEND YOU THE AROMA ……. YOU DETERMINED THE SMELL ……..
MY CONSCIENCE IS CLEAR ………… ADIEU
By JokesOn
July 6, 2008 4:40 PM | Link to this
On the contrary, in Christ we speak before God with sincerity, like men sent from God.
Yet, you yell….