Atlanta Opinion

This is a re-creation of what happened years ago. The turkeys running around without their heads have been governing for 6 years and it is now time for people with their attached heads to take over.

Please vote everyone!

.

By We're Gonna.....Cut.......And......Run!!!!

November 7, 2006 07:45 AM | Link to this

Michael Kinsley, a premiere pinko, turns against the democrats:

A New Direction for America rightly denounces the staggering fiscal irresponsibility of Republican leaders and duly promises “pay-as-you-go” spending. But in the entire document there is not one explicit revenue raiser to balance the many new spending programmes and tax credits. Competence, of course, brings us back to Iraq. Apparently, and unfortunately, Bush is right that the Democrats have no “plan for victory”. (Neither does he, of course.) For national security in general, the Democrats’ plan is mostly about new cash benefits for veterans. Regarding Iraq, the Democrats’ plan has two parts. First, they want Iraqis to assume “primary responsibility for securing and governing their country”. Then they want “responsible redeployment” of American forces. Older readers may recognise this formula. It’s Vietnamisation - the Nixon-Kissinger plan for extracting us from a mistake. But Vietnamisation was not a plan for victory. It was a plan for what was called “peace with honour” and is now known as “defeat”. Maybe A New Direction is just a campaign document. My fear is that the House Democrats may try to use it as a basis for governing.

By KO

November 7, 2006 08:05 AM | Link to this

And so we let you go to war in Iraq to oust Saddam or find non-existant weapons or avenge 9/11 or fight terrorists who only got there after we did or as cover to change the fabric of our Constitution or for lower prices at The Texaco or…?

There are still a few hours left before the polls open, sir. There are many rationalizations still untried.

And whatever your motives of the moment, we the people have, in true good faith and with the genuine patriotism of self-sacrifice (of which you have shown you know nothing), we have let you go on making it up as you went along.

Unchecked and unbalanced.

Vote.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15595139/

By Scooter

November 7, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

I saw the democrats add with Wesley saying terrorism is because of Iraq and it had to be the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, considering terrorism since the 70’s. also, I am glad to see that the liberal dem sissies are not politicizing the war by using disabled vets to seemingly speak for all vets, despicable but it is the socialist party eager to get their engineering POWER back.

Today we will see if the main stream partisan hack media has been successful in breaking the resolve of the nation and ensuring the beginning of Muslim Caliphate. only portraying death, destruction and corruption, while ignoring any positive rebuilding or attitudes of the Iraqis.

By Goldie

November 7, 2006 08:11 AM | Link to this

No, TOMORROW will be when they start their usual blame game!

By candide

November 7, 2006 08:21 AM | Link to this

Look at Ted Haggard. He admits he has tried and failed to be straight, despite Jesus and all that. You’d think this would make him more understanding of gays, that they cannot help their orientation. But no, as a typical ChristoFascist he excoriates gays and resorts to the same Christian sin and guilt trip which has so evidently failed. Christians are real s**!

By w00t

November 7, 2006 08:24 AM | Link to this

Wow, I see that Wonder Boy Andy got up extra morning to spew his daily rhetoric. I find it quite amazing that the democrats have one person to slip up on a bad, botched, misinterpreted, pick your adjective joke and the republicans are so quick to pounce on it. However, the republicans on the other hand have had so many caught with their hand in the cookie jar. Tom DeLay, Ted Haggard (was on conference calls to the White House), Foley, and I’m sure there are many others out there, but these are the most recent ones. What’s worse in your eyes? A person that makes a bad joke or someone that you trust and believe in has lied to you about drugs, and sex? That’s hypocrisy on the HIGHEST level. Then we have all these people, writers, bloggers, radio personalities, and TV news tell us that, “it’s ok, they at least didn’t have sex with that boy from the internet that he made inappropriate comments too”, or “He only bought the meth, and he says he didn’t use it.” How can we even try to justify it? The intent was there, right in front of them, why are these people even making excuses for them? We shouldn’t even give these liars time in our news papers or our air waves. Although, because they are casualties in the political environment their lies and crimes have to be played down and that it was “no big deal” in an attempt to “save” their party. In my opinion they very fact of associating with these criminals and low lives are bringing down the Republican Party. It would have better served their interest in casting these people off.

By Bill Clinton

November 7, 2006 08:27 AM | Link to this

“They can’t run anything right,” countered former President Clinton, taunting Republicans about the war in Iraq, the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and even the scandal involving the House page program that complicated GOP efforts to win two more years in power.”

By Peter

November 7, 2006 08:29 AM | Link to this

As the Index of Civil Conflict approaches chaos in Iraq, we anticipate local police action can maintain the level of security we established and allow our troops to come home.

By Robert Novak

November 7, 2006 08:31 AM | Link to this

“The first is an arrogant and politically tin-eared Republican establishment in Washington. In the handling of key issues such as the occupation of Iraq, the response to Hurricane Katrina, and a meaningful follow-through on Social Security reform, the White House displayed incompetence.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, Republicans encouraged practices (such as earmarking in the appropriations process) that let corruption run free. When scandal hit, they handled it badly, particularly in the most recent case of disgraced former Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.). They also went to great lengths to alienate their base on the issue of immigration reform, and they created an issue for Democrats in the form of embryonic stem-cell research. Recall that federal funding for embryonic research received a vote on the House floor only when the House Republican leadership made a deal with moderates in order to pass their budget in 2005.”

By Goldie

November 7, 2006 08:35 AM | Link to this

This from Garrison Keillor’s column:

“The Current Occupant, who is two years and three months away from retirement, was quoted last week as saying, ”They can say what they want about me, but at least I know who I am, and I know who my friends are.” A pathetic admission of defeat for one who has owned all three branches of government for the past six years - did he seek power so that he could attain self-knowledge? If so, the price is too high. The beloved country endures a government that merges blithering corruption with murderous incompetence.

“Congress, which once spent an entire year investigating a married man’s attempt to cover up an illicit act of oral sex, has shown no curiosity whatsoever about a war that the administration elected to wage that has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands and led our own people to commit war crimes and squandered hundreds of billions of dollars and degenerated into civil war.

“The contrast is deafening. Republicans haven’t tolerated much dissent in their ranks, the voice of conscience has not been welcome, and now the herd finds itself on the wrong side of the river. It’s discouraging seeing so many people go so wrong all at once. It makes you question the idea that each of us has unlimited potential for good.

“Washington is a city where a bill to relax air-pollution standards would be called the Clean Air Act and a bill to protect government officials from war-crimes prosecution would be called the Military Commissions Act, and so a man’s statement that he knows who he is and who his friends are needs to be taken as meaning the opposite, a cry for help.

“You come to office as a uniter and you wind up doing the opposite. You stand for American values and you wind up defending torture and waste of resources. Knowing who you are is a minimal adult requirement, and you don’t get there by being an object of attention. Retirement is recommended. The sooner the better.”

By w00t

November 7, 2006 08:38 AM | Link to this

Scooter, what is positive about Iraq? That there are more than 50,000 Iraqis dead since we have been there, that the Iraqi government want stand up for itself, that there has been a serge in sectarian violence AKA: Civil war, that nearly 3000 of our troops have died, they have no infrastructure in place, there is no money from oil, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc…..

It’s great and all that we have good intentions, but when are we actually going to see the outcome? Let alone any progress to that outcome?

Yes, Iraq has caused serge in the terrorist movement. Ever heard of the term “blowback”? They have used Iraq as “proof” that we are on a crusade against the Muslims and that every man woman, and child should do what they can to oust us out of the country. It’s akin to killing one killer bee. Kill one, and the whole hive comes after you. Hell, there was even a report release recently by our on security agencies that said this. What do they have to lie about? Do we have Liberal Security agencies too now?

By Eric

November 7, 2006 08:52 AM | Link to this

Someone named Scooter is calling democrats sissies? Give me a break! Hey Scoot, your mama called, she bought you a new outfit for your Barbie doll.

By @@

November 7, 2006 08:57 AM | Link to this

ml: I think it’s hysterical that you would have the GOP playing a blame game today.

Blame is the only platform the Democrats have been running on. Nothing else. When you look at their strategy for Iraq, their list consists of actions already implemented by the administration. If there’s any blame to be handed out, it’s the blame for their obstruction of DOD programs which aide us in this war.

But since you’re passing out blame, like a typical liberal, maybe you can tell me if Michael Steele(R) in Maryland has got a point.

I left the Democratic party for a number of reasons. One of them being, the crying shame of their blame game.

By mike

November 7, 2006 09:02 AM | Link to this

It’s amazing to me that despite all of the anti-Bush, anti-Republcain sentiment, the Dems can’t even take back the Senate and might not even win the House. This just demonstrates that most Americans hold Democrats and liberals in contempt. What a bunch of losers.

By Huge

November 7, 2006 09:03 AM | Link to this

Goldie,

The more I read of Keillor, the more I like his message. Keep posting him, please!

“The beloved country endures a government that merges blithering corruption with murderous incompetence.”

The quote of the year!

“…the voice of conscience has not been welcome…”

40 years on the outside looking in and they act like a bunch of drunken faternity brats when they gain control of the congress. We’ll know for sure after today, but methinks that their sorry saga is only going to last 12 years.

I smell blood in the water today. And it is neo-con blood…

By Charles

November 7, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

I think it is time for some checks and balances in our government. I just want the Democrats to take either the House or the Senate. I Just want them to take one chamber of Congress to see what they will do. I am tired of the spinless Republican rubber stamp this Congress has given to the President. I am also tired of all the corruption.

I know Democrats are not exactly angels, but after the mess the Republicans have made they can’t be any worse…at least initially. I am sure that if the Democrats stay in power they will become lazy and corrupt as well. What this country really needs though is some fresh blood to stir up some new ideas and let these Republicans (who are really just RHINO’s…look at their track record and you can’t disagree) know that they can’t just do whatever they want to do.

That is it, I just want to see one chamber of Congress change control.

By bon scott

November 7, 2006 09:06 AM | Link to this

It’s really funny! The only neocon arguments spammer Andy poses today are ones that can only claim that the Democrats would be worse.

And a few poor rationalizations about matters they have thoroughly FUBARed.

All that time and space wasted on fibs!

Vote the Bush GOP out today. They don’t know what they’re doing, and incompetence should never be rewarded.

By Wes

November 7, 2006 09:08 AM | Link to this

@@,

I you left the party because you realized that all the Georgia rednecks were now voting Republican.

By Randy

November 7, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

These libs are too freaking funny.

Republicans won’t tolerate dissent?

George Bush is a divider?

You people need to take a look at what your party did to Joe Lieberman. On every social issue, the man is a liberal. On the war he’s a hawk and you booted him.

That’s what I call a party of self defeat.

What Republican has changed parties in the last 6 years? What democrats have suspiciously moved right?

Damn you democrats are stupid.

By Ad nauseum

November 7, 2006 09:25 AM | Link to this

We get it already. Enough is enough. This is the 226th consecutive day that @@ has told that pathetic “I used to be a Democrat” story.

WE GET IT. YOU ARE SUPERIOR. YOU ARE a REPUBLICAN NOW! YOU ARE SO MUCH BETER THAN THE LOW LIFE DEMS.zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

By Goldie

November 7, 2006 09:27 AM | Link to this

Rupert Murdoch speaks from his dais:

Media mogul Rupert Murdoch said on Monday he had no regrets about supporting the US-led invasion of Iraq and argued that the US death toll in the conflict was “minute” from a historical perspective

To the Repugnants, the lives lost are “minute” as long as it’s not anyone in their own family… I wonder how many grandchildren Murdoch has serving in this occupation of Iraq?

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2006 09:28 AM | Link to this

Why does ml have Gore, Olberman, and Pelosi blaming each other? They haven’t even finished blowing this one yet.

luckovich, must everything you scribble involve beheadings?

By Huge

November 7, 2006 09:29 AM | Link to this

“If there’s any blame to be handed out, it’s the blame for their obstruction of DOD programs which aide us in this war.”

You know that’s exactly what I was thinking. If only those libs wouldn’t obstruct W’s running of the war, we might actually be making some real progress.

Also, we’d be winning if it weren’t for that traitorous liberal media that could and should start painting the effort in Iraq to be victorious!

NOT!!!

No accountability. No admission of errors. No adaptability. No coalition. No statesmanship. No plan (oh, my bad, stay the course, is the plan). He flies this thing by the seat of his pants, while the nation, and the world, pays for King George’s OJT with countless lives and limbs and money and complete loss of focus on OBL and other threats.

But it’s the democrats fault! Or is it the French? Kevin Tillman? Maybe, it’s Ralph Nader.

Bad news for neo-cons - the people of this great republic have finally awoken en masse and they’re p!ssed!

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 09:40 AM | Link to this

Wes,

I left the Party too and I was an Upper East Sider from Manhattan - and Grandaughter of a Democrat Congressman.

Next theory?

Huge Shark,

Enjoy the chum. What are you going to do when you belly is full?

Will the Iraq War still be the reason for your long season of discontent, or are you going to be honest an admit that the War is just one of a long list of greivances, including your demands that since you are an atheist all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage must be removed from the public square?

Why is it that you have to destroy the foundations of our Country just so you can believe in nothing without being “offended”?

I hope you don’t take offense at being called a “shark”, Mr. civility. It’s really quite mild in comparison to your use of the word “chimpanzee”.

By @@

November 7, 2006 09:47 AM | Link to this

My goodness. Ad nauseum must suffer from an inferiority complex. One that’s been inflicted upon them by their party and by self. There’s no way I can give him one.

226 consecutive days? My how you exaggerate by about two-hundred and twenty days at least.

Relax, breathe. Hysterics aren’t good for your mental health. Being a Democrat isn’t either.

By Goldie

November 7, 2006 09:48 AM | Link to this

“What Republican has changed parties in the last 6 years?”

Randy— you obviously did not read about the 9 former Repugnants in Kansas who’ve switched to the Dems this year… I doubt that has been mentioned on your favorite right-wingnut talk shows, huh?

Moderates in Kansas Decide They’re Not in GOP Anymore

By Goldie

November 7, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

Here’s how the Repugnants hope to win in Virginia:

Jean Jensen, Secretary of the Virginia State Board of Elections, confirms that the FBI is now looking into possible voter intimidation in the US Senate race between Republican incumbent George Allen and Democrat Jim Webb. Jensen says state officials alerted the Justice Department yesterday to several complaints of suspicious phone calls to voters that attempted to misdirect or confuse them about election day. She adds she has now been contacted by FBI agents

Voters, Don’t listen to anything the GOP has to say — they’re a bunch of liars!

By Gladys

November 7, 2006 09:53 AM | Link to this

The Repubs keep screaming “liberal” like it is a dirty word. I don’t agree! I read my bible daily and as far as I can tell the bible continually tells us the values we should place in our daily lives………..it all looks liberal to me. I am very happy everytime someone calls me a bleeding heart liberal. I stand with good people…..beginning with Jesus! Vote Democrat!!!!!!!

By Midori

November 7, 2006 09:56 AM | Link to this

can we all applaud @@ and Buy Danish for leaving the Democrat party?

then, can we all congratulate ourselves?

Seems like their loss(es) are our gain(s).

By Huge

November 7, 2006 10:02 AM | Link to this

Even complete numbskulls gets it right once in a long while: “Will the Iraq War still be the reason for your long season of discontent, or are you going to be honest an admit that the War is just one of a long list of greivances…”

Lets see, I can’t imagine why anyone would be sick of this administration and it’s pathetic agendas.

For once(!), I’ll try and be brief: The hallmarks of this administration have been (besides “cooking the books” to start a war); out-of-control spending, unbridled cronyism, Nixon-like thuggery, endless corruption and depravity, an insane desire to get their filthy hands on the Constituion, much, much larger government interference in people’s lives, punctuated with extended vacations.”

I guess a few of the more fanatical bushbots are still into all of that, but most Americans have had more than enough…

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Well Gladys,

Are you a “good liberal” or a “good Christian?”. I ask because the “liberals” who chime in here have no mercy for the family of Rev. Haggard, nevermind the Rev. himself. Dittoes for any Republican who has not met every challenge of the human condition.

If the “sinner” is a Democrat, like say, a Kennedy then they fall silent and no doubt believe that because of his great contributions to the Church of Liberalism, he has a special entitlement to sin.

If the man happens to be, say Rush Limbaugh who inadvertently becomes addicted to painkillers, he is virtually lashed to a stake, and prosecuted with the zeal of a Salem prosecutor.

If you disagree with this un-Christianlike approach to mercy, do let us know. I could use some help doing battle with these secular moralists who believe in nothing but spite.

By Dubya

November 7, 2006 10:08 AM | Link to this

Tenhut all you ignorant Repunks. Today is election day. as you squeeze your bald heads & obese butts into the booth, make certain you psyche your little minds to forget, ignore, and not worry about the following.

October was the bloodiest month for the “coalition” forces in 2 years. According to the Pentagon, 105 suckered U.S. soldiers were killed, mostly by improvised bombs. All deaths were, of course, of heroes and patriots. As of last week the U.S. death toll stood at 2814. Another 9737 wounded so badly that they had to be sent “home.” But don’t think of the funerals or lifetime prosthetic arms and legs being fitted at Walter Reed for those dashing “heroes.” Don’t think about that day, long ago that a cowardly AWOL drunken Bush posed on an aircraft carrier and announced that major combat was over. Mission Accomplished. And most of the ignorant masses in this country believed it, as Fox, et al, heralded out the lies. Don’t remind yourself of how Cheney and Rumsfeld predicted we would “make short work of it all.” Don’t ask yourself just what those arrogant scum were thinking when they dreamed up this so-called “war.” Don’t think about the phantom WMDs (Nor the phantom Iraqi army of Desert Storm/Sham years ago.) Don’t think about those lofty All-American moments at Abu Ghraib prison and how they turned an entire civilized world against us. Don’t think about how the bad guys in Afghanistan suddenly got placed on the back burner while drunken Bush decided to “democratize” Iraq. Just like that. Don’t feel for the hundreds of thousands of slaughtered Iraqis, courtesy of Uncle Sam Insanity. Don’t think about the conclusions of the NIA that demonstrates that the U.S. madness and occupation of Iraq has galvanized Islamic radicals worldwide and actually INCREASED the global threat of terror ten fold. Don’t think of alcoholic, sub-literate Bush grinning like a circus geek last week while aggressively defending the high competence of Cheney and Rumsfeld. DO what you always do in that little voting booth: Don’t think.

By Auto.Responder

November 7, 2006 10:09 AM | Link to this

The following is an Automatic Responder System post.

Please be informed that @@ used to be a Democrat but is now a Republican

This message will automatically post daily. To have your automatic response posted to your favorite blog go to www.auto.reponder.com

By Huge

November 7, 2006 10:22 AM | Link to this

You go Gladys!

“…can we all applaud @@ and Buy Danish for leaving the Democrat party?…”

And the crowd goes crazy!!!

OK, I’m off to make some money, then do my civic duty and vote a straight republican ticket!

But I’ll be back!!!!!!

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 10:25 AM | Link to this

Mike: It’s a clever cartoon, but it might have been more appropriate tomorrow after the GOP gets its collective heads cut off, and they begin picking through the slaughterhouse pointing fingers and making accusations. It’s just as simple as your cartoon. They have failed their constituency and there is retribution. However that may be, it’s a cutting cartoon, heady with the wit which makes you so effective as a cartoonist.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 10:27 AM | Link to this

Danish, Haggard the Horrible had no mercy for millions of gay people. Now, suddenly, everyone is supposed to feel bad for the hypocritical “Rev”? Why is that, exactly?

You still don’t get Danish. Well, you never get anything, but that’s beside the point. People don’t mind faults. People mind sanctimonious hypocricy. They really really mind it. We feel pity for people who become meth heads or get addicted to pain killers. We get p!ssed when those people try to preach to everyone about how good they are and how they are the moral compass of this country.

I don’t expect any of this to make any sense to you, but rest assured I also feel pity for those who are as dumb as you.

By ##

November 7, 2006 10:31 AM | Link to this

I may one of the few who have voted with facts rather than fiction. Do I believe Rep. have a slight tilt in moral value, yes, but their are those Rep. (and Dem) that cause the party harm. I have to believe my vote counts. I know this year I would like to send a shivver up both parties spines. It all seems like a shell game sometimes. One party yes, one party no. So nothing gets done, it stays the same a nd both parties can set on their thrones and blame each other. Do I believe all of out Military want to be in Iraq, you’d have to be stupid. When its a blazing hot 80 degrees here its over 110 degrees there. We’re there to help those Iraq’s who want their freedom, problem is most of those who want their freedom are to scared to lead, they all want what we have but aren’t willing to go through what we did to achieve it. Our borders are a joke, and I believe Bush could care less about that subject by the stand he has not taken. No child left behind? How many of you, when you were young wanted to go to school or really understood what a degree did for you. These days its more about the atheletic department, than the education. All no child does is hold back those gifted students that could truely make a difference in this world. Just look at the facts and not the mindless lies of both political parties. If we truely started to vote with are head (look at what that particular politician did while in office, before election year). Nancy Piloci (hope I spelled her name right), how many people want another nut-job in California in charge. Alot of politicians, I believe, need a reality check. Do yourself and our nation a favor, I know it’s alot easier voting straight tickets (just pushing one button then getting back in your car and fight traffic back to work), but if you can’t spend one day out of four years and look at what a canidate actually, not figuratively, did then shame on you, you deserve what you recieve, another blow-hard who spends more money on getting elected, than remembering he/her had a job to do in the first place!

By Democritus

November 7, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Do we want to pull out of Iraq, or do we want a President who will seriously wage war, putting enough men and materiel into the field to crush the opposition? I know, it’s a war of ideas, and needs to waged differently than a “conventional” war, but those differences need to be addressed by competent leadership. Can American forces crush terrorist? Probably, if given the means with which to do it. Bush is dithering about the war, and praying to his God (the one who eschews stem cell research, not his God of war)that the American people do not penetrate the smoke. Which is it? Out of Iraq or effective leadership to kill the terrorist snake?

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 10:46 AM | Link to this

Well, @@ and Buy Danish,

I am so glad that you are Republicans. This is the party of intelligence, compassion and ethics. You fit in here very well.

Don’t mind the jeers and name calling. They’re just mad ‘cause you left them. All they have is Dem leftovers: DNC info repeaters, anti-war cut-n-runners and many with no faith in their lives. Their main goal is to blame, obstruct and twist facts. You can see that on this blog.

So, glad you are here. We can work together to make a better America.

By Midori

November 7, 2006 10:56 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

you have no idea how happy I am that you are not in my party, either.

no one is jeering or calling names.

just stating a matter of fact.

By Scooter

November 7, 2006 11:00 AM | Link to this

w00T,

They have no infrastructure in place? Do you remember the eagerness of the “media” to print a story everyday extolling how the infrastructure (Electrical, Water) was only X percent of pre-invasion levels? Since the “media” stopped reporting that do you just assume it is still true? The Iraqis will not stand up for their own country? Have you been hearing all the stories of Iraqi Police and Military being killed? Sure, some retreated from battle early on and some have joined militias, but the majority of Iraqis have always been loyal to Iraq. Do you remember hearing reports of terrorist blowing up Iraqis standing in line to join the Police or Army? I know it was only because they wanted to earn money to feed their family in the chaos created by our liberation. All of those Iraqis willing to stand up and fight for their country will be left at the base of our Embassy as the Democrats Heliport the last US Diplomat out of a slaughter.

Yes, they have tried to use Iraq as proof we are on a crusade. Hypothetically, let’s say the dems still believed Saddam posed an IMMINENT THREAT (Dems 2003 words, not Bush’s), as they did prior to Operation Desert Fox and the removal of UN Inspectors, and we were committed to standing up an Iraqi force. If we committed and succeeded in that PLAN, how easy would it be for terrorist to promote that same blowback? Did you know that Report you alluded to also stated victory would be a great blow to terrorist recruitment efforts, but the “media” didn’t focus on it?

Sad fact is, if we prematurely withdraw or redeploy to Okinawa. We will have invaded Iraq, removed Saddam after starving the Iraqis with sanctions and then left them to slaughtered into the submission of Sharia Law. Do you think that sounds like a better outcome? It seems whatever those with journalism degrees say, is what the electorate will do. Heaven knows it is easier to end research at media snippets and John Stewart sound bites than u.

No war has ever been executed without mistakes, standing up an Iraqi force is as much of a plan as shouldout of the Whitehouse unless you want to micromanage another Vietnam.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 11:02 AM | Link to this

Huge Blowhard,

If your comments over the past few months had been limited to your disapproval of the Iraq War and sundry civil disagreements, and had been voiced in tones that did not betray a congenital contempt for discourse, I might have some reason to believe your feeble protests, and indeed there would be no reason for me to comment to you at all.

Unfortunately you are possessed of a bilious disposition towards more than just political action. For example, you recently used the words “Puke” and “Christ” as synonyms.

You are not content to be an atheist and let others carry on with their alternative beliefs. Nope, you are on a crusade (pun intended) to immunize yourself from the very beliefs that are at the foundations of our founding. You don’t want to have those ideas “shoved down your throat” so you’re determined to shove your nihilism down ours.

This is a great battle of the 21st Century, as the belligerence of your style of militant secularism acts as a convenient shield against our Caliphate-happy enemies.

It is your phoniness is that makes you so utterly loathesome. You slander your adversaries with decidedly uncivil ad hominems that are coincidentally exact copies of the choice vocabulary that litter the stirring phrases of Mad Imans. That makes you a hypocrite, and a particularly unctuous one at that.

That, and only that, is what compels me to comment on your “writings”. Believe me, it is not out of any admiration for your message.

By Solon

November 7, 2006 11:06 AM | Link to this

I saw in yesterday’s AJC that the FBI is ready to run a sting on Congress. I think most of us, regardless of party inclinations, just want to know how soon. That’s a sad commentary on politics in American. I think most of us who claim to vote Republican don’t believe the new guys would be any less corrupt than the ones we have. I think most of us who claim to vote Democrat believe fresh blood (to use the most applicable cliche) would, for a while at least, be less corrupt than the guys who currently hold our purse strings. What a sad commentary on American politics. The system does seem to work best when the executive branch and the legislature represent different affiliations, which is what we may see after today. What a sad commentary on politics in America. I would even vote Libertarian or Independent or Know Nothing Party, if I could have confidence that the man I help elect will serve my needs rather than just those with the most money and if I could trust that individual not to line his or her own pocket at my (read taxpayers) expense.

By N-GA

November 7, 2006 11:07 AM | Link to this

Democritus,

Your stated choice: “Which is it? Out of Iraq or effective leadership to kill the terrorist snake?” is really no choice at all. Iraq and the war on terrorism are not inextricably linked. There were no terrorists in Iraq until GWB sent American troops to invade a soverign state. Then it became a rallying point for terrorists and insurgents.

The USA can exit Iraq and STILL successfully fight terrorism. It will be much more difficult now that GWB has alienated most of our allies…but a new administration can, in time, overcome most of the damage that Bush has done.

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 11:08 AM | Link to this

Mike: Please tell me. Is the blame game played on a level playing field? When do we know that a foul has been committed? Who keeps score? The other party?

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 11:09 AM | Link to this

I’m sure our little Sunshine Danish believes she is not guilty of any of the things that she accuses Huge of being. That’s what makes her our little board mascot.

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 11:10 AM | Link to this

Midori,

You must have posted without reading this blog.

I, too, am just stating the facts.

As for calling names, I don’t believe I mentioned your name at all.

By Democritus

November 7, 2006 11:15 AM | Link to this

TO N-GA

With your eloquent cross examination of the issues involved, I rest my case.

By N-GA

November 7, 2006 11:18 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

I’m sure you meant to say “our little bored mascot”. And I have to say that she believes she isn’t guilty of anything BECAUSE she’s a Republican. They never admit wrongdoing. And of course she belongs to the one TRUE religion…they claim “There’s only ONE way!…through Jesus!”. lol

By Ditzty Malloy

November 7, 2006 11:21 AM | Link to this

You Democrats are just sooooo jealous of us Republicans. Voting was a snap. I just whipped out my New Life Curch voters guide. As a values voter I’m appalled at the moral compass this country of ours, America, has followed lately. You have awoken a sleeping GIANT.

We finally get a President who actually talks to God and this is how we treat Him?

Rumor has it that the early polling shows a HUGE REPUBLICAN LANSLIDE.

THE RED WAVE IS HAPPENING!!

BEHOLD.

By hterrya

November 7, 2006 11:23 AM | Link to this

November 7, 2006 09:02 AM, mike wrote:

“It’s amazing to me that despite all of the anti-Bush, anti-Republcain sentiment, the Dems can’t even take back the Senate and might not even win the House. This just demonstrates that most Americans hold Democrats and liberals in contempt. What a bunch of losers.”

I’m saving your comment for tomorrow. I will reprint it again. This is the first time I have felt some hope for a regime change.

I think you are whistling in the graveyard of the current regime.

Now, for your labeling of those with whom you disagree as “losers.”

Who lost Osama bin-Laden? And who has lost almost as many of our military in the deceptively-sold invasion and occupation of Iraq as were killed in 9/11?

See you tomorrow!

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 11:24 AM | Link to this

Oh yes, N-GA. My bad. Your correction is absolutely right. But it’s more than that. I really think she sees herself as a warrior (from the comfort of her home), as a holy crusader, without the stress of actually doing anything. She has O’Reilly-like ego.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 11:30 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

It would be some much easier, and we could end hypocrisy forever, if no one believed in anything, wouldn’t it now?

Here is what James Taranto had to say in “Tired and Haggard” and I think it is a perfect synopsis:

There is undeniably something sordid about these allegations, if true. But whenever a story like this arises, we scratch our head and wonder what it has to do with the merits of the issue? We guess it’s supposed to be “hypocritical” for someone to have a secret homosexual life while publicly opposing homosexuality—but why? If you are homosexual and you believe homosexuality is wrong, remaining in the closet would be entirely consistent with your beliefs.

If Jones’s claims about Haggard are true, Haggard plainly was not living up to his own moral principles. And of course those principles may be wrong. But Haggard’s falling short of them has no bearing on their merits as moral principles.

I might add that another “hypocrite” in this scandal is Jones himself, who claims that he outed Haggard because of his theoretically hypocritical stance on Gay marriage.

Are we to believe that the gay prostitute Jones is keen on getting married?

By Midori

November 7, 2006 11:32 AM | Link to this

Dusty,

yes I did read the blog. that made me even happier that you and I don’t belong to the same party.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 11:33 AM | Link to this

Benedict Arnold, rewritten anagramically, is, “Can Rent Diebold”, just as Nostradomus predicted: Our suffrage has baggage and is hostaged.

If they would have caught Benedict Arnold, they would have hanged him from the highest yardarm, (after keelhauling him, of course).

I like that they would have keelhauled Arnold, (and his conservative blogging support), and then hanged him (and his trolls), from the highest yardarm.

I like that real good.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 11:36 AM | Link to this

OUR SUFFRAGE HAS BAGGAGE!!

OUR SUFFRAGE IS HOSTAGE!!!

“Benedict Arnold” equals “Can Rent Diebold”. (anagram).

They would have keelhauled Arnold and then hanged him (and his stooly little trolls) if they would have caught the pos.

I like that they would have keelhauled Arnold and his stooly trolls and then hanged them all.

I like that real good.

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 11:38 AM | Link to this

rushncap the rube,

wants to call Buy Danish a mascot. What’s the matter, rushie? Can’t stand for someone who writes so well with logic and accuracy to post here? Goes against your grain to read outstanding conservatives?

You have to attach all your cute little names or worse, your nasty little names for women?

No wonder you want to defend Huge. You are both remarkably rude. Huge told me to “shut up” yesterday which he thought was a clever disagreement. It shows exactly how the mind works for you and Huge.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 11:40 AM | Link to this

I take umbrage that our suffrage has baggage and is hostaged.

Benedict Arnold can be written anagramically as “Can Rent Diebold”.

They would have keelhauled and then hanged Arnold and his wet trolls if they would have caught him and them.

I like that. I like that fact real good.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 11:42 AM | Link to this

To translate Danish’s last post: “It’s OK for people to not have principles as long as they simply claim to have principles”. As yes, the banner of the Republican Party. It’s OK to bribe, lie, cheat, steal etc. as long as we publically say that we’re against bribery, lying, cheating and stealing.

I don’t think I’ve ever met a less moral person than you, Danish. I really don’t think I have.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 11:44 AM | Link to this

Dusty, shake that sand out of your panties. You’re a wee bit irritable.

And Danish is about as “outstanding” as cling-ons.

By Election Centre

November 7, 2006 11:48 AM | Link to this

FROM FLA

Early pole shows Foley up.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 11:50 AM | Link to this

rushncap,

Unlike Huge Martinet, who came here stating (and I paraphrase) that “He was going to change things, and he wasn’t going to allow the conversations to continue on in the manner that they were”, I have never made such intolerant demands.

Unlike secular Liberals, I do not demand that they give up their Atheism so that I may be a Christian.

I do not demand that they give up their devotion to Darwinism, only that I be allowed to entertain other alternatives, of which Intelligent Design is, well, a very intelligent example.

Unlike liberals who vigilantly try to muzzle discourse, I have consistently taken a position of open discussion.

My interest is in real free speech, not the politically correct version weilded by “liberal” tyrants that is nothing but censorship. That is why I took the name “Buy Danish” in the first place - it came from the Cartoon Jihad. Please feel free to check the archives to prove me wrong.

You on the other hand cannot even have a civil discussion without immediately stating that my positions are “crap” as happened last week over the discussion of the influence of the Jesuits on the dissemination of higher education.

It’s really just an attempt at intimidating me by your (cough cough) superior knowledge, but as you may have guessed, I am not someone who is easily intimidated, and I am also very capable of backing my statements up with cold hard facts.

While I was incorrect in saying they “invented” it, I was correct and “historians agree” that the Christian churches were responsible for most of it and indeed the whole concept of a “liberal arts education” is born out of Christian philosophy.

By Truthman

November 7, 2006 11:58 AM | Link to this

To all neo-cons.

All Hail Speaker Pelosi!!

Henry Waxman will go after Cheney for his energy meetings with CEOs of the energy industry.

Bush and his cabal will be brought to a halt.

Thank goodness for all the hard work of my fellow progressives and Americans who have said “ENOUGH!!”

Neo-cons, have fun joining Rush, Vannity and Boortz in the “Irrelevant Bastards Club!”

What a great day for America!!!

Go Dems!! Go America!!

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 12:00 PM | Link to this

rushcap,

How long are you going to persist in your childish foolishness?

Do Democrats never bribe, cheat, lie or steal? Are you saying that Democrats have no principles to begin with?

For someone who thinks he is so freaking smart, that is about the dumbest “argument” I’ve ever heard.

Would you like me to dig out Candidate Harold Ford’s statement about how Democrats make better Christians than Republicans, or shall I spare you the embarrasment?

Unlike sanctimonious politicians like Hillary Clinton, I don’t say things like “Jesus would be opposed to a border fence”. I do not presume to know what Jesus would say on such matters, except to share my thoughts that he may very well have felt that “fences make good neighbors”.

You may find this shocking, but my opinions on fence building would not rely on a reading of the Bible, or sanctimony, but on common sense.

By Pinko Teacher

November 7, 2006 12:01 PM | Link to this

Proof of global warming!!:

52nd coolest October on record (1895-2006). All regions near to or below normal temperature (first time since February 2003 with no regions above average temperature).

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 12:04 PM | Link to this

No one wants you to give up your Christianity nor your delusions of creationism (by whatever name it’s called this week). You are free to do so. And yes, Danish, we all got your name, it’s not nearly as deep as you think.

I state that something is “crap” when it is. Whether the Jesuits invented higher education is not a matter of opinion any more than whether pigs can actually fly is a matter of opinion. It’s patently, demonstrably false. Even someone as intellectually dishonest as you were forced to withdraw that statement. Liberal arts education also was not invented by Christians. In fact, that education arose out of the desire to re-discover the art and science of ancient pagan Greece and Rome, which were far, far more advanced than those of Christian Europe of the time.

And you’re right, you’re not easily intimidated. That’s pretty much the only positive thing that can be said about you. You’re one of those people who think that being wrong is OK as long as you’re proud of it and cannot be made to see facts. As I was saying — perfect neo-con.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 12:05 PM | Link to this

rushncap knows cling-ons.

I like that. I like that fact real good.

By Priapus

November 7, 2006 12:09 PM | Link to this

To Buy Danish.

I’m confused by the quotation you inserted into your blog message. I also admit to not knowing James Taranto. It seems to me that the situation he describes is the epitome of hypocrisy. Let me summarize, as I understand it. Haggard is a homosexual, but believes that homosexuality is wrong, therefore he lobbies against homosexuality. Is that pretty much the argument? Most child molesters will agree with you that child molestation is wrong, does that mean they are not hypocrites? Of course, what they do is a serious crime, what Haggard did is not a crime. I don’t agree. What Haggard did was hypocrisy of the first order. What the church did is hypocrisy of the first order. In his letter, he states that he will be guided back to the faith by some church officials (more or less an accurate paraphrase). Doesn’t this sound much like the deprograming that was once done on Moonies? Will he be less a homosexual, less hypocritical when they finish the deprograming? I don’t think so, and neither does Taranto. Not living up to one’s own moral standards is pretty close to a dictionary definition of hypocrisy.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 12:11 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

In response to your 11:42 - How long are you going to persist in your childish foolishness?

Do Democrats never bribe, cheat, lie or steal? Are you saying that Democrats have no principles to begin with?

For someone who thinks he is so freaking smart, that is about the dumbest “argument” I’ve ever heard.

Moreover, on the “hypocrisy” front, would you like me to dig out Candidate Harold Ford’s statement about how Democrats make better Christians than Republicans, or shall I spare you the embarrassment?

Unlike sanctimonious politicians like Hillary Clinton, I don’t say things like “Jesus would be opposed to a border fence”. I do not presume to know what Jesus would say on such matters, except to share my thoughts that he may very well have felt that “fences make good neighbors”.

You may find this shocking, but my opinions on fence building would not rely on a reading of the Bible, or sanctimony, but on common sense.

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 12:12 PM | Link to this

The main message Republicans who sit this one out will be sending the president is “Please raise my taxes by $2.4 trillion,” the cost to U.S. taxpayers over the next ten years if new Ways and Means chairman Charlie Rangel carries out his promise to let all of the Bush tax cuts expire. Add in the cost of bringing back the death tax, as Rangel will also try to do, and the size of the Democrats’ tax increase goes even higher. Nancy Pelosi may have recently, bizarrely announced, “I love tax cuts!,” but judging from her voting record so far it might be more accurate to say that she’s been admiring those tax cuts from afar.

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 12:23 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

rude as usual. Talk about your own “panties” with your little buddies. I’m not interested.

By Truthman

November 7, 2006 12:40 PM | Link to this

A 700-mile fence for a 2,000 mile border!?!

Ha, Ha, Ha!! Typical neo-con math!!

Does anybody remember the “Maginot Line?”

Lotta good that one did!!

Pendehos!!

By getalife

November 7, 2006 01:03 PM | Link to this

Thanks Mike.

Get out and vote!

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

The Republican Party’s best friend

Nothing, NOTHING suppresses the dumba-ss liberal vote more than inclement weather.

By the time they remember where they left the umbrella and how to open it, the polls will be closed.

Bye, bye liberalism.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 01:14 PM | Link to this

Democrats do lie, cheat etc. Just much less so than the Republicans, at least of late. Compare the number of Repubs expelled from Congress over the past year (that would be 3 that I can think of off the top of my head) to the number of Democrats (yeah, that would be a 0), and get back to me Danish. Both parties are corrupt. Republicans are just much more so.

Since I have no idea where the border fence discussion came from, nor do I have any interest in discussing it, I will ignore it.

By pos

November 7, 2006 01:25 PM | Link to this

“Laura Ingraham has asked her listeners to call the Dem Voter protection hotline — and they are now being flooded with calls from crank callers.”

By Ditzty Malloy

November 7, 2006 01:28 PM | Link to this

We’re Gonna…..Raise……Your……Taxes!!!!, this is the rain I was praying for yesterday. Isn’t it wonderful.

I usually pray 25-50 times a day.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 01:37 PM | Link to this

Not living up to one’s own moral standards is pretty close to a dictionary definition of hypocrisy

Priapus,

I gather that your name reveals an above average interest in this topic.

First of all that quote^^belies a lack of understanding of Christian doctrine, but I am not about to take on the role of your tutor as I do not claim to be a theologian.

I refer you to this quote from Candide this morning:

Look at Ted Haggard. He admits he has tried and failed to be straight, despite Jesus and all that. You’d think this would make him more understanding of gays, that they cannot help their orientation. But no, as a typical ChristoFascist he excoriates gays and resorts to the same Christian sin and guilt trip which has so evidently failed. Christians are real s**!

You mentioned child molestors, but one could argue that the child molestor “cannot help his orientation” either. Then what?

James Taranto (who puts together “Opinion Journal” for the Wall Street Journal) is saying that it is possible to be a homosexual and still believe that homosexuality is wrong. It is possible (if not probable) that that is Haggard’s moral dilemna.

Whether or not it is impossible to “avoid the temptation” of homosexuality is not for me to say. Many have failed, but that does not mean that those who believe it is wrong should necessarily give up trying.

That is a personal decision that must be made by the individual, (or in Haggard’s case, by him and his congregation as the individuals in his church collectively believe the same thing - presumably by choice).

You may have decided that homosexuality is not wrong and you are free to draw that conclusion, but you are not Haggard, and neither of you are hypocrites for holding either position.

By Priapus

November 7, 2006 02:03 PM | Link to this

To Buy Danish;

Congratulations on your educational achievements. Actually Priapus was a god of fertility as well as sexuality. I was implying that my seed (my intellectual output) might fall on barren ground, but now that I have some grasp of your educational attainments, I shall no longer be concerned).

By the same logic you are applying here (13:37), a child molester is excusable because he knows child molestation is wrong. I suspect the courts would use the legalese term for hypocrit and sentence him just the same. The point is that any time one is unable to live up to the moral standards he has set for himself, then he is being a hypocrite, a point which Taranto tries to gloss over in the last paragraph cited. That was the glaring contradiction in Taranto’s argument. We are not arguing right or wrong, we are merely pointing out that Taranto’s logic breaks down and is not a trustworthy citation in this debate. Christian doctrine would state that the errant lamb abase himself, confess his sins, beg for forgiveness, be forgiven, and serve penitence. On the surface, that sounds like precisely the sequence being followed by Haggard. Let us see, therefore, if forgiveness, rather than reprograming is in the church fathers’ agenda. As I read the comments, reprograming seems to be the goal, which still leaves their and Haggard’s contradictions intact. The forgiveness part doesn’t work theologically unless the church can accept the prodigal (the primary image for foregiveness in Christian doctrine) just as he is.

By N-GA

November 7, 2006 02:05 PM | Link to this

BD,

Someone could be a pedophile and believe it to be an aberrant behavior, yet abstain (much like alcoholics, drug addicts, and nicotine addicts). Homosexuals can too. But if they “fall off the wagon” and engage in consensual sex, so what? But if a pedophile “backslides”, the consequences are evil.

The hypocrisy is in preaching (and legislating) against a behavior that many scientists believe to be hereditary when the preacher (or legislator) is guilty of the behavior. It is particularly egregious when the person wears the mantle of the self-proclaimed morally superior (moral majority).

Most liberals would condemn another liberal for similar hypocritical behavior. And we’ll send our representatives to prison if they are guilty just like Cunningham (I’m speaking of Jefferson - Dem, LA).

Sure people should have sympathy for Haggard’s family, friends, & congregation. But permit people a moment of outrage….

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

rushncap,

If I had said that the Jesuits PRACTICALLY invented higher education it would have been true. You are nitpicking over an unimportant detail which entirely missed the point of my argument which is entirely valid and not “crap”.

“Historians agree” that I am right about the unmistakable contributions the churches and “monasteries” made to liberal arts - something you would no doubt prefer to ignore as it would be saying something positive about a religion.

Your idea that all good art has a political agenda is far closer to a definition of “crap” than my assertions. Sure, some are, but hardly the majority and the value of art is not defined by their capacity to mix politics in with paint.

Next -

The idea that you can tally up the “corruption” of Democrats and Republicans and come up with some sort of meaningful number is an absurd exercise in futility.

The border fence example was an illustration of a Democrat not only using the Bible, but actually deigning to know what Jesus would say to justify a political position.

My point (and I’m sorry that you did’t understand it) is that I mistrust people who confidently say things that Christ never said yet claim that he WOULD say that if here were here today.

I believe that makes me more principled than the person who uses those tactics, and the person in this case is a heroine of the Democrat Party who, in my opinion, is a shameless opportunist.

Finally -

People like Huge Blowhard DO want to destroy all vestiges of Christianity and any alternatives to Darwin’s theories so that they can follow their beliefs unencumbered by alternative ideas. He has stated as much here, and he is certainly not alone in these, dare I say, demanding views. Heck, people like him keep the ACLU in business.

Later…

By Nomad

November 7, 2006 02:08 PM | Link to this

ML: Shouldn’t the letters on the turkey’s chest read DNC? Just wanted to point out your mistake.

No charge of course :)

Have a nice day.

NOMAD

By getalife

November 7, 2006 02:18 PM | Link to this

FBI Investigating Voter Intimidation In Virginia…Numerous Voting Machine Problems Reported…Voters Delayed In Tennessee, Indiana, Ohio, Florida…KY Poll Worker Charged For Allegedly “Choking” Voter…GOP Congressman Chabot Turned Away At The Polls….. to be continued.

Told ya it would be a mess. The gop are not going out quietly and are pulling out all their dirty tricks.

Remember when adults would tell their children to play by the rules and obey the law.

Those days are history thanks to the gop.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 02:19 PM | Link to this

Priapus,

Sure dude, whatever. Could you be any more arrogant about your “seed”?

I am not implying that a child molestor’s actions are excusable. That is where Candide’s argument takes us.

A child molestor is not a “hypocrite” for his actions, he is a criminal - among other “sins”.

As for Haggard’s church, of which I am not a member, I assume that they “forgive” him but expect him to refrain from his activities in the future. If he can’t I guess he needs to find another chuch. That’s for him to know and is a decision for him alone to make by his own free will.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 02:27 PM | Link to this

rushncap

“In fact, that education arose out of the desire to re-discover the… science of ancient pagan Greece and Rome, which were far, far more advanced than those of Christian Europe of the time.”

Not really. Greece and Rome did not practice or have “science” as we know it (systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, collection of data through observation and experiment, the formulation and testing of hypotheses). While both cultures had accumulated knowledge based upon observation, much of it was inaccurate, was passed from generation to generation and showed neither advancement nor evolution (nature of the solar system, matter (a few lucky guesses), medicine, etc. Rome? some advances in warfare, but there was nothing “scientific” about either culture.

In fact, that ideology with which we are now at war embraced “Greek learning” which was a great impediment to scientific progress. One can easily make the case that it was Christian theology, built upon rationality and the ability (if not the command) to understand the universe which was the impetus for science - unlike other religions, such as Islam, with a theology which permits Allah to intervene, contradict, overturn or do whatever he darn well pleases - so there is nothing consistent to understand.

And this isn’t about doctrines, etc. It’s a theological view. The bashing of others’ faiths doesn’t interest me much. I’m referring more to the attitude of Werner von Braun, who had a modification from Romans on his desk: the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. In other words, mankind can evolve in understanding of the infinite - a view pretty much unique among the major religions of the world.

By Priapus

November 7, 2006 02:29 PM | Link to this

To Buy Danish,

You’re on the right track, just keep following the logic of your argument.

By Jenn

November 7, 2006 02:30 PM | Link to this

I guess the libs are blaming the rain on Bush?

By Jenn

November 7, 2006 02:32 PM | Link to this

I guess the libs are blaming all the rain on Bush?

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 02:42 PM | Link to this

No Danish, Jesuits “practically inventing” higher education is still false, much like them “practically inventing” the wheel is. I guess if by “practically invented” you mean “were one of the groups to do it centuries after it had been invented” you would be technically correct, but that would make for some unbelievable perversion of the English language that would make even Humpty Dumpty blush. Churches did heavily contribute to the establishment of education in Western Europe. Which is still a far cry from them “inventing” it. And churches soon lost control of the beast they re-awakened, as they quickly realized that they cannot control knowledge nearly as much as they wished. Which is why even in the U.S. universities which were originally established by religious orders are being severed from their establishing sects or denomenations. Duke, Wake Forest and Harvard come to mind, but there are many more. Christian religion certainly played a significant role in the introduction of higher education to the cultures of Europe. But they also played no small part in trying to hold it back later.

And yes Danish, comparing the corruption of Democrats and Republicans is meaningful. As I said, 2 very meaningful numbers are 3 and 0, as in the numbers of Republicans and Democrats, respectively, to resign in disgrace. That is VERY meaningful.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 02:49 PM | Link to this

Paul: —- One can easily make the case that it was Christian theology, built upon rationality and the ability (if not the command) to understand the universe which was the impetus for science —-

One can. One can also make the case that we designed our airplanes to mimic the aerodynamic properties of pigs. It’s just one won’t succeed, in either case. Greeks were without a doubt far more advanced than Europe of the Dark Ages. They did not have scientific method as such, but they certainly were more systematic and thorough in their observations. The Renaissance — “the Rebirth” — which led to the Scientific Revolution was based on rediscovering the knowledge and approach of the Greek and Roman civilizations.

—- unlike other religions, such as Islam, with a theology which permits Allah to intervene, contradict, overturn or do whatever he darn well pleases —-

Jesus does the same. Unless you’re denying all those supposed “miracles” we keep hearing about. Or maybe saying that Jesus, unlike Allah, is impotent.

The fact that von Braun was Christian does not affect the reality of the Scientific Revolution any more than the fact that he was also a Nazi.

By Priapus

November 7, 2006 02:51 PM | Link to this

Yes, I have voted today.

By @@

November 7, 2006 02:54 PM | Link to this

Alrighty, I’m back from the precinct.

Local County — One Democrat with Republican opposition. Determining factor…profession. Both were new to politics.

Local County — One Republican with Democrat opposition. Determining factor…profession. Both were new to politics.

State level — One tried & true Democrat.

State level — One tried & true Republican.

Federal level — One Republican new to politics. The Democratic opposition is a career politician who has been riding the political gravy train waaaaaay too long, and hasn’t accomplished much.

It’s cold and wet out there.

I never resent the long lines. It’s a nice place to interact with people. There was one fight because somebody broke in line. They had to call security.

We all agreed it broke the monotony and we all agreed that the children they had with them should have never witnessed or experienced the shame of their parents’ behavior.

Oh well…life is…

By Midori

November 7, 2006 02:56 PM | Link to this

Jenn,

that’s really, really stupid.

I don’t mean to be “mean”; however, I can’t find any other way to say it.

By @@

November 7, 2006 03:01 PM | Link to this

Oh, and btw…there are some interesting concessions being made by the Shiite leadership in Iraq. Somewhat of a coup for the Sunnis. I’d link, but it’s subscription only.

Time may or may not prove it out, but it’s interesting nonetheless.

By Democritus

November 7, 2006 03:11 PM | Link to this

To @@,

Sorry you had that fiasco. My precinct was nice and quiet. I went in, let them photograph and fingerprint me, produced a myriad of ID’s, went to an empty booth, make my choices and was out of there in about 5 minutes.

By @@

November 7, 2006 03:13 PM | Link to this

Oh, and btw…there are some interesting concessions being made by the Shiite leadership in Iraq. Somewhat of a coup for the Sunnis. I’d link, but it’s subscription only.

Time may or may not prove it out, but it’s interesting nonetheless. It’s good news for now, and could be good news for later.

I’ll hope, and PRAY if that’s O.K. with the secularists here.

By @@

November 7, 2006 03:15 PM | Link to this

Oops!! Double post. Apologies!!

By Paul

November 7, 2006 03:16 PM | Link to this

Your instructors must’ve looked at your essay responses, scratched their heads and thought “where do I begin? Did he really sit through the lectures?”

The point was, Greece and Rome did not have “science” as we know it. A collection of lore, speculation, etc. does not equal “science.”

I’ll keep this brief, not nasty: the view you portray of “the Dark Ages” repeated was fashionable in textbooks of oh, three decades or so ago. You may want to reexamine those beliefs in light of recent writings. One decent distillation is “The Victory of Reason.” One reviewer stated:

“If you hold the following three propositions, the massive evidence marshaled in this book asks you to reconsider them: (1) For eleven centuries after the legitimation of Catholicism under Constantine in 323 A.D., the Church kept liberty in chains and progress in check, imposing backwardness on the “Dark” Ages; (2) Only after the overthrow of Catholic unity by the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment did systemic invention, science, and freedom appear, and speedily make the West great; (3) Capitalism originated under the impulse of the Protestant ethic.”

Reference your Jesus comment - you really didn’t get the point. I take it you’re a literalist - or enjoy poking fun at those who are. There are a great many Christians who take a much less literal, more symbolic view of the writings. As I said, I don’t care much for the “I’m right you’re wrong” mudfights. The topic was the greater view of attitude - not distractions such as “how’d he get all those loaves and fish out of those baskets, anyhow?” (the literalist view).

I do not know if Werner von Braun was Christian or not. It makes no difference to the topic (it was not an appeal to authority - rather a reference to how a scientist views knowledge through the lens of Christian writings). The Nazi comment is just another typically distracting comment with no bearing upon the subject.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

You can lay off “secularists”, @@. We were not the ones who pushed an invasion of a sovereign nation based on lies and started a civil war between 2 religious sects there. I think that would be our super-pious President.

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 03:21 PM | Link to this

Hahaha:

MORE fighting goes on in parts of suburban US than Iraq, according to Australian filmmaker George Gittoes who has just finished a documentary set in a Miami “war zone”. Gittoes’ latest feature, Rampage, contrasts life for a family living in the blue-collar community of Brown Sub, Miami, with ongoing fighting in Iraq. “It is much worse in Miami than it is in Baghdad,” Gittoes said in Sydney today.

No kidding, I wonder who’s known this for years.

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 03:22 PM | Link to this

Mike: It’s a clever cartoon, but it might have been more appropriate tomorrow after the GOP gets its collective heads cut off, and they begin picking through the slaughterhouse pointing fingers and making accusations. It’s just as simple as your cartoon. They have failed their constituency and there is retribution. However that may be, it’s a cutting cartoon, heady with the wit which makes you so effective as a cartoonist.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

An anagram of @@ is (o).

By Paul

November 7, 2006 03:23 PM | Link to this

Democritus

I waited in line a few minutes, then found the wait was caused because the electronic voting machines “didn’t work.” I was impressed, though - paper ballots and ballot readers were available and all went smoothly.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 03:24 PM | Link to this

Another anagram of @@ is <=3

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry Paul. I have read enough about the Renaissance to know pretty well the current consensus about it. Here is the introduction to a Wiki article on the era:

[“The Italian Renaissance of the 15th century represented a reconnection of the west with classical antiquity, the absorption of knowledge (particularly mathematics), a focus on the importance of living well in the present (Renaissance humanism), and an explosion of the dissemination of knowledge brought on by the advent of printing. In addition, the creation of new techniques in art, poetry, and architecture led in turn to a radical change in the style and substance of the arts and letters. The Italian Renaissance was often labeled as the beginning of the Modern Age, or the Early Modern.

Present day historians are skeptical about excessive claims for the modernity of the period and the common assumption that previous centuries were in some way “darker”, viewing the Renaissance as a cultural program or movement based on humanism, arts, and the classics rather than an entire historical age.”](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renaissance)

Note emphasis on humanism and classical antiquity. I’m not arguing that it’s impossible to be both Christian and a scientist, I’m merely opposed to Christianity claiming credit for something they at best had very little to do with and at worst opposed.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 03:30 PM | Link to this

Benedict Arnold can be written “Can Rent Diebold” (anagramically)

Just as nostradamus predicted. There’s no way the democrats are going to win even one seat in either house with the ballot stuffing fraud that Diebold can rent.

And I think it’s a damn shame.

By The Way

November 7, 2006 03:35 PM | Link to this

a nut on the internet is another anagram of @@

By Republicans are Too Dumb to Get Out of the Rain

November 7, 2006 03:38 PM | Link to this

Advanced voting was all last week. It took all of 2 minutes to cast my ballot as there was not one single soul in the precinct except for the poll workers. Looks like all the do-nothing Republicans waited ‘til the last minute to vote just like their craven idols and now they’re bawling cause it’s rainin’ outside. Don’t these r**** ever do ANYTHING responsibly. Oh yeh, they can’t lie, cheat, steal, take a bribe, buy crystal meth, hire gay hookers, or molest congressional pages without gettin’ caught, whadda ya expect.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 03:42 PM | Link to this

Interesting third paragraph, rushncap. I cited the book as I’d recently read much and skimmed the rest - parts of it were a bit off what I was interested in - but I did find it challenging to my views - particularly as I pretty much held the three views cited in my earlier paragraph (if you hold the following three propositions).

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 03:43 PM | Link to this

To Paul:

I tried to find some reviews on Stark’s book, but the Gwinnett County Library website was being unfriendly so I was unable to get even a basic summary. Please elucidate the reviewer’s comment. In what direction does Stark take us?

If you hold the following three propositions, the massive evidence marshaled in this book asks you to reconsider them: (1) For eleven centuries after the legitimation of Catholicism under Constantine in 323 A.D., the Church kept liberty in chains and progress in check, imposing backwardness on the “Dark” Ages; (2) Only after the overthrow of Catholic unity by the Reformation, the Renaissance, and the Enlightenment did systemic invention, science, and freedom appear, and speedily make the West great; (3) Capitalism originated under the impulse of the Protestant ethic.”

As you know, this is pretty much “received wisdom.” Stark is a well regarded Socialist of Religion. I’m real curious in what direction he takes his argument. Yes, I will scan it tomorrow at the library.

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 03:48 PM | Link to this

To all,

Sorry. I wrote socialist when I should have typed Sociologist

By w00t

November 7, 2006 03:51 PM | Link to this

Andy, do you believe that crap for one second? Do we have IED’s going off everyday? Do we have people pulling up to employment offices and killing 20-50 people at a time? Do we have sectarian violence on our city streets? Do people fear going out here in the United States?

Yes, there may be violence here in the US, but it is NO WHERE near the level that it is in Iraq. I can’t believe you’re then one here that cries about media propaganda, and then digs this crap up.

If you do believe in it, then maybe you should vote for someone that changes it. It goes to show that the US has a problem and that it should no longer be ignored by our government. When are they going to care about OUR people in OUR country?

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2006 03:52 PM | Link to this

From what I can tell working the phones, there is no way the Democrats are going to pick up the 67 House seats and 11 Senate seats they would need just to reach historical averages. The Republicans are pumped and turning out big time.

When you guys can’t pull that off in this political climate, it’s time to fold your party.

Should be a very interesting day around here tomorrow. Back to the phones.

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 04:00 PM | Link to this

By Republicans are Too Dumb to Get Out of the Rain November 7, 2006 03:38 PM Advanced voting was all last week. It took all of 2 minutes to cast my ballot as there was not one single soul in the precinct except for the poll workers. Looks like all the do-nothing Republicans waited ‘til the last minute to vote just like their craven idols and now they’re bawling cause it’s rainin’ outside.

May I ask who is the one that’s “whining?”

What do you expect, the mere thought of a Republican voting causes some pinkos to lose it, hysterically screeching about a civic duty that has been performed for over 200 years.

It least it didn’t present such an insurmountable challenge to us Republicans that we had to go a week early, like you did, loser.

While the rain is always depressing, I had no problems at all casting my ballot, all 4 times that I went.

Blow me.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 04:02 PM | Link to this

Diogenes 3:43

I was attracted to the book - not just the title, but I’d read Stark’s background - Doctoral at Berkely, currently at Baylor. This, I thought, should be interesting.

A good source for reviews (not for good reviews, a good source :) ) is amazon.com

I found some of his writing just a bit dismissive but overall he supported his point well. I was particularly interested in, and chagrined by the implications, his assessment of Islam and what it portends for the West in light of the ascendency of jihadists.

I’ll link here: Link: http://www.amazon.com/Victory-Reason-Christianity-Capitalism-Western/dp/1400062284/sr=1-1/qid=1162932970/ref=pdbbs1/103-4919875-6162226?ie=UTF8&s=books

Here’s part of one review (Publisher’s Weekly): It is a commonplace to think of Christianity and rationalism as opposite historical and philosophical forces. In this stimulating and provocative study, Stark (The Rise of Christianity) demonstrates that elements within Christianity actually gave rise not only to visions of reason and progress but also to the evolution of capitalism. Stark contends that Christianity is a forward-looking religion, evincing faith in progress and in its followers’ abilities to understand God over time. Such a future-based rational theology has encouraged the development of technical and organizational advances, such as the monastic estates and universities of the Middle Ages. Stark contends that these developments transformed medieval political philosophy so that democracy developed and thrived in those states, such as northern Italy, that lacked despots and encouraged moral equality. Stark concludes by maintaining that Christianity continues to spread in places like Africa, China and Latin America because of its faith in progress, its rational theology and its emphasis on moral equality. While some historians are likely to question Stark’s conclusions, his deftly researched study will force them to imagine a new explanation for the rise of capitalism in Western society.

Enjoy - I was getting tired of the talking heads and this was much more interesting.

By rushncap

November 7, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

It’s nice to be unemployed like RW and have the time to devote to fully screwing this country over. Some of us actually have jobs…

By w00t

November 7, 2006 04:06 PM | Link to this

RW, I hate to burst your bubble, but the dems only need 16 seats to make up the 218 seat majority in the house. Not sure were your getting the 67 house seats. The dems only need 7 seats in the Senate to make the 51 to control.

I mean, its even on Fox new’s front page http://www.foxnews.com/

By Glenn

November 7, 2006 04:07 PM | Link to this

You hit the major points, Dubya. You’re bright. But don’t expect any of these Wingnuts to grasp it as they’re too stupid and don’t give a damn anyway. They’re into terminal blind obedience as usual.

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 04:08 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You were not speaking to me and I don’t claim any advanced study of ancient history, philosophy or even the history of medicine and architecture.

But to say that the ancients of Rome and Greece offered no base for science seems incorrect to me. Doctors still take the oath based on Hippocrates ethics. His work, even before Christ, set scientific standards.

Of course his study was not up to date as we know it now. Nor is ours now. Stem cell study is in progress because we have much to learn. This is true of other studies as science moves ahead.

Romans built structures that were engineering marvels, some still standing today. I think of that as an advancing step in architecture and engineering, if not science.

I am a Christian and believe that Jesus taught us to love our “neighbors” as a matter of the soul. And that grace(I’m Lutheran) was an enlightenment which lifted a burden from the human heart. And anyone free of burdens, works better, advances better and on and on.

Excuse the simplicity. Even the simplest heart has to work out the best path ahead.

By Ralph

November 7, 2006 04:15 PM | Link to this

Imagine! Pitiful RW is “working the phones.” Now there’s a sight to behold. When did he learn to “work” a phone? Is it a dial phone? Perhaps a child’s play phone. Does real sound come through it? Wait for his next installment. One of his posts is more than I can choke down in a single day. He’s just staying the curse.

By Huge

November 7, 2006 04:20 PM | Link to this

Yes! Destroy all vestiges of Christianity! Kill the Christians! Especially the little ones! Feed them to the lions! Burn their churches! ALL of their churches! Force their confessions! Force them to convert to atheism! Or Islam! Censor all of their channels from cable TV! Ban all of their billboards and advertisements! Destroy all of their bibles! Destroy all of their documents! Allow no prayers, especially at home or anywhere in private! Allow no studies of Christianity anywhere, anytime! Allow no grape juice sales on Sundays!

There, bigot should feel vindicated. The stupid lying sot…

Hasn’t she noticed that blogger after blogger after blogger after blogger has found much of her writing foolish and her heroes (coulter et al) disgusting? Has she ever wondered why dozens of people here have noted what a blinded hateful hypocrite she is? Does she even care that she just looks like a blathering idiot when she tries to defend her moronic Limbaugh-like assertions.

Christ is puke?! Goodness, woman, get a grip…

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 04:23 PM | Link to this

To Paul,

Thanks for the commentary and the exerpt from PW. Of course that’s the review I would have read had the GPL website been cooperative.

Quoting from the review, “[Christianity’s] faith in progress, its rational theology and its emphasis on moral equality” were the bases of Stark’s argument. Those, too, are standard catechisms of Renaissance history courses. Perhaps Stark just went farther in his exposition of the theme than others had been willing to do? Will take a look at it tomorrow. Thanks.

By Ditzty Malloy

November 7, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Ralphie, I see you only attacked/waaawaawaaed. There is no way possible the Dems will do better than 67/11. LMAO!! The big Democrat “revolution” stalled in its tracks.

Its amazing how embarrassment seems to follow the Democrats.

Oh and my sources tell me PENNSYLVANNIA IS IN PLAY for the Republicans. Big-Time.

Another long night full of tears for the liberals. Why can’t libs win elections???? LOL.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 04:29 PM | Link to this

Hi Dusty

I attempted in my (brief)writing to separate “science” or “scientific method” with such things as engineering advances. Indeed, one reason the Romans never developed such things as, say, mills for grain utilizing the power of water was because they were a slave-dependent economy. There was just no incentive.

My understanding of Hippocrates is the oath is a philosophical oath. While he as an individual may have made some “medical advances” there was not the application of observation, testing, discarding old ideas and adopting new based upon new knowledge, such as we have today. I did not mean to imply the ancients offered no basis for science - simply that how they viewed knowledge is quite different from what we had today. There are numerous examples in history of advances being held back because they contracted Greek philosophers.

I appreciate your last two paragraphs. What generates more and more pessimism for me, though, is that there are great segments of the world who do not hold those views - in fact, those views are a very real threat to the power and stability of some societies. Equality of the races, religions, sexes? We tend to think those are good, self-evident and noble ideas. They are, to us. But not to everyone.

By Democritus

November 7, 2006 04:30 PM | Link to this

Dust,

i think the distinction you are trying to make is the “Scientific Method.” Yes, the Greeks and Romans were skilled observers and talented engineers, but they lacked the methodology which we call “Scientific Method.” Theirs was an observational based knowledge. Ours is hypothesis driven. The Romans were approaching that methodolgy in some of their engineering techniques and the Greek philosophers were approaching that methodology in some of their work. Don’t forget Archimedes. The real difference is one of methodology, not kind.

By RW(the phone guy)

November 7, 2006 04:38 PM | Link to this

Hi, I’m RW and calling on behalf of the republican party. There is much at stake this election. The democrats want to raise your taxes and give America away to the terrorists.

They will make homosexuality mandatory and will force all of us to have gay marriages.

We just can’t allow our family values to not stand up against this!

Please, please, please vote this Tuesday for the republican of our choice.

By Mrs. RepubLady

November 7, 2006 04:40 PM | Link to this

RW is a good responsible American for working the phones! Don’t you pick on him! While you were laying on your lazy, waitin’ for a handout, sex outside of marriage, commie loving, dope smoking, soldier spitting democratic backside, RW was busy making phone calls. It’s hard work pretending to be a democrat, calling houses every ten minutes until democrats get so ticked off they won’t go to the polls! They are some stubborn, sanctimonious folks, those dem-o-crats, that’s for sure! They think Jesus wanted us to feed the poor and heal the sick. What a joke! Somebody needs to stop them before they shove their agenda of fairness and integrity in government down our godly throats. We know that tax cuts for the rich are the only way to make those lazy, disease-ridden, fornicating poor people either go to work or stop littering the landscape with their sorry carcasses. GOOD WORK, RW!

By JPaine

November 7, 2006 04:47 PM | Link to this

To RW;

You’re much too skilled a debater to resort to scare tactics, even when it is apparent that you joking. I’m afraid, sir, that you tell a joke with all the finesse of Kerry. Telling a joke poorly, however, does not mean that you are a bad person.

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 04:52 PM | Link to this

South Carolina Gover Mark Sanford (R) failed to bring his voter ID card to the polls this morning and was not allowed to vote.

His wife had reminded him to bring it, but he said he was distracted over visions of neo-con fairies dancing in his head.

More as soon as we get the details!

By Floridian Flo

November 7, 2006 04:56 PM | Link to this

Hi! I’m writing from Florida, and I wanted to let you know that I was surprised, and delighted, to see Mark Foley’s name was still on the ballot!

And those mean liberals thought they could just run that nice man off like that.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 04:59 PM | Link to this

Anyone care to make a prediction?

Which party, candidate, state, etc. will file the first lawsuit?

I wonder if the Democrats learned from Florida and hired better lawyers this time? (that was a tongue-in-cheek aside - pls don’t get indignant).

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

This just in!

Virginia Republican Jim Allen, embroiled in a bitter and very close race for governor, has just been arrested for attacking, putting in a head lock and throwing to the floor, a voter next to him, named Fred Macaca. Mr Macaca, who is an African-American said he was surprised as h&ll that the governor attacked him for voting for James Webb.

More as it become available!

By New Life Church

November 7, 2006 05:01 PM | Link to this

Please vote.

FAMILY VALUES OF THE YEAR AWARD

Choose ONE.

Ralph Reed

Linda Schrenko

Rev Haggard

Mark Foley

Tom Delay

Pat Robertson

By Politcally Foreskinned

November 7, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

The Way we all know is a hideous troll

This boor that bores with his precarious droll

This tool of many names it knows of no shame

Just a pathetic twisted wanker without any game

Now run along boy and don’t look back

Your sordid attacks are a joke and that’s fact

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I am thinking about your “power of water” vs work of slaves. Were not aquaducts and sewer systems a step away from slave labor? Did Romans not understand the power of gravity in designing these, if not the principle of cause?

As to your pessimism on freedom and equality, I do not agree with you. If you are thinking of communism as enforced equality, maybe so. Or maybe religions that prohibit freedom, yes, but limited to the terrible extremes of some.

I heard a Muslim speak last week who sounded more like a Christian than one of Islam. But she was raised by loving, intelligent parents who taught her the best in the Koran. I cannot throw her in with the terrorists who have perverted all human decency. But the question is about the desire for freedom of action and soul. I cannot give it up when I see such a great desire for it. I hope you won’t either.

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 05:04 PM | Link to this

To Paul,

I’ts a sorry state of affairs when the only distinction between the two parties is who has the biggest lawyers.

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 05:08 PM | Link to this

Breaking news in Ohio!

Arrests are pending for the head of the Ohio Republican Party who dressed as a Diebold technician was seen hauling voting machines away from several Democratic precincts this afternoon, when he thought nobody was looking.

Several of the machines fell out of the back of his Ford Fiesta on a trail that led directly to the home of Diebold CEO, Mr. Dewey Cheatham.

By Lord Help Us

November 7, 2006 05:09 PM | Link to this

RW (Crispy), funny, Do you know how many seats the dems lost when Clinton was facing midterms in the sixth year of his administration? I do…

Of course, Clinton enjoyed about a 65% job approval at the time. But, then, of course, that was when we had a competent President.

Ahhhhh, memories…

By JHuss

November 7, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

To Dusty:

What most people refuse to accept is that if the Christian right continues to advance its hold on power, we will have the same repression in the US as we see in Iraq, Iran, and other Muslim countries. Whether Islam or Christian, the core teachings are about love and getting along with your fellow man. Moderates in both religions need to embrace, recognize that they are both about peace and love, and act in concert to wrest power away from those who would repress us.

By Dusty

November 7, 2006 05:21 PM | Link to this

Democritus,

I have to admit I don’t see the big difference between the “Scientic Method” and the “observational knowledge” approach. Do you mean the ancient Greeks such as Hippocrates worked out methods but didn’t know the basis for their results? Or that we now know the basis and keep trying to correct the abberations?

Cadavers were used for study by ancients and by present day med students. Herbs and portions were used by ancients. Now we use pharmaceuticals. Seems to me we simply learn step by step from ancient time to the present, with the same result. Less suffering but people still die.

Oh well, I am more a practical realist than a studied philosopher. Perhaps you can tell me the error of my ways.

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 05:22 PM | Link to this

More breaking news from Florida.

Ann Coulter was not allowed to vote after trying to enter a voting location in the wrong precinct wearing fake glasses with a moustache designed to make her look like Groucho Marx.

A sheepish Ms. Coulter admitted that it was all in good fun and that she was not the least bit concerned about those pesky hanging chads, this time around.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 05:23 PM | Link to this

Dusty, Diogenes Thanks! My pessimism lifted by a positive example and a great wisecrack!

Wonder if DNC will hire Republican lawyers?

Seriously, Dusty Yes, aqueducts and sewers (Mayans? Aztecs?) were great engineering - but the aqueducts brought water great distances, in great volumes - something rather impractical even with an army of waterboys. The sewers - for the nobility - were aesthetically superior to having slaves empty the night jar - the stench remained.

Regarding equality, I was referring to Islamic jihadists. They are a good example of the power of the minority to intimidate the majority. I’m not sure the Moslems of the West will prove an effective counter to the fanatics of the East. I mentioned when I first wrote here the efforts of the US (and UN) should concentrate on eliminating the madrassas (if you want to get chills take a look at our “ally” Saudi Arabia’s primary education system) - and cultivating infrastructure for jobs based on other than oil services. This was a problem that has arisen over decades (in the Middle East - other Moslem regions or countries, such as Turkey, are an exception for several reasons). It won’t be reversed in just a few years.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 05:24 PM | Link to this

Exit polls are showing that most voters are voting based on national politics rather than local politics. They are also showing a surprise: Instead of Iraq, most voters are saying the main issue they are voting on is corruption. Put those two things together and it looks like very, very bad news for Republicans.

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 05:28 PM | Link to this

This just in from Kansas

Angry Neanderthals and Java Men were protesting at local precincts and were threatening to prove how neo-cons had branched off into the “wrong” tree!

They said that unless they were welcomed back into the GOP’s big tent, there would be evolutionary hell to pay.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2006 05:30 PM | Link to this

wOOt,

If you had the reading skills of a six year old you would see that I said “to reach historical averages.” For you and your little buddy LHU that is the total number of lost seats over the two midterm elections by a two term President on average.

Got it? If you were in Missouri maybe I would explain it when I reach you on the phone.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2006 05:33 PM | Link to this

O0tMV0D,

You guys have a great track record with exit polls, just ask President Kerry.

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 05:35 PM | Link to this

Hasn’t she noticed that blogger after blogger after blogger after blogger has found much of her writing foolish and her heroes (coulter et al) disgusting? Has she ever wondered why dozens of people here have noted what a blinded hateful hypocrite she is?

Huge Hypocritter,

You mean like this??

By Huge Darwinist September 28, 2006 06:10 PM. Just keep telling yourself, “I have Faith in my beloved Jesus” you freaking fraud. Puke.

(sarc/)Real civil of you. So openminded, so welcoming of other ideas, so generous of spirit.(/sarc.)

Priapus,

You mean I’m getting closer to understanding the miraculous properties of your “seed”?

By RW(the phone guy)

November 7, 2006 05:36 PM | Link to this

Hi! I’m RW calling on behalf of the Georgian Republican party.

Sonny Purdue’s opponent Mark Taylor wants to raise your taxes and give Georgia away to the terrorists.

Mr. Taylor has personally performed over forty late-term abortions on Christian women in Georgia who wanted their babies and then shamefully sold those dead babies to illegal Mexican immigrants.

Vote family values on Tuesday. Vote for Sonny Purdue. Vote Republican.

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 05:38 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

The Romans and Greeks were more likely to ask “How can I do this?” with the exception of a few of the philosophers who asked why? Remember that the response to their why was that the universe was comprised of earth, fire, water, and air, and that’s about as far as they got. Our approach tends more to asking what earth, fire, air, and water are comprised off and what are the interactions between them? We start with a hypothesis, say “Water is made up of smaller units. We ask why? and as often why not? in the development of a hypothesis. The Greeks were so early in the game that they were still making basic observations about the way nature works. With the scientific method, we are able to ask better questions and probe deeper. Yes, we want to know how also, but we start with why? or why not?

By Lord Help Us

November 7, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

In his quest to lower expectations (a necessity for GWB supporters) it seems RW-(Crispy) is yet again a tad loose with the facts.

In fact, it appears that a 15-20 seat pickup for the dems in the House and 4-6 seat pickup in the Senate would indeed be fairly significant in comparison to the last two times a President has faced midterms in his sixth year…

In the 1986 midterm election, Republicans lost eight seats in the Senate and control of that body, as well as five House seats. So, let’s see, in their sixth year Reagan lost 8 Senate seats and 5 House seats…Clinton actually PICKED UP seats in his sixth year!

But, according to RW (Crispy) anything less than a 67 seat pickup in the House is a ‘loss’ for the dems.

The narrow-minded are inventing new ways to ‘win’ all the time…

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 05:45 PM | Link to this

Breaking news from Missouri!

Incumbent Republican Senator Jim Talent, in an uncharacteristically distasteful moment, entered his local voting precinct shaking uncontrollably.

When questioned about it, he immediately stopped and shouted, “HA! Take that Michael J. Fox!”

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 05:47 PM | Link to this

Rushncap,

I don’t have time to go through everything you and Paul have posted today, but I look forward to continuing the discussion at a later date.

For today, suffice it to say that Paul is right and Christianity (ED. - the Jesuits among them) DID welcome and advance science, with a few notable but not representative exceptions.

I know its convenient to paint Christians throughout history as fundamentalist boors who live in some kind of bizarre fantasy world that hates and reject science (and you are particularly sensitive about the ne plus ultra Theory of Evolution) but the historical facts contradict that perception.

By Ditzty Malloy

November 7, 2006 05:49 PM | Link to this

My sources tell me LUGAR has won Indiana.

The RED WAVE is upon us…..AGAIN

By Paul

November 7, 2006 05:50 PM | Link to this

JHuss at 5:21 “What most people refuse to accept is that if the Christian right continues to advance its hold on power, we will have the same repression in the US as we see in Iraq, Iran, and other Muslim countries.”

That’s just plain silly.

“Whether Islam or Christian, the core teachings are about love and getting along with your fellow man.”

More silliness. Applies Christian sensibilities to Moslem theology. You may want to read “Future Jihad” by Walid Phares to learn what much of Islam believes about “getting along with nonbelievers (infidels).

By getalife

November 7, 2006 05:52 PM | Link to this

Blogstock

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 05:55 PM | Link to this

Diogenes,

While math and science were very basic in the ancient world, because, of course, they were just developing those disciplines, there were many things they were accurate about. For instance, Greeks and Egyptians were able to compute pi to multiple decimal places. Ironically, the Bible, the absolute and infallible “word of God,” was not correct in its measure of pi. Hmmm… How could the Bible possibly have any inaccuracies? Maybe because the whole book is full of ridiculous fables?

By Huge

November 7, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Your Limbaugh-like assertion:

“For example, you recently used the words “Puke” and “Christ” as synonyms.”

And your proof!!!

“Just keep telling yourself, “I have Faith in my beloved Jesus” you freaking fraud. Puke.”

You may the be the only person I have EVER known who is so stupid as to disprove her own claims. Voluntarily!

Wow, you have got to be kidding me?! Where did you go to school?!

It’s truly inconceivable that you pretend that you can’t understand I was berating suck, and now you, for your sickening un-christianlike lives.

So let me re-phrase it to a fifth grade level just for you:

“Just keep telling yourself, “I have Faith in my beloved Jesus” you freaking fraud. Puke.”

By Diogenes

November 7, 2006 05:56 PM | Link to this

Dusty,

Sorry I didn’t use Hippocrates as part of the example. Hippocrates did brilliant work, but he was still trying to learn basic anatomy and basic remedies. Hippocrates asked a lot of whys and might be given some credit as a founder of the scientific method. But, as I stated earlier, he was very early in the game, when just accumulating the existing knowledge on remedies was major. He based their efficacy on others’ claims more than by testing and experimentation. When I say that our methodology is hypothesis driven, part of the diffence is that we design a test, an experiment of the hypothesis. If we get a negative result, we try to develop a hypothesis to account for the negative result. If Hippocrates got a negative result, he just discarded the remedy because he was primarily concerned with what worked, an incredible step forward for the time. His work on anatomy is fantastic, but he was the first, so he was taking baby steps, learning as he went. Everything he saw was new. I hope this helps. He’re taking about a formal method versus some very brilliant men making initial forays. What the Greeks and Romans achieved is astounding, and it still serves as the basis for Western thought (and Islamic, for that matter).

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 06:02 PM | Link to this

Buy Granny,

Your quote: “I know it’s convenient to paint Christians throughout history as fundamentalist boors who live in some kind of bizarre fantasy world that hates and reject science”.

I think that is a pretty accurate description, never moreso than now.

By the way, you didn’t have any comeback to my depiction of you in 6 years as a 53-year-old hag greeting people at WalMart or wiping trays at McD’s because you haven’t worked in two decades and all the jobs will have been outsourced by then?

By Buy Danish

November 7, 2006 06:10 PM | Link to this

Paul,

Briefly - I saw an interview with someone whose name escapes me who has made a documentary about Palestinian jihadists.

His point is that they are being taught that everything comes down to being “pure” or “impure” and everyone, no exceptions, who is not an Islamist is “impure” and must be destroyed. I’ve also heard that it is the duty of a Muslim to lie to an infidel…

{{{The hypocrisy is in preaching (and legislating) against a behavior that many scientists believe to be hereditary when the preacher (or legislator) is guilty of the behavior.}}}

N-GA,

First of all, there isn’t a whole lot of “legislating” going on. Secondly, one could easily argue that just because one inherits certain traits, does not mean that they are therefore excusable.

Haggard is undoubtedly one of many who may have been “born” a certain way. That does not mean that even he believes that that (theoretical} accident of birth automatically sanctions the behavior that results.

Thank you for being willing to show compassion to his family. Sadly that was not the majority response.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 06:14 PM | Link to this

Paul,

You suggest that there is some great difference between Christianity and Islam, when in fact, there is no difference whatsoever. To quote Sam Harris from “Letter to a Christian Nation,”— “There is no worldview more reprehensible in its arrogance than that of a religious believer: the creator of the universe takes an interest in me, approves of me, loves me, and will reward me after death; my current beliefs, drawn from scripture, will remain the best statement of the truth until the end of the world; everyone who disagrees with me will spend eternity in hell.”

As a matter of fact, that sounds almost exactly like what the lovable bimbo Honu said the other day.

By RW(the phone guy)

November 7, 2006 06:15 PM | Link to this

Hi! I’m RW and I’m calling on behalf of the Georgia Republican Party.

Casey Cagle’s opponent, Jim Martin wants to raise your taxes and give Georgia away to the terrorists.

He has personally performed numerous wiccan marriages and his wife is a lifelong adherant of voodoo. There have been reports of crop circles and mutilated cattle in their back yard.

Sure, Casey looks like a mean-little SOB, but he’s really a nice guy.

Vote family values. Vote Casey Cagle. Vote Republican.

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

By One of the Major Wankers November 7, 2006 05:55 PM Ironically, the Bible, the absolute and infallible “word of God,” was not correct in its measure of pi. Hmmm… How could the Bible possibly have any inaccuracies? Maybe because the whole book is full of ridiculous fables?

The Bible was written by humans, you as-swipe.

And you are living proof that humans make mistakes.

Jerk off.

By JHuss

November 7, 2006 06:20 PM | Link to this

Paul,

I take it that you style yourself to be a Christian conservative? You’ve made some excellent statements today not to see the repression inherent in fundamentalist Christianity. Ted Haggard’s been used a lot, but that’s a good example of repression. One might take any of the following positions:

Homosexuality is a sin; this man is eternally lost. Homosexuality is a sin; anyone who commits it can repent and (eventually) be restored. Homosexuality is a sin; but anyone who commits it is considered unfit for ministry because of the teachings of 1 Timothy, Ephesians, and Romans 1. Homosexuality is okay; this man’s issues was lying and breaking his marital vows. Now that he has been honest with his wife, he should ask her forgiveness and try to keep her trust and keep the marital vows. Homosexuality is okay; this man’s issues was lying and breaking his marital vows. Now that he has been honest with his wife, he should divorce and pursue his true desires. Homosexuality is okay; sexual expression is okay; there was no sin to be addressed here (my thanks to a minister friend of mine for these distinctions). The first 3 try to deny its existence. But we know it exists, therefore, one of the last 3 are valid. Haggard insisted on #1 while (we presume based upon the information we currently have) denying the reality in himself. He taught that homosexual is evil, while denying it in himself. Whether you approve of homosexuality or not, it exists, and the denial of that urge in oneself while preaching against it is repression. I could, of course, use many other examples of the repression brought on by the Christian conservatives, but to a man who has nothing but intelligent things to say so far, I think it unnecessary.

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 06:24 PM | Link to this

By One of the Major Wankers November 7, 2006 06:14 PM Paul, You suggest that there is some great difference between Christianity and Islam, when in fact, there is no difference whatsoever.

I sure would like to know where the New Testament says anything about smiting your enemies in the neck.

Maybe this uneducated bozo would probably benefit from actually reading the Bible instead of apeing what he hears about it on the Huffington Post, you reckon?

By Paul

November 7, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

OoMVP

There is a significant portion of the Christian world that does not take the Bible literally, but symbolically. Or, they combine the two.

Much of the West is quite literal in many things. Just look at the back and forth on this forum. The Bible was the product of Eastern minds, heavily into symbolism (reading “the morning light lept from the east, carried by a great, white stallion” does not mean the author thought the sun is carried by a horse prancing about our galaxy).

But if people like literalism it’s fine with me. If they like to interpret symbolically, fine, too.

Seems you take a pretty narrow, restrictive view of a rather large, diverse group. Or maybe it’s just because you have so much fun pinging a certain segment? And they take the bait?

By Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century

November 7, 2006 06:25 PM | Link to this

Conservative??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GMSSFqWka4

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 06:29 PM | Link to this

When questioned today how he thought the elections were going so far, President Bush responded, “”I think — tide turning — see, as I remember — I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of — it’s easy to see a tide turn — did I say those words?”

Uncannily, the President uttered those exact words when asked if the tide was turning in Iraq, on June 14 of this year.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 06:30 PM | Link to this

Buy Danish

Yes - I believe the movie (soon to be released) is “Suicide Killers,” directed by Pierre Rehov. It will likely get limited release but I will make an effort to see it.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

OoMVoD at 6:14

“You suggest that there is some great difference between Christianity and Islam, when in fact, there is no difference whatsoever.”

Astounding ignorance. Absolutely astounding. Next you’ll assert there is no difference between capitalism and socialism, Taoism and Hinduism, or Republicans and Democrats.

By JHuss

November 7, 2006 06:34 PM | Link to this

Paul,

What I said is valid, ask any Christian or the Muslim who lives down the street from you: the core of both religions is peace and love. That basic teaching can be perverted in endless permutations. As we see in the Islamic Fundamentalists so do we see in the Christian Fundamentalist. At the core of fundamentalism is repression — the “you’re different than I am so I will destroy you syndrome.” Both religions teach peace and love. Both Fundamentalist wings teach hate and separatism,

By Paul

November 7, 2006 06:39 PM | Link to this

We’re Gonna at 6:20

An often overlooked point. But a good one. Another recently-released book you might enjoy is “Misquoting Jesus” by Dr. Bart Ehrman, James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I like the title - there’s a lot of it done on this forum.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 06:42 PM | Link to this

Actually Andy, I’ve read almost the entire Bible.

How about this one: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, should [make you stray from God]… you shall kill him; your hand should be the first against him to put him to death… You shall stone him to death.” Deuteronomy 13:6, 8-15

Yes, a peaceful, loving religion it is. Considering the fact that it is entirely fiction makes it all the worse and you all the more immoral.

By @@

November 7, 2006 06:45 PM | Link to this

Gosh have a little fun with harmless, jovial fun with “The Way” at Wooten’s and he comes over here to apply anagrams to my @@. They look obscene. Are they?

I’m glad the discussion is on Christianity. I don’t take the bible literally. I’m the one who is always asking questions regarding scripture.

I love eastern philosophy.

This is my favorite recitation. It’s origins unknown.

I expect to pass through this world but once; any good thing therefore that I can do, or any kindness that I can show to any fellow-creature, let me do it now; let me not defer or neglect it, for I shall not pass this way again.

Others here may think they’re going to be reincarnated, and that’s okey dokey with me.

By Paul

November 7, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

JHuss at 6:20

“I take it that you style yourself to be a Christian conservative?” Nope - not even close.

I do see what some would consider “repressive” views in fundamentalism, but the great difference I see with Christians compared to, say, jihadists, is the difference between battling with ideas and battling with swords.

Didn’t follow the Haggard thing all that much. I’ll say this then duck: I think Mr. Haggard situation reflects pretty much the difficulty American society (not Christian fundamentalists) have with dealing with issues of sexuality. I’ll be careful here - I think much of the message of sex as God-given, good, etc. gets buried in negative messages that bring shame to young people - then they carry this into adulthood without resolving the issues. I think that’s why a number of people enter the clergy (I’m thinking particularly of Roman Catholic) it’s not a “hunting ground” as some have alleged - it’s an attempt to “cure” themselves. It doesn’t work and they spiral out of control.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mr. Haggard was homosexual - I do not want to get into the nature/nuture debate here but do believe recent research is quite definitive. Just for thought, take that idea in a young man in a society where “will” overcomes all and you have a recipe for much difficulty in life. Again, this is not a criticism of fundamentalists - it’s much larger and, I think, applies to many liberal elements of society. Years ago I read followup interviews with many 1960’s free love, hippie antiwar radicals. A common theme? Many were married, had kids, and — were happy their kids were straight. ‘Nuff said.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 06:50 PM | Link to this

And how do you idiots rationalize this one? I’m guessing RW will try since he is the great rationalizer, turning corruption into brilliant, ethical behavior with every breath.

“As for your make and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are round you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever; you may make slaves of them.” Leviticus 25:44-46

Somehow my logic says that if the Bible was the word of God, or even a good moral guide, it wouldn’t instruct people to conduct evil, unethical behavior. Hmmm…

By Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century

November 7, 2006 06:51 PM | Link to this

Ahhh!

The difference between the Muslims and the Christians argument! How the righteous are better than the heretics of that other religeon. The very reason to hold inquisitions, witch burnings, Crusades.

Time to break out some Christian Brand White Marshmallows and cook them over the open fire of a witch burning.

*

Kill those who are not Christian or Jewish:

You must kill those who worship another god. Exodus 22:20

Kill any friends or family that worship a god that is different than your own. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

Kill all the inhabitants of any city where you find people that worship differently than you. Deuteronomy 13:12-16

Kill everyone who has religious views that are different than your own. Deuteronomy 17:2-7

Kill anyone who refuses to listen to a priest. Deuteronomy 17:12-13

Kill any false prophets. Deuteronomy 18:20

Any city that doesn’t receive the followers of Jesus will be destroyed in a manner even more savage than that of Sodom and Gomorrah. Mark 6:11

Jude reminds us that God destroys those who don’t believe in him. Jude 5

*

Now I remember why we have Freedom of Religeon in our First Amendment!

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 06:52 PM | Link to this

By One of the Major Wanker November 7, 2006 06:42 PM Actually Andy, I’ve read almost the entire Bible. How about this one: “If your brother, the son of your mother, or your son, or your daughter, or the wife of your bosom, or your friend who is as your own soul, should [make you stray from God]… you shall kill him; your hand should be the first against him to put him to death… You shall stone him to death.” Deuteronomy 13:6, 8-15

Deuteronomy is Old Testament, moron.

While the Old Testament phrophesied the life of Christ, the New Testament establishes the tenets of Christianity.

You would know this had you read the Book.

Truth really doesn’t matter to you, I figured that out.

By Fox News

November 7, 2006 06:54 PM | Link to this

Breaking news from the nation’s capital!

Long time political strategist and close advisor to the President, Karl Rove, has been seen running around the White House grounds completely naked!

He has been screaming,”It’s all my fault! I”ve let the President and the party down!”

When taken inside by the secret service he was heard yelling, “I’d take a bullet for this President!!!”

By JHuss

November 7, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

To One of the Majority’s at 1842,

Actually there is distinction in most Christian denominations between Judaic law and the Christian dispensation of peace and love. The Old Testament exists as part of the Christian Bible because it tells the Christian where he came from, how he came into existence.

By nuff-said

November 7, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

“Shock and awe”, Borrow and Spend, Bring ‘em on, I’m the decider, Scooter Libby, They’ll be throwing flowers at our feet, Jack Abramoff, It’ll cost maybe a billion, maybe. “Moron’s and troglodytes”, Bob Ney, “The last throes…” Valerie Plame, Mission accomplished, Tom Delay, “Major combat operations have ended”, Terri Schiavo, Dick Cunningham, and on and on…

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 06:56 PM | Link to this

Paul,

No, there is quite a difference between socialism and capitalism, Democrats and Republicans. I happen to be a Democrat and a socialist. You are probably the other two. I’m happy to be on the other side of the spectrum. The ignorance is in your defense of silly fables. Will you defend Zeus and Poseidon next?

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2006 06:57 PM | Link to this

More endorsements for the Democrats. How do they decide which party is which?

LHU,

I know this is proving difficult for you, but I’ll give it one more try. To figure out the net loss of seats at midterm elections during a two term Presidency you have to add midterm one and midterm two.

I hope that helps as I know you are only on a quest for knowledge and would never ever blindly parrot some misinformation just to distract. (A good portion of the preceding sentence is bovine excrement.)

By Paul

November 7, 2006 06:59 PM | Link to this

JHuss: Just a followup - not applied to any religious group. Ever notice how, when the subject turns to homosexuality, the implication is “behavior” vs “state of being?” In other words, homosexuals are sexually active, not chaste.

A local religious secondary school expelled a young man when he said he was gay. My question was, was he sexually active? If not, then why the expulsion? Answer was, I believe, was homosexuality was inconsistent with their views. But to their credit, they’d also expelled some heterosexual kids who were having a rousing good time on campus.

There are several rather conservative Christian denominations accepting of homosexuals and apply the same standards of conduct to homosexuals and heterosexuals.

BTW - my comments about “Islam” are pretty much restricted to the fundamentalist jihadists, not the folks down the street - several of whom I’ve had discussions on this subject, who are just as appalled as we all are. But, they do not see the jihadists as a perversion of Islam, but as a viable part with a long history and tradition that is an extreme danger.

By Huge

November 7, 2006 07:01 PM | Link to this

All ball busting aside, it looks like the turnout was quite high in these elections. And no matter, who you want to win, that is a good thing for the republic.

Warts and all, ain’t this the grandest damn place in the whole wide world?

You rock America!

@@,

Your 6:45 was one of the coolest things I’ve read here in a long time!

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 07:03 PM | Link to this

Leviticus- Old Testament

Exodus- Old Testament

Deuteronomy- Old Testament

These idiots have no idea what Christianity even is. The public school system is succeeding.

The verse from Mark describes what will happen to those who reject Christ when they die, they will be destroyed. Not on Earth by followers of Christ. By God.

Just like Jude says.

What’s up with the Bible talking points from the pinko nation? What website are y’all cutting and pasting from, democrat underground?

By Paul

November 7, 2006 07:04 PM | Link to this

We’re Gonna at 6:52

Succinctly stated. Now get ready to get the responsibility for a more indepth discussion on what else is comprised by the Old Testament, record of historical realities, symbolism, Mosiac law, fulfillment of the Law, etc ad infinitum.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

Or how about this example of the Bible’s glistening morality:

“When a man sells his daughter as a slave she shall not go out as male slaves do. If she does not please her master, who has designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed.” Exodus 21:7-11

That is a beautiful sentiment straight from the mouth of God— that a man’s daughter should be treated a little better than a man if he sells her into slavery.

Then here we have an all-important Commandment: #2 You shall not make for yourself a graven image. I guess we need to kill all the people with paintings of Jesus, crosses, manger scenes, etc… Great idea. Got stones anyone?

By Peoples for a Nuked Amerika' Century

November 7, 2006 07:05 PM | Link to this

Hey!

To: Were Gonna Raze Your Texans

So your saying that Old Testament rules do not count in modern Christianity?

Good!

Then we can ignore that “Ten Commandments” thing can’t we?

*

By JHuss

November 7, 2006 07:07 PM | Link to this

To

Paul,

Your distinction is moot. A Jihadist is a member of an extremist sect which I’d call more political than religious. Like you, I’m on soft ground here. The Jihadist is to Islam what the brown shirts were to the Nazis — the enforcers. The problem you have is that the brown shirts ultimately reflected the views of Adolf Hitler, whereas the Jihadists do not reflect the essential philosophy of Islam. There is a danger, of course, that they can gain greater and greater control A Jihadist is not to be compared to a boy and girl in Sunday School nor to the Muslim boy as he says his prayers. The analogy is between the everyday worshipping members of each religion, the ones you and I have for neighbors and genuinely like, both Christian and Muslim.

By RW-(the original)

November 7, 2006 07:11 PM | Link to this

OotMVoD,

Sorry to burst your preconceived bubble, but I’m not your go to guy when it comes to knowledge of the Bible.

Although I have to say I would tend to believe a more fair interpretation would be the one given by a Christian, like Andy, that gives a picture of the overall tenets of Christianity, than the one I would get from a rather nasty atheist, like yourself, that cherry picks from the Old Testament.

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 07:13 PM | Link to this

Why don’t we look at the Ten Commandments and see how they compare to recent Republican behavior:

1 You shall have no other Gods before me. I’d say the Repubs have been worshipping money, oil, and big business. 7 You shall not commit adultery. I guess Ted Haggard thought that he could jump through the adultery loophole if he had sex with a male instead of a female. 8 You shall not steal. Let’s see, Tom Delay, Duke Cunningham, Cheney’s Hallitburton, etc. 9 You shall not bear false witness. See all previously mentioned republicans and add GW and Donald Rumsfeld for their daily lies about Iraq, et al.

Yes you guys have been following the strict moral code.

Oh, yeah, and Mark Foley covets his neighbor’s a* (#10)

By One of the Majority's Voices of Dissent

November 7, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Goodnight all. You Repubs will wake up with a headache.

By We're Gonna.....Raise......Your......Taxes!!!!

November 7, 2006 07:14 PM | Link to this

Paul: The Old Testament was the rules set forth by God that had to be followed to gain Eternal Life in Heaven. Almost no human could follow such strict standards, living free of sin, because of human nature, which is basically to be tempted and succumb to sin.

That is why Christ had to Die for our sins. He Suffered for our human failures so that his Death would give His followers Life. This is told in the New Testament.

Moron: Have you ever followed the Ten Commandments anyway?

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Blame game

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites

Special Reports

Blogs

Opinion

Blogs

Topics

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Topics

Features

Features

Blogs

Topics

Features

Mike Luckovich

Mike Luckovich

What's on this page →

Categories

Browse and Buy cartoons

Buy Mike's new book

Commenting is open from 8 a.m. to 7 p.m. M-F

Recent entries

RSS feed

Comment Removal Request

Access Atlanta Blogs

News & Features

Opinion

Health

Sports

AJCJobs Blog

Ajcpets Blogs

Evening Edge Blog

Luckovich cartoon changes address!

Blame game

Comments

Tell us what you think about the site

Subscribe »

Customer Care »

AJC Services

Sections

Other Editions

Guides

Advertising

AJC Sites