Thinking Right

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 9:18 AM | Link to this

Greetins Cretins,

Rudy 08

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 9:29 AM | Link to this

Hey Jim,

Way to duck the clobbering of your vaunted vouchers in Utah on Tuesday!

By Van

November 8, 2007 9:33 AM | Link to this

An endorsement from a religious leader is not that important to this voter. An endorsement from a Union on the other hand tells me which one NOT to vote for.

I look for more telling signs. Is the person going to raise my taxes. Am I going to pay for someone else’s mistakes. Will the mob in Washington, DC get bigger? Will local control of schools return? Will the federal government start following the Constitution.

By deegee

November 8, 2007 9:34 AM | Link to this

Take one look at Pat Robertson and you know that he is as crazy as a $hithouse rat. Every time he opens his mouth he confirms it. Go Rudy.

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 9:45 AM | Link to this

THE Captain feels that the Godly Reverend’s endorsement of Don Vito Giuliani is just the thing the Mayor of 9-11 needs to overcome the greatest obstacle to his candidacy — the disturbing idea that Don Rudy seems to really like his former serfs in that Sodom and Gomorrah on the Hudson, that cesspool of cultural iniquity known as New York City.

In most of his time as Mayor of NYC, Don Rudy consistently exhibited an admirable contempt for the people of New York. From verbally abusing citizens who expressed a disagreement, to having his Storm Troops ram a nightstick up the a@@ of a non-white non-person, Don Rudy was all about power and the free exercise thereof — citizens be damned!!! And in several instances, he demonstrated a stiff resolve in re: the question of whether prisoners should be tortured or even killed in pursuit of truth and justice. Of course they should!!!

But all that changed on 9-11. For a brief period of time, Don Rudy began to display a disturbing tendency to compassion and concern for the wretched sinners of NYC. Sure, this was ameliorated somewhat by his attempts to cancel elections and extend his reign indefinitely (a full 7 years before Musharraf even thought of such a thing, THE Captain notes with admiration). But still, actually liking those quintessential smart-alecky yankees…THE Captain shudders at the memory.

This is why the Rev. Robertson’s endorsement is so critical. By standing shoulder to shoulder with a man who asserted that the deaths of the people in the WTC was God’s explicit retribution for the sins of our society, Don Rudy once and for all is allowed to express his full contempt for the poor suckers in Gotham who died and survived the 9-11 attacks. It allows us once again to look upon Don Rudy’s Lestat-like smile and realize that the malevolence it seems to manifest is in fact real and reliable.

Yes America, this is a man whose character is on display for all to see. Who needs Bernie Kerik when you have the Rev. Robertson.

Another plus…standing next to Rev. Robertson, Don Rudy does not look half as bat$hit insane as he does on his own.

And THE Captain has it on good authority — next week, the Rudy campaign will disinter the crubling corpse of Jerry Falwell and invite to a Round Table meeting of Evangelicals to further shore up his support amongst the Christianist wing of the Republican Party. Frankilin Graham will be there, too, with his Dad. Good times.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 9:48 AM | Link to this

deegee,

You’re absolutely right. Crazy as a loon. I would say touchingly so, even. And Emperor Norton I endorsed himself, and Wavy Gravy endorsed Nobody for President.

So what?

What does any of this have to do with the cost of Clintons in China?

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Good morning all. The republican race is shaping up to be an interesting event, and I will vote for the republican nominee, whoever that may be. If I truly voted “positions” I suppose I would favor Duncan Hunter, whose chances are even slimmer than Mike Hukabee’s. Each of the top four candidates has a peculiar strength, and a notable weakness. Rudy radiates “strength” and “cool under fire” unlike any since Reagan. However, he is detested by the left almost as much as is the president; even if the truth about Rudy is not enough to make his campaign difficult, the left would not restrict itself to mere “truth.” The jbmlaw assessment is that Rudy is the most electable republican, and that he is likely to pick off New York and New Jersey against Hillary.

Mitt Romney is the most seasoned executive to run for the job in the history of the republic. He is an academic in a class with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy, and George W. Bush. He has a lot of money at his disposal. He charms all to sleep, and is the Pete DuPont of the current campaign.

My guy, Fred Thompson, looks and sounds presidential, virtues not to be overlooked. He wears well. He is solid and truly conservative, although his libertarian-conservatism, like my own, alienates other conservatives at times. He could pick off California, of all places. He is certainly the candidate most likely to appoint hard conservatives to the bench. Fred frightens leftists almost as much as Rudy, and he will get a withering 1980-like attack, as “lazy,” and “stupid,” and “reactionary” when those first two don’t get any tread.

John McCain has the best resume of any presidential candidate ever, or at least arguably other than George H. W. Bush. He is right on all the big issues. He has not been reliably right in his long career – can anyone name a piece of legislation named after McCain? - and accordingly suffers a trust problem among conservatives.

I’ll vote for whoever wins among these guys, however.

Wild tangent, lest there remains anyone who thinks Joseph McCarthy was wrong in any element of his allegation of Democrat perfidy from 1940-1955, I understand M. Stanton Evans has now produced a massive argument for Mr. McCarthy, Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight Against America’s Enemies. It must be pretty good; in the review on the Barnes & Noble website they acknowledge the truth of every element of the argument:

“Evans’s lively book seeks, first, to demonstrate that Communists worked, often successfully, to undermine American security during the Cold War. It tries, second, to defend Sen. Joseph McCarthy, the egregious scourge of American Communists and fellow travelers… On the first point, save for some new details, Evans … treads worn ground. Most scholars, having also used Soviet archives, concede his position and argue now only over secondary matters, like the guilt of Alger Hiss. On the second point, Evans has a tougher case, which he seeks to make as a defense attorney would: by conceding nothing to McCarthy’s detractors… Defense attorneys and debaters like Evans follow different rules than historians-they try to score points, not to advance knowledge. Evans is good at the former, his propulsive style carrying much of the argument’s burden. But the history Evans relates is already largely known, if not fully accepted.” http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?z=y&endeca=1&isbn=140008105X

If the history is largely known but not fully accepted, one would think that laying out the case simply would also advance knowledge? I thought there was no one left who argued the innocence of Alger Hiss – the Soviet archives make the case airtight. Moonbats?

By Southern Democrat

November 8, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

My friends on the right would do well to cast off the weight of the Christian Coalition movement, just as I wish the party with whom I traditionally vote would allow the far left to fall off into the ocean.

There is a large movement going on to reassess what candidates and parties line up with so-called “values.” As most know, I am a Roman Catholic who readily acknowledges the many, many flaws in the earthly institution of the Church, but I do appreciate how I have never heard a “party-line” homily (though I did find the no Eucharist for abortions supporters a bit odd). My Church takes firm stands on abortion, but also on peace and social justice and informs us to follow our consciences. Basically, if you are looking to the government to make the nation more Christian, first check your Constitution and then evaluate if you are really actively promoting the Kingdom on Earth? I would reckon that many on the far right view the political activities of the Christian Coalition in the same vein as writing a large check to a charity in lieu of volunteering… it’s very passive.

I don’t like mixing religion and politics. Let them know we are Christians by our love, not our voices, and know we are Americans by our words and deeds.

By Tom

November 8, 2007 9:55 AM | Link to this

Two questions for The Artifical Man, Willard “Mitt” Romney:

BTW, jbmlaw, “an academic in a class with…George W. Bush.” That is a joke, right?

By TW

November 8, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

Rest assured the devil was happy with the endorsement.

By Van

November 8, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw ,

I never doubted old, “tail gunner” Joe. It appears that only the lefties and other radicals thought he was “evil”.

Ever since those good old days, it appears that Joesph was more correct in his Senate investigations than we even gave him credit for.

I wonder what would happen today if a Senator had the cojones to stand up for principle today?

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 10:09 AM | Link to this

By Southern Democrat November 8, 2007 9:53 AM “I don’t like mixing religion and politics. Let them know we are Christians by our love, not our voices, and know we are Americans by our words and deeds.”

Good to hear that. Here is a sample letter that you might want to send to our Georgia legislators who will vote tomorrow on the “Alternative Minimum Tax” proposal.

To the Members of Congress;

Regarding the “alternative minimum tax” legislation that is soon to be voted on by members of Congress;

I often wonder how members of Congress can go to church and sing “Jesus loves the little children, Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight”, until it comes to money.

The Christian Bible states the “To whom much is given, much is required.”

This legislation is designed only to help the already wealthy. It will not help those who are less fortunate - the working poor.

Please remember this as you vote to pass the “Alternative Minimum Tax” legislation.

Sincerely,

As an example, if you had an income of $40,000 and you paid tax at the same rate as the already wealthy, you would save $500.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Anonymous

November 8, 2007 10:10 AM | Link to this

Robertson is a joke, and the Religious Reich is finished. His endorsement can only hurt Giuliani’s campaign, not help it.

Giuliani’s trying to run as a sane, moderate Republican—the only kind America’s willing to listen to any more, thankfully. Robertson’s endorsement tarnishes that image.

By Van

November 8, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

jbmlaw ,

I never doubted old, “tail gunner” Joe. It appears that only the lefties and other radicals thought he was “evil”.

Ever since those good old days, it appears that Joesph was more correct in his Senate investigations than we even gave him credit for.

I wonder what would happen today if a Senator had the cojones to stand up for principle today?

By Van

November 8, 2007 10:24 AM | Link to this

Dennis ,

Don’t know where you get your information, I would assume it was the DailyKos.

First lets decide what a rich person is, what level of income qualified for that. You tell me, who is rich. Is it the small businessman that rolls his business into his/her 1040? Is it the old family rich kid that doesn’t do any productive work? Is it the college dropout that worked hard all their life to make something of his/her self. Who is it?

According to the IRS, those in the highest 5% of taxpayers, pay about 43% of the taxes collected.

Remember, the lefties in Congress will reintroduce the lowest tax bracket of $10,000 in earnings(Bush eliminated this and the current bottom tax bracket starts at $15,000). When they let Bush’s tax breaks for the “rich” expire in 2010.

By getalife

November 8, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Hey ,I found Sonny’s water plan:

“Georgia to pray, hoping Jesus will stop punishing it:

What to do when the rain won’t come? If you’re Georgia Gov. Sonny Perdue, you pray. The governor will host a prayer service next week to ask for relief from the drought gripping the Southeast.”

Repent.

Pat blamed the US for 9/11.

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 10:31 AM | Link to this

Kudos Van, for putting that pinko in his place. Clever though that you did not point out that the top 5% of taxpayers in the US actually control 59% of the total wealth in the nation. That might make their 43% tax contribution appear low.

You are a fine debater, sir, and your truthiness is without equal. If anyone is capable of rehabilitating Tail Gunner Joe, it is a man with your passion and disregard for inconvenient “facts”.

By Redneck Convert

November 8, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Well, I knowed old Sonny would come out with a water plan, and it’s a doozy. Its prayer and its so simple but smart it makes you want to whop yourself upside the head and say, why didn’t I think of that?

Anyway, when me and my buddy Jim Earl heard about it yesterday p.m. we got a bunch of people together at the trailer and decided to get a start on bringing the rain. We got our coats on and went outside and set in a circle, cause you don’t pray for rain indoors unless you want it to rain indoors.

Everybody was there except Joe Bill. Joe Bill has turned wierd ever since he heard that some people somewhere was going wild about perfume made from human doo-doo. Anyway, Joe Bill owns this old farm up in Lumpkin County and it has two old outhouses that’s been used for about 50 years by a lot of people. His eyes lit up and he got to figuring and carrying naughts and all that and finally decided that at 50 bucks a ounce of perfume, he was setting on around a hundred million dollars. So he’s been camping out with a shotgun up there and sleeping in a sleeping bag and guarding his treasure, and he won’t leave for no reason.

Anyway, we was all praying in that circle and during a break Jim Earl pointed to my tool shed and said “What’s that under that tarp?” Well, we looked and dang if it wasn’t a couple cases of PBR that I forgot I had. And they was nice and cold from all the cold weather we been having. Anyway, somebody said it was God’s way of letting us know we needed to stop praying and start drinking beer, so we did. The upshot was we didn’t bring down any water but we sure made a lot. I never seen so many trips to the toilet. God sure has a funny way of answering prayers.

I’m sorry I ain’t on the topic this a.m. Its just that I was so excited by Sonny’s water plan I had to write about it. Anyway, I figure old Rudy has this election sewed up, what with getting the indorsement of Pat Robertson and all. Its for sure us rednecks will vote for him now. We can be sure Rudy is a fine Christian man, divorces or no divorces, adultry or no adultry, and he’s not a Mormon like some people we know.

If he will just name old Newt as his VP he will be a lead pipe cinch to make it to the white house. The two of them probly know more hiding places to keep loose women than anybody else in the country. You got to be smart and pretty sneaky to be a good president.

Have a good day everybody.

By Van

November 8, 2007 10:41 AM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

Facts, what does the left need with facts?

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 10:50 AM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 10:09, fully agree with all you write, as usual. “I wonder what would happen today if a Senator had the cojones to stand up for principle today?” Not likely to be an issue in our lifetimes. Sorta like that tree falling in the forest.

By Van

November 8, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

Redneck Convert,

Speaking of loose women, I understand Bill kept his under his desk. At least Newt, Fred and Rudy married their girl friends.

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this

Touche, Van. The Islamunistliberalesbians stand no chance against your quick wit. I see it only took you ten minutes to come up with that one. Rapier wit, indeed.

THE Captain asks that when you complete your rehabilitation of McCarthy that you turn your attentions to Robespierre and Torquemada. THE Captain has always felt that these men got a bum rap, when all they were doing was rousting the heretics and traitors in their midsts. Yeah, maybe a few innocent lives were destroyed, but it’s a small price to pay for freedom. Wouldn’t you agree?

I’m certain Don Rudy would agree. (See, THE Captain pulls it back to topic. You’re welcome, Jim.)

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

At least Newt, Fred and Rudy married their girl friends.

Well, at least a few of them!!!

By Van

November 8, 2007 11:11 AM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

I do not see the collation between the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and Joe McCarthy.

As a sitting Senator, his investigations did not result in torture or beheading.

But, then again, for a leftie, you might think that telling a Senator if you are or ever were a member of the Communist party in that category.

By getalife

November 8, 2007 11:16 AM | Link to this

“Intensive questioning works. If I didn’t use intensive questioning, there would be
a lot of mafia guys running around New York right now and crime would be a lot higher in New York than it is. Intensive question has to be used. ”
— Rudy the 9-11 w*******, apparenbtly confessing to torturing suspects,

This liar had one mob conviction and it was done by legal wiretaps.

Check his facts, he lies more than w.

Yea, run Rudy.

Kerik should be indicted today.

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this

Van: I do not see the collation between the Spanish Inquisition, the French Revolution and Joe McCarthy.

Presumably you mean “correlation”. Irregardless (that word’s for you, Van), these were all situations where the greatest enemy was within, and it took men of vision, grit, and determination to root out the cancer within.

As a sitting Senator, his investigations did not result in torture or beheading.

A small quibble, but THE Captain forgives him this shortcoming. THE Captain is certain we count on Don Vito Giuliani to rectify this lapse.

By Van

November 8, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this

Redneck Convert,

Back on the category of wives, did Dennis marry his current wife before or after she graduated from high school?

I really think the tongue piercing will look great on the White House Christmas cards. She will be the first, First Lady with one.

By Curious Observer

November 8, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this

It figures that jbmlaw and the other elitists on this blog will jump to vote for Giuliani, if he’s nominated. They would vote for Adolph Hitler if he stuck an R after his name. No sense of human decency here—just whoever will allow them to load their pockets with money gained at the expense of common people’s jobs and well-being.

By Peter

November 8, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this

Wow the Wrongs, are really out there these days……let’s see how many time has Giuliani been married ?

Makes you wonder how many times he cheated on his other wives ?

Also I love the comment that Ron Paul made, saying Giuliani had no idea or understanding why 911 actually happened.

Of course a Mormon President would really be great, providing his group of wives could all move in the White House and all get along.

I think Romney has been married only once? Perhaps someone here could give us the heads up on that one.

That would be kind of FUN having a President with many wives, it would make great press, and of course he could take care of the many delegates from other parts of the world entertainment wise.

Gotta hand it to the wrongs, “FAMILY VALUES” seem to change like the wind around here.

Gotta run, I agree with Redneck convert……..time to go outside and PRAY….. heck that is current state policy for dealing with the drought!

By getalife

November 8, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Kerik Indictment on Tax and Corruption Charges Imminent

Rudy would pardon him and make him AG.

The best part of Pat endorsing him is it has splintered the wingnut vote.

Yea, run rudy.

Don’t forget to pray with Sonny but you might want to start a pipeline.

Geez.

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 11:32 AM | Link to this

By Van November 8, 2007 10:24 AM Dennis, “According to the IRS, those in the highest 5% of taxpayers, pay about 43% of the taxes collected.”

Using your figurres, if that is the case, 5% of the taxpayers control 43% of the money. And you want me to feel sorry for them?

Although I am comfortable, I am no where near that brackett. Now, you may be.

The working poor are still poor.

Who is wealthy or how the wealthy got the money is not a factor, if you go to church and sing, ““Jesus loves the little children, Red and yellow, black and white, they are precious in His sight”, until it comes to money.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

Dear Curious @ 11:26, odd that you would raise the spectre of a National Socialist when only your party sponsors national socialists.

By ron

November 8, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

If Pat Robertson endorses Rudy,there is something about Rudy that I am not seeing.What kind of a deal has he got from the crazies on the far right?What did he have to give in return?The boy now bears watching.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 11:41 AM | Link to this

Dennis, you’re one of the respectable Democrats, so why do you offer a preamble about not mixing religion and politics and then immediately mix them? I’d like to open a discussion with you and whoever about how to handle the “wall of separation” taboo for purposes of this blog. You must’ve hesitated before initiating dueling verses, so that’s the kind of difficulty I’m hoping to address. Jim’s column today shows, if in fact nothing else, that the fox & henhouse continue to coexist uneasily in the South, but exist they do, and perhaps only an existentialist would be “blind” enough to say otherwise. So, how best to handle these matters, do you think?

By Disgusted

November 8, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

Can’t anybody see the obvious truth here? God must have told Pat Robertson to endorse Rudy, just as He told him that 9/11 was payback for all the abortions in this country. Robertson talks with God every night, you know. I hope Sonny invites Robertson down to help implement the new state water policy. I plan to go out and purchase a new diving suit right now. I’m taking Personal Responsibility for preparing for all the rain that’s going to fall.

By DemDems4Ever

November 8, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this

Curious@11:26 At least now we all know you are either a socialist or a communist. Russia and China will be glad to tell you where you may live, what you may drive and how much food you may have to eat. Move to one or the other and stop bothering freedom loving Americans.

Peter@11:27 Amazing to what lengths you progressives (sarcasm intended) will go to denigrate the beliefs of others and to introduce your contempt for Christianity into any discussion, whether relevant or not. If you and Curious are examples of the tolerant left then perhaps a little faith in God would be good for both of you.

By Van

November 8, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this

Dennis,

The money given by individuals trumps all the money wasted by our government.

This country has a long tradition of digging into their own pockets and giving. During the tsunami, individual donation far exceeded governmental donations.

In the old days, the charities that provided for the working poor were church centered. Religions of all shapes and sizes cared for those less fortunate. Before FEMA and other alphabet agencies, who do you think paid for recoveries from natural disasters.

But, the lefties had a better idea, I am from the government, I am here to help you - scary, plain scary.

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

DemsDems:

You are mistaken, sir. Peter @11:27 did not express contempt for Christianity. He did however express contempt for Mormontology. There is a difference, you know. This is a Christian nation, period. Fringe cults like Mormontology and Hinduism have no place in our political life. (Just ask Bobby Jindal.) Anyone, even a liberal, who questions the so-called “faith” of Flip Flop Romney is on solid ground.

But a Captain Kudo, sir, on your putdown of the Curious one. Nothing says intellectual superiority quite like that perfect “why doncha move to Russia if you hate America so much.” It’s a classic that never goes out of style, ranking right up there with “know ya are, but what am I”.

By JC

November 8, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

Pat Robinson will only hurt Giuliani chances of becoming President. Nobody takes Pat Robinson serious after all of the crazy thing that he has been saying over the last few years then having to apoligize for them. Giuliani needs to stay as far away from Pat Robinson as he could if he don’t want to be though crazy too.

By DemDems4Ever

November 8, 2007 12:03 PM | Link to this

Dennis @ 11:32

Your comment regarding singing in church and money is 180 degrees off base and I do not have to quote statistics to debunk such an inane position.

After the tsunami, Christian oragnizations provided food, clothing, medical assistance and virtually any other thing the people needed - people who were for the most part Muslim.

Christian doctors formed their own mission group and went to Pakistan and Afghanistan to assist the civilians caught in the fighting.

Your attack on Chiristians is unwarranted, without basis in fact, and only proves that you and the rest of your progressive left loonies are nothing but a group of jealous underachievers willing to blame your failures on the successful.Sad, sad, sad.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 12:04 PM | Link to this

jbm, nice run-down as always. I happen to be reading Evans’ book. So far I’d say it’s serious historiography (unlike Coulter’s book), and nuanced very cleanly & guilelessly. Will have to finish it and check some of its sources, though, to tell. Give it a look, and see what you think. It goes next to my dying stepfather (old ONI, BTW), and I’d offer it to you next but, hey, you’re a damned blogger and a lawyer besides.

This is inexcusable, but I keep failing to get past Romney’s Stepford Husband shine and stiltedness. Fab credentials, though, I grant you.

P.S. Ens. S-C further covered w/ the presbytery.

By Van

November 8, 2007 12:05 PM | Link to this

Captain Freedom,

Regarding religion, I would rather live next to a moral person, than an ethical one.

I’ll take a religious person over a secular progressive any day.

As any thinking person knows, ethics can and is twisted by rationalizations - we are pro-abortion, because it is for the children. While religious beliefs are a little harder to bend to suit your particular kink.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 12:08 PM | Link to this

Van, I get the feeling that you’re onto an important distinction, but I can’t put my finger on it. Isn’t ethics the practice of morality? Is there a further distinction I’m missing?

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Tom @ 9:55, W’s degrees from Yale and Harvard are nothing more than sheepskins from Yale and Harvard, but when academic background is the issue (as it was jbm’s) then they are nothing less either. Whether the two universities, or we, like it or not.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Dear Southern @ 9:53, as always you cause me to think. That is usually dangerous, thus I telegraph in advance that most of what follows is half-baked. I don’t think I buy the analogy, of Christian Coalition is to Republican, as Moonbats are to Democrats. More on that in a moment; first and foremost I wish to simply praise the thoughtfulness of your analysis of Church and government, truly a survey of the sacred and the profane.

When I look at the Christian Coalition (“CC”) – for the sake of simplicity we will lump together Robertson, Dobson, the remainders of Falwell’s group, Graham, although their respective historic levels of political participation vary greatly – I do not see their role among Republicans as an attempt to set policy. (And I’m sure our preacher would be quick to point out that I would not be likely to stay awake long enough to hear any political endorsements even if he offered them.) To the extent you are saying that the CC is merely a “fellow traveler” for conservatives, I would be hard-pressed to disagree, but I think you argue more. I think it undoubtedly true that conservatives and the CC have a convergence of ideals. But while one occasionally sees an argument that someone in the CC demands a “place at the table” where policy is set, in fact that place is never set, because the “table” does not exist. Such agenda are not a product of group-think among republicans, rather they are the highly-individual goals of those who stand for office. Cato Institute does not recruit politicians, although it certainly traffics in ideas. I think it is different for democrats, who do have various interest groups that meet and set political agenda.

I think maybe the reason that CC-influence does not soak in for me is that endorsements simply do not make any difference among republican voters generally, or for me in particular. The few people who may be able to deliver some significant quantities of votes – Rush Limbaugh, Bill O’Reilly, surely a couple of others who escape my mind for now – routinely do not make specific endorsements. Among republicans we talk policy, policy, policy – you are surely cognizant of my prior arguments that only leftists ask “who is your daddy” when analyzing a speaker. I think “who says it” carries far more weight among our friends on the left, and you impute to us the same attitude pervasive among your side. While I would not affirm that we ignore the CC – ignoring decent people would be rude – I think I can accurately assert that their positions influence only a few opportunists in the republican party.

By getalife ☻

November 8, 2007 12:15 PM | Link to this

w just lost his veto on the water bill 79-14 in the Senate.

Finally, they have worked together for the people.

By DemDems4Ever

November 8, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

Private Freedom

Read all the way to the end, Private Socialist.

Peter did express contempt for Christianity with his comments regarding Governor Purdue’s request for prayer on the drought.

Freedom you should investigate the Mormon faith. They believe in providing for their own care and do not believe in state welfare. Is this the reason for your ugly comments, and Peter’s as well? Do you both rely on the federal and state governments for your well being?

Curious displayed his contempt for America and I offered him some options that fit his expressed view of the manner in which the US should operate but does not. Why do you and Curious remain in such a horrific country?

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

good news, get!

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 12:20 PM | Link to this

By Glenn November 8, 2007 11:41 AM “Dennis, you’re one of the respectable Democrats, so why do you offer a preamble about not mixing religion and politics and then immediately mix them?”

Actually, Glenn, I’m NOT a Democrat nor any other political party. For that matter, no longer a “Christian” NOR ANYTHING ELSE in the sense of claiming a particular doctrine.

I’m not a goody goody and I don’t support those who are able to work, but don’t.

The “working poor” are a different type who deserve support. They are contributing to the welfare of this country and at the end of their working years, deserve a living portion of its bounty.

There are pros and cons about the “separation clause” of the Constitution.

I don’t have it at my fingertips, but recently I read of a conservative minister who supports the church exemption from paying taxes because he doesn’t want bibically misinformed, ultra fundamentalist ministers preaching conservative - political gospel from their pulpits.

I, on the other hand, cannot understand how most of the better learned liberal ministers have not spoken the gospel against the Iraq war.

Let’s admit the problem and then we can do something about solving it - we have had a group of fascist in the Oval Office. No one intelligent can look at the history of the current “spying on Americans” prior to 9/11 and not admit that.

Now, I realize this somewhat gets us off the direct subject of separation of church and state, but my intent is to add some background to where I’m coming from.

True, I’ve mixed church and state in the tax issue and care of the poor, but otherwise I might not communicate as effectively with “Christians” if I don’t.

(Think how many people “god” doesn’t love if you follow the doctrines of Creflo Dollar).

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

November 8, 2007 12:21 PM | Link to this

Glenn,

In the whole scheme of things, we have laws against things that are pure evil and laws against things that appear to be bad.

For example, no one will argue that cold blooded murder is not evil. Some folks do not think it is that big a deal to lie to the police.

With that as a bases - an ethical person has a set of personal beliefs. It isn’t ethical to copy parts another students thesis. It isn’t illegal, it is unethical.

Religion brought us a sense or what is moral. A solid base for what is right and wrong. Even the progressives have that sense and it comes from the faith of our fathers and mothers and its impact on our society.

Is it ethical to have a sexual relationship outside of marriage? Sure, no problem.

Is it moral? No.

Morals impose a tighter set of rules on our lives than ethics. Ethics impose a tighter set of rules on our lives than the law. The law separates us from the animals. We would not survive under the law of the jungle.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 12:25 PM | Link to this

DemsDems4Ever,

Have you “investigate[d] the Mormon faith”? You make no reference to the faith, only to social practices of Mormons. That’s what causes me to wonder.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 12:26 PM | Link to this

Dear Glenn @ 12:04, thanks, if you say Evans is readable (as he always has been) I’ll buy it too; you correctly detect that I was waffling. As to Van’s essay on morality v ethics, I think he has a basis to argue. I deem the former (in the context of Van’s usage) a small subset of the latter. When I think of “ethics,” I usually pigeon-hole arguments as Kantian (inherently and inferably right or wrong) vs. Utilitarianism (best result for the group) vs. Nietzscheanism (best result for the individual.) As Van and I use the term, “morality” is a fellow-traveler for Kant.

By Anonymous

November 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

JBM, you forfeit credibility with your very second sentence today: “I will vote for the republican nominee, whoever that may be.”

Gotta be a partisan tool, that one…

As for your comments that “YOUR party is the only one that nominates national socialists”… name one. Please. I’d love the chance to vote for even a real liberal again, let alone a socialist. (Those, um, ARE different positions, by the way. May want to do a little reading.)

Your attempted defense of McCarthy is, of course, beneath contempt. I will point out that attempts to rehabilitate that b*ard are doomed to fail, even when Michelle Malkin takes a hand in it. Americans aren’t quite THAT dumb—not yet.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this

Dear getalife @ 12:15, open the spigots, Congress is back in business.

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this

By DemDems4Ever November 8, 2007 12:03 PM Dennis @ 11:32

“Your comment regarding singing in church and money is 180 degrees off base and I do not have to quote statistics to debunk such an inane position…you and the rest of your progressive left loonies are nothing but a group of jealous underachievers willing to blame your failures on the successful.Sad, sad, sad.”

My views are not for those who walk the walk, rather for those who talk the talk.

And I have to admit I am too often in that last catagory. But, I’m working on it.

As to my underacheiving, I’m a long way from the cotton mill village where I was born. And better aware religiously and politically than I knew was possible.

You/most people in our society are controlled and brainwashed more than you could ever dream.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 12:38 PM | Link to this

Dear anonymous @ 12:30, among Hillary Clinton, John Kerry, Al Gore, Michael Dukakis, Fritz Mondale, Jimmy Carter, and George McGovern, not one trusts private enterprise as much as he/she trusts the government. “Who shall control the production of goods?” defines a capitalist vs a socialist. But I would be pleased to be enlightened; please define for me the circumstances when anyone other than a socialist would demand government “control” business.

By getalife ☻

November 8, 2007 12:39 PM | Link to this

ambulance chaser,

It will not help Ga. (start a pipeline) but the folks down here in Louisiana are cheering.

For the first time under king george, Congress worked together and won for the people. The La. reps did well and got the money w promised and then vetoed. He is not a man of his word like Plame told us.

There is a new immigration bipartisan bill coming without amnesty.

It is focused on border security and enforcing immigration laws. If w vetos that bill , the gop would be weak on national security.

Lou Dobbs is in a great mood.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this

Dear anonymous @ 12:30, as to your contemptuous denial of the truth on McCarthy, I would also ask you to enlighten me. This is not something like global warming, where people with a self interest are forecasting needs for their services; this is all past, and dead, and unchangeable, and pretty well-documented.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this

Dear anonymous @ 12:30, as to your definition of “liberal,” you err of course. A liberal is one who believes in the freedom of the individual, and reining in Leviathan, 1960s efforts to corruptly misappropriate the term notwithstanding.

By MELO

November 8, 2007 12:47 PM | Link to this

* He is an academic in a class with Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Woodrow Wilson, John Kennedy, and George W. Bush, *jbmlaw including George W. Bush on there among the academic class made me laugh really. Is it the ‘decayed,dotant” in u that makes u say such stuff? I feel sorry for ur shrinking brain.

By DemDems4Ever

November 8, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Glenn

I have done enough to know that I will not convert, but I disagree with the constant assault on “Faith” by the Left.

A learned blogmeister such as you should be able to expalin what appears to be a fear of faith demonstrated by the Left.

I will also challenge those like Dennis, Peter, Freedom and others who mock religion and faith with false statements like Dennis’ “sing… until it comes to money”.

An individual’s faith, in my view, should be a private matter and those who denigrate another’s religion or faith are unworthy of respect.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this

Dennis, thanks for taking my question. Sorry to have pigeonholed you; I’d meant to get it right. Your response all makes sense to me, though there are a couple of points with which I can’t agree. (I’d change “fascist” to “fascistic”, for example, but that doesn’t change your assertion really.)

You raise two points about the current role of religion in American politics: the tax exemption serving in part to help keep wingnuts from disseminating hotgospeling haw-rightism; and the mysterious silence of the shepherds on Iraq.

I don’t follow the first point, but it’s intriguing & may be significant. The second point is a powerful question, or two questions? Have they been (largely) silent? Why?

I’m sure you know that when you quoted Greek Scripture earlier to justify social welfare, someone in agreement could have responded with a string of other verses to back you up, and an opponent could have refuted you in the same manner. I mention this only to suggest that the silent clerics could even more readily do the same to justify their alleged sins of omission on Iraq. Were they to do so, theirs might be a dodge or it might be sincere, it might be Scripturally accurate or it might not be, it might be grounded in traditions of great valence, or it may be grounded in shifting sands. How does one engage such matters without getting dragged into their own game?

Look, by happenstance I received training formal training in Judaism and Catholicism (also in cults and civil religions), though I myself am a run-of-the-mill Protestant. And certainly I respect the views of non-believers, from Benjamin Franklin forward. I can’t speak for the other traditions as a lettered adherent could, but I’ve learned enough about what those traditions mean to their adherents to smell a rat when one’s about. The stench is worst when ignorant critics of a particular tradition offer a tendentious summation of it. (Speaking of pigeonholing.) That to me (and for that matter to Franklin) is an arch violation of open discourse in a free society.

I never thought that comparative religion would come in handy, but bigod on 9/11 I reevaluated that supposition. (Wish I’d studied Islam.) What I’m getting at is that there’s got to be a way to discuss these things in a rough open forum, American-style, profanity and all.

Again I appreciate your taking a stab at it.

By time for the truth

November 8, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this

An absolutely fascinating article about a recently discovered first edition book, detailing the murderous hysterical ignorant religious insanity prevalent in the late 16 cent in Europe. It was these kinds of deranged witch burning religious nutters that left England (and elsewhere) to consolidate the USofA and had such a time in Salem fully ONE HUNDRED YEARS after this book’s publication.

The only “true” comfort is that if this was going on today HiTllary and the Pelosibitch and the Boxerbitch and the Tokyo Rosie O’D ikebitch and the rest would all have been deservedly burned as witches a long long time ago!! With easy HBO dvd availability on Amazon!

The 16th century book that shows how vicars abused people’s fear of witchcraft

A 16th century Kent housewife narrowly missed being burnt at the stake for being a witch after rebuking a vicar’s son for abusing her dog, a newly-discovered book reveals.

The remarkable story of Margaret Simons, her over-exuberant pet and a superstitious clergy is detailed in a 16th century counterblast against the witch-hunting fever which was sweeping Europe at the time.

In “The Discoverie of Witchcraft”, published in 1584 and found recently in the attic of a house in Nottinghamshire, author Reginald Scott goes far beyond the radical thinkers of his age by maintaining there were no witches in contemporary England and that all those executed for the “crime” were innocent.

The rare, unlicensed first-edition tome - set to fetch up to £5,000 at Bonhams in London on Tuesday - ridicules belief in witchcraft as “absurd error”, with Scott declaring that links between curses or spells and unpleasant events were purely coincidental.

He cites the case of the unfortunate Mrs Simons, of “Brenchlie” (Brenchley), Kent, who was tried for witchcraft at Rochester Assizes in 1581 on the particular testimony of parish vicar John Ferrall, with whom Scott later talked “and found he was unable to make a good account of his faith as she whom he accused”.

The cleric’s son - “an ungracious boie and prentise to one Robert Scotchford, clothier” - passed near Mrs Simons’s house and her little dog barked at him. The boy drew a knife and chased the animal home, where, perhaps justifiably, Mrs Simons “rebuked” the young man for his over reaction.

Next day the vicar’s son fell ill and his father blamed witchcraft - partly because “he thought himself so privileged that he little mistrusted that God would visit his children with sicknes (sic)” and partly, perversely, on the say-so of other witches.

The vicar, who also blamed Mrs Simons for striking him dumb in church, had her tried before a judge and jury.

“And trulie”, records Scott, “if one of the Jurie had not been wiser than the others, she had been condemned to death thereupon, and on other ridiculous matters as this.

“For the name of a witch is so odious and her power so feared among the common people that [before] the honestest bodie she shall bare hardlie escape condemnation.”

The unexplained death of an infant - or what would now be called a cot death - was often enough for the mother to be burned as a witch. A prominent birthmark, too, was taken as a sure sign of witchcraft.

Scott declares that most confessions were the result of torture: “for upon the racke, when they have once begunne to lie, they will saie what the tormentor list”.

The writer denies the existence of witches in England - “not because I would disgrace the ministers that are Godlie, but to confirme my assertion that this absurd error is growne into the place, which should be able to expel such ridiculous follie and impretie”.

Stressing the absurdity of contemporary thinking, he said that if an accused woman cried out to her captors: “I am undone, save my life; I will tell you how the matter standeth”, she is thereupon most vehmentlie to be suspected and condemned to die.

“The behaviour, looks, becks and countenance of a woman are sufficient signes whereby to presume she is a witch; for always they looke downe to the ground, and dare not looke a man full in the face. If their parents were thought to be witches, then it is certeinlie to be presumed that they are to (sic)”

Others at risk of being accused included atheists ,the elderly, poor and the lame, along with those “full of wrinkles, leane, deformed and melancholic”.

If a “witch” failed to confess under torture “her apparel must be changed, and everie haire on their bodie must be shaved off with a sharpe razor”.

Scott declares that “witchcraft and inchantment is the cloke (sic) of ignorance” and criticises the fact that “the complaint of anie one man of credit is sufficient to bring a poore woman to the racke or pullie”.

He adds: “It is natural to unnaturall people, and peculiar unto witchmongers, to pursue the poore, to accuse the simple and to kill the innocent.”

As an example of the “pestilent practices” of the day, he records the lengths to which one Katherine Loe went in order to restore her husband’s interest in the bedroom.

“She made an image of the likeness of hir husband’s member, and offered it up to St Anthonies altar, so as, through the holinesse of the masse, it might be sanctified, to be more courageous and of better disposition and abilities.”

Another cure for impotence in Elizabethan Britain was to inhale “the smoke of the tooth of a dead man”. Yet another was “to anoint a mans bodie over with the gall of a crow” - and a third to fill a quill with quick silver “and to put into your owne bottome”.

One final tip to secure a man’s erection: “to p** through a wedding ring.”

The contemporary belief that witches were “incestuous adulterers with spirits” was a “ridiculous lie” and the thought that witches boiled infants after murdering them “until their flesh be made potable” was “untrue, incredible and impossible”.

Highlighting the absurdity, he outlines one apparently foolproof method of discovering who bewitched your family: “Put a paire of breeches upon the cowes head and beate her out of the pasture with a good cudgell upon a fridaie, and she will runne right to the witches doore, and strike thereat with her hornes.”

Reginald Scott, first son of Richard Scott, of Scott’s Hall, Kent, was a surveyor and engineer who later became MP for New Romney. In The Discoverie of Witchcraft, his most important work, he asserted that witchcraft was an impossible crime and that those who confessed were either deluded or the victims of torture.

Matthew Haley, books and manuscripts specialist at Bonhams, said yesterday: “Scott’s book is remarkably erudite as well as being out of step with much current thinking of the day. He is arguing for a much more reasoned approach to the subject of witchcraft at a time when reason was in pretty short supply. Goodness knows how it escaped James I’s cull of unacceptable books.”

In England alone, hundreds of women, and a very few men, were executed in the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I - either burned at the stake, hanged or drowned - as witchcraft was sternly condemned by members of all Christian churches.

Witchhunts, led by witchfinder generals such as the notorious Matthew Hopkins, were particularly prevalent in Essex and Lancashire. Witches were blamed for everything from the Black Death to bad harvests.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?inarticleid=492437&inpageid=1770

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 1:15 PM | Link to this

DD4E @ 12:48, you’re totally straight up to do so, and have at it by all means. Not that it’s the most important thing in your post, but you do manage a bit of a contradiction: religion is private; you’ll publicly take to task anyone who publicly denigrates it. That bind or predicament is (I think) what Dennis and I were trying to bypass, as with some agreement about, I dunno, treating the creeds or practices as phenomena that impact our public affairs, while gently circumambulating the next person’s metaphysical toes.

By jm

November 8, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw@9:49 & Van@10:09 - as long as you overlook the fact that tailgunner Joe was perfectly willing to smear/ruin innocent people in order to find the people he was looking for.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

Dear jm @ 1:16, name one. The Soviet archives suggest everyone named was guilty.

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this

By Glenn November 8, 2007 12:52 PM.

Glenn, what a pleasure it is to have a decent, intelligent, informed conversation.

“I don’t follow the first point, but it’s intriguing & may be significant. The second point is a powerful question, or two questions? Have they been (largely) silent? Why?”

Question two; not all have been silent, but they are boxed in by the “separation clause”. There are a couple of churches, one in California, that have been called to task by the IRS.

Question one; I was a little surprised myself, but delighted, when I read the conservative minister regarding his reasons for keeping fundamentalist ministers under control via the “separation clause”.

And I admit, he gave me pause to reconsider my position on churches paying property tax.

…”You can’t be saved without being baptised. It says so in the bible, it says so in the encyclopedia and it says so in the dictionary!”

Alas. :)

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 1:27 PM | Link to this

Dear TFTT @ 1:05, thanks for the post; I am embarrassed to admit that I truly thought burning witches was one of those uniquely American things, something I associated with the sort of mentality that traditionally runs Massachusetts.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this

tftt, you’ve laid that out nicely and I look forward to reading the history, even though you make it sound fatally flawed with abject presentism. The French are swine, of course, but this week Hell froze over. “Lafayette, je suis ici!” Sure, the early Prots were, like most Europeans in the 16th Century, among other things largely brutish. Some of the worst of their lot later settled here, and most of the best of their various lines did too. Put Salem in my lap and I’ll put Philadelphia in yours, and throw in Oglethorpe’s Savannah to boot. As for Elizabeth’s and James’s Church and its bloody history, we disestablished here by force of arms. Reckon you’d count that an improvement.

By BS Aplenty (It Could'a Happened)

November 8, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw, Joltin’ Joe McCarthy wouldn’t have had to point out the bad guys if the buggers had only stepped up to the plate on their own.

A Typical Communists Anonymous meeting

Mao Say-Dung(to Group): Comrades,…er, friends, I am Mao and I am a…,uh, a Com-com-cac,…,uh, sinner (Why can’t I just say the “C” word). I’m a sinner.

Group: Howdy, uh, Mao.

Group Moderator: Uh, Mao, sweetie, you sure you don’t need a priest. This is Communists Anonymous not ‘Cheaters’.

Mao Say-Dung: Uh, don’t need no priest, no, keep holy water away from me. Just need to say that Universal Healthcare would be great for America - is not a com-com-cac…, communist (finally) system but tribute to the people’s right to demand another’s pie. Thank you (sitting down).

GM: OK, Mao, honey, thanks for that delicious piece of dishonesty and I still think you need the priest. Next.

Josef Stolen: Good evening, sheep…, er, friends. I, too, am a Com-com-cac…(coughing), uh, Social Democrat and I am pleased to interrogate…, er, invite you to adopt Universal Healthcare. It is only way to let the people choose - once. Even forced labor camp inmates have full access…

GM (interrupting): Jo, Jo, again, sweetie, honey, this is Communists Anonymous not the welfare office. Do be brief on the polemics dear…thanks. Next.

Hillary: Hey, howdy, hi, like I’m Hillary and I’m like, so-o-o Communist. I’m, like, in favor of Universal Healthcare and would encourage you-all to read my book ‘It Takes a Village Idiot to Run the Village’ (and I want to)…

GM:(interrupting) Hill, Hill, honey, sweetie, uh, this isn’t the presidential debates, uh, sweetie…uh,

Narrator: Join us again next time when ex-KGB agent Vlad Dzerzhinsky explains how to make ‘waterboarding’ work in the frozen Siberian.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 1:46 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

Got to dash this off quickly. As to salvation being reserved to those baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, it was guaranteed long before Jesus to the Jews, many of whom practiced baptism before the birth of the Naz. It’s true that the Scriptures have Him saying that no one gets to the Father except via the Son, but the rabbinate traditionally has chuckled at that revelation, pointing out that Jews already are with the Father, from, and by virtue of, their birth. Where that leaves the others, most importantly non-believers, is as you know a huge and circuitous thing, theologically. We could have it out I guess, if you want to. I just don’t know how to do it justice in brief, except to say that there always has been a strain in Xian tradition which holds that the Shepherd loves all His sheep, whether they are with Him or not; it’s the ones who hear the voice and do not regroup who are eventually written off as though they’d never belonged to the flock from the start. I don’t think I’ll be struck down this instant for this undoubtedly oversimplified synopsis. But I’m pretty sure it’s inappropriate to recite it here.

By welfare research

November 8, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

DD4EVER,

Mormon faith. They believe in providing for their own care and do not believe in state welfare. Is this the reason for your ugly comments, and Peter’s as well? Do you both rely on the federal and state governments for your well being?

This is the single most erroneous statement I’ve seen on this blog today. You obviously know nothing of what you speak. Certain sections of the mormon faith gleefully rape the puiblic doles for welfare money.

Follow this: one man, 9 wives, 30 kids. How is this paid for, when none of the wives work? Simple, since only ONE marriage is recognized, the other 8 or welfare moms with several children. starting to get the picture?

Several years back while doing research on welfare, I stumbled across several reports that dealt with the huge amount of welfare mormons especially the LDS ones receive, (the ones who practice polygamy)and was astounded at the raw numbers in dollars they sucked from the government, and the literally gleeful manner in which they did so.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

Van @ 12:21,

Thanks. Quite good, what you wrote. I understand better now where you were coming from. When you distinguish morality from ethics on other than practical terms, though, what you call “morality” I think I would have called simply “conscience”. Whatever.

It may interest you that in Jewish tradition ethics is the Edenic burden of decision between good and evil; it’s an inescapable curse, a penance for Original Sin. The Edenic curse is the basis for Jewish law, and consequently of Anglo-American law. (Don’t know about them folks down in LA, but then getalife is there so what does that tell you?)

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

Glenn, the “priests” all say that “god” didn’t make up perfect because he wanted us to have “free choice”.

But the “priests” can never give a straight answer to the question that if that is god’s intention, then why does he get so damned mad at us when we make mistakes.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Van

November 8, 2007 2:06 PM | Link to this

jbmlaw,

Kant may be over my head, but I do agree that it is up to each of us to decide if there is an external authority on our own, a God, god, Allah or whatever you want to call him/her. But I do think that the good in man does come from a high authority, sorry Kant, a minor deviation, but then again… It isn’t inherent in him, but comes from what we are taught and teach. Good begets good, evil begets evil. If our religious or moral teachings are of any value and are held dear, they will be shown by our actions.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

jbm,

You’ve said recently that you were down with Jim on full-blown parent choice in education. That initiative in Utah went down in flames Tuesday. This is, like, the 15th statewide defeat in a row. It got trounced in Michigan. In California, three times. After this statewide voucher efforts definitely will continue to see diminishing returns. Those efforts will be a drag on the energies of the earnest and good-willed. We conservatives are the only ones talking sense about education restructuring, and now our V-word is taken away. What do we do now?

It’s over, mon. Let’s go!

By Lily Toad

November 8, 2007 2:15 PM | Link to this

What I learned today on Thinking Right: Joe McCarthy good, Witchhunting was a sham. Correlation?

By welfare research

November 8, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Sorry, it’s called “bleeding the beast.”

It’s funny, because when you think of welfare you alway conjure up the image of the ghetto queen with five kids and a cadillac, not super religious white folks out west.

I’ll try and find more numbers, but dang 4000 mormons costing 8 MILLION dollars.

For conservatives, it’s really eye-opening.

*The practice reportedly spread quickly as it gained acceptance among the FLDS faithful, which happened to coincide with the explosive growth of state and federal assistance programs. Multiple wives, who were married in church, but not in the eyes of the law, began applying for state assistance. Food Stamps and federal programs like WIC, which provide nutritional assistance to low-income women and children, were also tapped. So were healthcare dollars through Arizona’s AHCCCS program, which provides most of the medical insurance for residents in Colorado City AZ. Last year over 4,000 residents were enrolled, reportedly costing the state about $8 million a year. […]

For her part, Flora Jessop, who says she fled the group in order to escape living a forced polygamous lifestyle, says of the people in Colorado City, “They are told to go on welfare. It’s called ‘bleeding the beast’ and they find it amusing that Satan is supporting God’s work.”*

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

Dennis @ 1:55, they can’t give a straight answer, because He doesn’t get so damned mad. They’re lying puff adders.

By HIDT

November 8, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

BS Aplenty, after reading your last post, if you are not a striking entertainment writer, you should go apply when the strike ends.

Clever.

By Van

November 8, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

Dennis,

It is just like being a parent. When you teach your young one and they decide not to heed your hard gotten wisdom, it disappoints you.

Same thing with God. He has given us a guideline to live by, whether it is the old or new testament or even both, He gets disappointed when we turn our backs on Him.

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

Stalin knew about the a-bomb before Malta. Our manhattan project physicists were traitors. They felt that no one country should have that power alone, that it needed a balance, for no man could be trusted with absolute power. They were right.

Tail Gunner Joe was also right. After he was disgraced for his version of “General Betrayus” (he claimed the army had commies in it, Ike said, ‘that’s enough’), the floodgates for Russian spies were opened. Nobody wanted to question whether anyone was a commie after what happened to Tail Gunner Joe.

In the end, it is better that Soviet spies could inform Kruschev and other soviet premiers about our progress, our intentions and our classified policies. Russians were so paranoid, that even with their intel’s assurances that no attack was imminent, soviet pre-emptive nuclear strikes were avoided by the slimest of margins. We were saved by our own treason, and by angels, trust me.

I dont trust you people. I dont trust the russians or the chinese. You all mean well, but you make mistakes. You believe in yourselves and overestimate your competence. You project fear and make assumptions that have no basis in reality.

We will destroy ourselves. We were saved from mutually assured destruction only to live to a future day when it doesn’t matter what a man does to disgrace himself, he retains his power. Thus Bush has secured our doom when the Al Queda forces he neglected to destroy blow us all to kingdom come.

There’s not a gotdang thing we can do about it. Bush survives his incompetence and treason because we’ve lost our country to the Cheney-faced Saudis, who are the Military Industrial Complex that Ike warned us about in the wake of the McCarthy Era.

By Van

November 8, 2007 2:58 PM | Link to this

GodBlogger, Gee all this time I thought it was the Supreme Court that was the undoing of Joseph McCarthy with the 1956 Slochower v. Board of Education.

Here we come to Justice Earl Warren, a man we all wanted impeached back in the day.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 2:59 PM | Link to this

GodBlogger, for heavensake don’t trust us. Just continue to distrust the Russians and Chinese. You seem to think not only that a country (or for that matter a faith) should be willing to encompass its undoing, but that all peoples should embrace their own destruction. Was that really you in the coffin, or was that a stage trick to make some corpse look like Kubrick so that you finally could enjoy your reclusiveness?

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

By Van November 8, 2007 2:32 PM Dennis, Same thing with God….

Even then, Van, how many of us would send our kids to burn in a lake of everlasting fire?

That’s pretty radical.

And for that matter, what’s in that for “God”?

All religions, Van, come ought of the imaginations of man and man’s attempts to understand just “What is life all about?”

The imagery of the Christian beliefs have been refined, refined, refined over centuries of time. Some choose to believe that some of these are concret facts instead of the symbolic that they were intended to be.

But, symbolic or not, that does not give us reason to mistreat any part of creation as we are doing.

If we follow the HIGH tenents of any real religion, they all teach love and tolerance (including Islam).

One does not need a religion to be spiritual.

If the Christian religion works for you, (the way i was raised) I’m fine with that. It no longer works for me. I am no longer “boxed in”.

I have to say tho, that when I see and hear Christian art and HIGH music (not the suruppy kind or the kind that sings “God’s gonna get you for that”), I am moved. If you’re into music, you might like to hear a “Requiem” by John Rutter. The imagery is fantastic.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this

Dear Van @ 2:06, I don’t think you would have any problems with Kant. He was a devout Christian.

Dear Glenn @ 2:09, I may agree on rearranging placement of the pans on the stove, but I don’t think I am ready to quit cooking.

By jbmlaw

November 8, 2007 3:17 PM | Link to this

Dear BS @ 1:45, I attempted unsuccessfully to post a note of appreciation for your humor here. I fully agree with HIDT @ 2:26.

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this

Van, I just made all that stuff up. I only wanted to go along with the thread and make friends and get people to like me and stuff, but then you went and hurt my feelings and made me feel bad. You’re a bad man. You’re a VERY bad man.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 3:33 PM | Link to this

jbm @ 3:12,

Good, let’s cook! The last recipe didn’t work, so let’s take what we learned and try another. As long as the kitchen’s gonna blow anyway, we might as well eat hearty while we can. (It’s what I call “making a difference”!)

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

jbm, we’d better start cooking, ‘cause the cross-dressing worldsavers-in-denial, including Wooten, are going to blow this recipe again unless some conservatives true to their name save the world from worldsavers. Unless I miss my guess, the only alternative is to “love our fate” and do GodBlogger’s Nietschean dance macabre.

Not an option, I’m sure you’ll agree.

By Van

November 8, 2007 3:43 PM | Link to this

GodBlogger,

If that hurt your feeling, then you don’t belong here - a thick skin is required. Tolerance is letting everyone have their voice, but it doesn’t mean we all have to listen.

By @@

November 8, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this

I’ll go for Rudy Jim. He’s that guy whose life portrays the middle, but whose heart is on the right.

Questionable business partners….puhleeze!!! Some of Hillary’s campaign donations have come from individuals who have “convicted” terrorist links. At least Rudy is a staunch supporter of national security; Hillary undermined her candidacy’s security with her recent “license to kill” in New York mishap.

Illegal immigration is a major concern not only for Republicans but for Democrats as well. She blew it while trying to blow ‘em (illegals that is). Sorry that was uncalled for but it needed to be said. Democrats buying votes at the expense of Americans has become all too common.

I saw some spokesperson trying to explain Spitzer’s reasoning that it would bring illegals out into the open. The question was posed to her…”If they’re brought into the open then will they be deported?”

Her response was “No, there will be no record at the DMV that they have entered the country illegally.”

Huh?????

and yes, I know about Rudy’s stance on immigration — I just don’t like people trying to pull the wool over my eyes. He’s been up front and has offered adequate explanation.

As to Pat Robertson; I couldn’t tell you anything about the guy and I’m one of the faithful.

Flawed but faithful nonetheless.

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this

Oh, you listen.

By Southern Democrat

November 8, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

Our friend @@ at 3:57 who normally offers well-thought out and articulated points saddens me with his/her recent post. The race to the bottom in politics is evidenced by the actions on both sides of the aisle. Your support for Giuliani seems to stem from what he isn’t more than what he is and reminds me all too well of my friends who frothed at the mouth for Republican blood after the Clinton impeachment and election of 2000.

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 4:07 PM | Link to this

@@ is one of the faithful? @@, I say to you this day that God gets more worship out of a rock being a rock than in all of your shouted prayers and self-help benedictions. Get down on your knees and beg forgiveness, and then go and sin no more.

Let he who is without spin get stoned first.

By Truthifier

November 8, 2007 4:08 PM | Link to this

While I personally don’t adhere to his political views, it would seem that religious conservative voters would be better represented by Governor Huckabee — a candidate who shares their values and also seems to have a better grasp of the issues facing the nation than Romney or Giuliani. He also doesn’t come across as a huckster - to make a bad play on his name. Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani, while certainly his to make, just seems to back up the view that he’s more about power than values. And I say that being a slightly left of center Democrat who, like it or not, is in agreement with Giuliani on many issues.

By Curious Observer

November 8, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

1,148 days until the expiration of the tax cuts for the wealthy. I can only hope I live long enough to hear the stuck pigs holler when they have to mail in their considerably larger estimated tax payments.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 4:11 PM | Link to this

Hey Dennis, at the risk of committing comity, wanted to let you know that I just finished sampling the Rutter Requiem. Tasty grooves, man. Thing swings! Somehow I got in the habit 25 years ago of listening to Faure on Easter Sunday. Think I’ll add Rutter to the mix, after I get him under my belt. Thanks for the tip.

By Southern Democrat

November 8, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

Jbmlaw @ 12:13,

I am flattered to think that my musings could cause you to pause and think. I do, respectfully, disagree with your comparisons and conclusions regarding the GOP’s relationship with the CC. I do not think I overstate when I say that the CC delivered the White House to the GOP in 2004 through a brilliantly coordinated strategy of appealing to voters’ safety concerns and their moral fibers, specifically the anti-homosexual resolutions placed on many ballots across America.

Perhaps it is my cynicism towards this administration clouding my judgment, but I do believe the CC has been given a seat at the table. Recently, many good preachers (N.B., I do not include the ones you list in this category as I do not find them to be either “good” or relevant to the following descriptions) have experienced a metanoia and decided that their Boss would not approve of war for its own sake or dereliction of the duty to the poor.

Some find it comforting when President Bush refers to his relationship with God. I find it deeply troubling. It is one thing to invoke the presence of the Almighty and/or to ask Him/Her to provide His/Her blessing, but it is quite another to imply that one’s decision-making is directly influenced by our Creator.

As a teacher, I certainly never told my students that I was giving them an extra research paper due to a revelation at Mass nor would I inform a client that I was going to put forth a specific argument because the good Lord made me feel it was a winner, even if both of these things were true.

What I am trying to say is that the relevance alone of Pat Robertson’s endorsement is deeply, deeply troubling to me (and has been for many years) and represents a hardening of thought by many on the right to far right that my older friends in the center right to right do not appreciate.

On a side note, but very remotely related to the topic, I recommend The Yiddish Policemen’s Union by Michael Chabon as a fun work of fiction that addresses many of my issues with religion through the prism of a failed Israel and establishment of a Zionist state in the wilderness of Alaska. It’s a detective-murder mystery-cum-political satire filled with coarse Yiddish that I wish I understood.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 4:23 PM | Link to this

*@@ @ 3:57,

Right on. Right down to the last. And don’t mind GodBlogger. Even John Muir, the crazy Scotsman, thought the rocks were speaking to him by the time he last saw Yosemite*.

*That’s why it’s so fitting for California to have put out a quarter dollar depicting Muir, a buzzard (the CA Condor), and Yosemite Park, which the state so mismanaged that it had to forfeit it to the feds, who mismanage it still. The State chose Muir only because the governor’s people couldn’t find good likenesses of Werner Erhardt, Reverend Ike or Bagwan Sri Rashneesh.

By Craig

November 8, 2007 4:26 PM | Link to this

Truthifier, I have wondered the same thing. Why aren’t Christian conservatives flocking to support Huckabee? He seems to me to be the epitome of a compassionate conservative - conservative on the family values issues, but not angry about it.

By Captain Freedom

November 8, 2007 4:28 PM | Link to this

Glenn,

THE Captain had a Rutter under his belt in his youth, but alas, that fire has faded as the prostate has inflated.

By @@

November 8, 2007 4:29 PM | Link to this

Southern Democrat @ 4:04:

Sorry to disappoint. I’m looking at the potential nominees and Hillary has promoted initiatives without explaining how she would fund them but I already know how. There would no longer be a jingle in my step.

I voted for Bill. Betcha didn’t know that. I voted for Bush because of some innovative ideas that he proposed but then got derailed by 9/11.

Rudy has proven he can work with Democrats in putting forth innovative ideas in New York. I was particularly impressed with the increase in adoptions and the decrease in abortions.

Is Nader running again? Should I waste a vote on Ralph? Ron Paul? Is someone besides Hillary and Edwards running on the Socialist ticket?

GodBlogger @ 4:07:

I got stoned once and didn’t like it. I’ve never been stoned again.

By Truthifier

November 8, 2007 4:32 PM | Link to this

Craig, I’ve seen a few interviews with Governor Huckabee and you know, he comes across as a reasonable guy with some good ideas. You summed it up well — he doesn’t seem angry. And anger is something the entire process could use less of these days. Unfortunately, I guess money, in both parties, seems to be driving things, and a candidate who doesn’t have the golden rolodex really just doesn’t stand a chance anymore. It’s unfortunate and not good for democracy.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this

Capt., Sorry to hear fate lowered the boom on you.

By Disgusted

November 8, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this

Dear Captain,

Believe me, good books and a few rounds of golf can compensate—but only a little. I share your fate. On the other hand, at least you know you won’t make the headlines over some men’s bathroom scandal, and it’s for certain you won’t be reduced to wearing a diaper in front of a whip-wielding prostitute.

By Jerry Taylor

November 8, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

After the fiasco of the Bush Administration and his continued blind support from the Religious Fanatics, the Religious Right will be a non-factor in this election. People are more concerned about healthcare, their financial well-being, and the stupid Iraq War. All the republican candidates are doing now is trying to placate the rabid religious idiots for the nomination. Who ever win will run as far away from the religious right as possible to win the general election. The country is sick and tired of the stupid, irrelevant, divisive concerns of the self-righteous, hateful fanatics

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

Truthifier & Craig,

From what I gather many Evangelicals are viscerally averse to the idea of an Arkansan for President, and if that’s true then their hunch has a rational side to it, by dumb luck; Huckabee’s record as governor and as head of his state’s Baptist Convention was not conservative, per se. He’d had permission from the voters to stay right (Gov. Clinton had to hew to that side), but he didn’t do it. By contrast, Rudy had to swim upstream just to be as moderately conservative as he was as NY Mayor—a far bigger executive responsibility than the top spot in Arkansas. Also, “Christians” don’t have to vote their religion any more than people have to vote their race. Recall that Mr. Reagan was a mainline Protestant from the suburbs who owed his presidency to Southern and Midwestern Evangelicals and urban Catholic blue-collar Democrats. Reminiscent of the old, half-true joke that Hollywood’s Bible epics are Catholic theology made by Jews for Protestant consumption.

By @@

November 8, 2007 4:47 PM | Link to this

BTW Southern Democrat…I like Mike Huckabee. I’d like to see him increase in the polls. If not, I think he’d make a great V.P.

Rudy should consider him as a running mate.

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 4:56 PM | Link to this

By Glenn November 8, 2007 4:11 PM Hey Dennis, at the risk of committing comity, wanted to let you know that I just finished sampling the Rutter Requiem. Tasty grooves, man. Thing swings! Somehow I got in the habit 25 years ago of listening to Faure on Easter Sunday. Think I’ll add Rutter to the mix, after I get him under my belt. Thanks for the tip.”

You’re welcome.

There’s also Brahms and Verdi. The Verdi is more in the operatic vein - very dramatic. Brahms a somewhat less so.

I have to say this about Christianity, it has inspired such wonderful art, music, poetry and stories. Other “veins” have as well. I regret that foreign language is not one of my abilities.

Someone today on one of the forums I frequent, mentioned Orwell’s 1984. For a little thought picker, see if “The Pedestrian” by Ray Bradbury in on the net.

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:00 PM | Link to this

Jerry, may well be true, but nobody’s going to turn down their endorsements, their money, their mailing lists, their media and their campaign foot soldiers.

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 5:02 PM | Link to this

@@, but you’re a stone fox, and isn’t that all that matters. (do you have any sisters for me?)

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:06 PM | Link to this

Dennis, the climactic line of ‘84 is: “You know very well that the Party seeks power for its own sake.” That is, I think, a large part of what concerns GodBlogger. Not least because it’s true.

By @@

November 8, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

Sure thing GodBlogger

HERE ‘YA GO!!!

By Peter

November 8, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHA…….. you WRONGS have me laughing…… gosh this blog is FUNNY…….

“By welfare research

November 8, 2007 1:49 PM | Link to this

DD4EVER,

Mormon faith. They believe in providing for their own care and do not believe in state welfare. Is this the reason for your ugly comments, and Peter’s as well? Do you both rely on the federal and state governments for your well being?”

Hey there welfare buddy……

My business is 21 years young, and I am in the top 10% of the earnings chart of US income……

No one is giving me a darn thing…

Being independent has it’s pluses !

As far as the reference to Sonny and his “Prayer” idea…..I think this has been written and is probably the Correct thinking……

“GOD helps those who HELP Themselves “

So for Sonny to NOT have a plan all this time, and now call ALL Religious leaders to Pray with him for RAIN….. sounds pretty silly to me.

Each year and actually more times than that a year, one must look at the “Plan”…. you know like a “Business Plan”, change adapt, and grow with the climate.

If he spent as much time worrying about our water, as he does making his own pocket grow, we all would be better off for it.

Just out of curiosity, who is the Religious groups that are “Praying” with SONNY these days?

Any of you WRONGS got a clue?

Any Muslims in that group ?

How about Mormons ?

As far as the Mormons……. more wives in the White House the better I say……. That would be Republican wouldn’t it ?

No one even answered the question of how many Wives Giullani has had……..not to mention how many times he has probably cheated on each one of them in his life.

Like I said before….. ” Family Values ” is a funny topic with you WRONGS !!!!

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 5:11 PM | Link to this

By @@ November 8, 2007 4:29 PM | Sorry to disappoint. I’m looking at the potential nominees and Hillary has promoted initiatives without explaining how she would fund them but I already know how. There would no longer be a jingle in my step.”

There may not be anyway.

“We are experiencing among our clients an awakening that the United States is in big trouble,” said Erik Nielsen, chief Europe economist at Goldman Sachs.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/business/09econ.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:13 PM | Link to this

@@, please tell us that’s Sister Ellen and her mentor friend.

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Brahms and Verdi? Now I am impressed, Dennis. The clientele on this blog is slowly changing over to a class act, if we can just alter the troll’s minds with information they need to know, like this: The atomic bomb is neither atomic nor a bomb. it’s a chain reaction that unleases quantum magma so fast that it only seems like a bomb, but it’s really quite harmless once you get to know it……

By ?Question?

November 8, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Does anybody get the feeling that Peter has been jilted more than once?

Is Peter a Petra?

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

Peter,

Perhaps you as a successful businessman will appreciate that Dr. Franklin wrote that “God helps those…” line to pad his test-tube bestseller Poor Richard’s Almanac, the neverending sales of which made him as rich as Mein Kampf did Adolf Hitler.

By Peter

November 8, 2007 5:21 PM | Link to this

HAHAHA……….. By whom ???

By ?Question?

November 8, 2007 5:17 PM | Link to this

Does anybody get the feeling that Peter has been jilted more than once?

Is Peter a Petra?

HAHAHA….. you have got me rolling now !

By Anonymous

November 8, 2007 5:24 PM | Link to this

?Q? 5:17, yes.

By Dennis

November 8, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Glenn, I’ve been looking for a book all day to recommend to you…found it under the piles on my desk….

“American Fascism and God” by Davidson Loehr.

And an article on the net, “Evolution’s Lonely Battle In a Georgia Classroom” by Michael Winerip.

And Godblogger, thanks for that insight on the atomic bomb. The English Horn is not really a horn and it’s not English. It’s an alto oboe. Also, water is not really “water”, it’s billions and billions of tiny little particles.

It’s been a great day.

“That’s all folks!”

You don’t have to be a blind conservative not to see it, just an ignorant one to deny it.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:27 PM | Link to this

Well den, GodBloggah,

“Atomic bomb” would make only half as many lies as Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:34 PM | Link to this

How do you make light water?

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 5:36 PM | Link to this

That’s what I just said, Glenn, atomic bombs rock. The soviets came within seconds of launching all out preemptive strikes against us many times during the cold war. If it were’nt for the doomsday machine, which is a contraption of two-hundred quintquadrillion pegamixels of TNT welded to a blasting cap, then we would all be gamma pudding by now.

I’m an excellent blogger, yeah, an excellent blogger.

yeah

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:39 PM | Link to this

Sonny: I thank you all for coming today, and can’t tell you how helpful it would be if you all would pray collectively for the precipitation that Georgia so desperately needs.

Amen Corner: Sorry, Governor. We’re in Sales, not Production.

By Peter

November 8, 2007 5:44 PM | Link to this

Glenn,

Each day is a new opportunity !

With a good work ethic, honesty, and FAITH, all seems to work.

Yes Faith…… both in myself, and in my preparation, and the Faith that I am doing good business with good people.

AS far as God is concerned, I think he would want me to HELP as many folks as possible.

So a part of my Mantra is…… if I cannot help someone, I refer them to others, so that they may be able to obtain the help they need to accomplish what they desire.

Helping others, and creating a honorable reputation keeps one going in business…….

Businesses have to changing with the times, and realizing what you did today, may NOT work tomorrow.

That is the Planning part….. something “Sonny” may have to look at.

Calling for Prayer, in my HUMBLE OPINION is just a way to arouse the Religious Right in his corner, for lack of better ideas !

Heck Sonny was calling for shorter showers, on the same day Coke, and Stone Mountain were wasting our water supply !

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:51 PM | Link to this

I know, GodBloggah, I know you are. And they do rock. They’re The Bomb. They worked in ‘45, and—who knows? As Prof. Lehrer had Dr. von Braun say, “Vonce der missiles go up, who cares vere dey come down!” Bob Haldeman, in that amazingly candid book finished posthumously, tells the story of how Nixon threatened to nuke the Soviets if they took their ungodly number of tank divisions across the Chinese border, as they were, unbeknownst to the ChiComs, preparing to do. HRH sed that’s why Mao opened the door to Nixon, who declassified a lot of intelligence and intel-gathering methods to convince the Chinese of the threat. Countermeasures upon countermeasures upon countermeasures…

If you can’t trust us (not that I do), you must not be able to sleep very competently (not that I do).

“‘Nazi Schmatzy,’ sez Wernher von Braun!”

By Glenn

November 8, 2007 5:53 PM | Link to this

Amen, Peter!

By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

Peter, I say to you this day: God gets more worship out of a cockroach using sex toys on a slug than in all your self-agrandizing sacramental whines.

Woe to he who is wise in his own eyes.

By Peter

November 8, 2007 6:01 PM | Link to this

Wow…… this is BIG Stuff….

“By GodBlogger

November 8, 2007 5:55 PM | Link to this

Peter, I say to you this day: God gets more worship out of a cockroach using sex toys on a slug than in all your self-agrandizing sacramental whines.

Woe to he who is wise in his own eyes. “

YOU MY FRIEND must be talking about self…… ” GodBlogger “

Such a name you have Chosen for yourself !!!!!

Heck I am Just Peter !

But Daily I do try to help others……and YOU ?

By @@

November 8, 2007 6:03 PM | Link to this

Glenn @ 5:13:

All I can tell you is that’s not me and that’s not my sister.:-)

Dennis @ 5:11:

You’re talking to the wrong person if you wanna talk economics. I struggle to learn though. A panic reaction to a pronouncement by China?

The vice chairman of the Standing Committee of China’s National People’s Congress, Cheng Siwei, caused ripples throughout global financial markets again Nov. 7 — reportedly sending the dollar to record lows — by saying that a bigger chunk of China’s foreign exchange stockpiles should be shifted away from the greenback. Cheng’s statements are not new (he spoke out on the same issue in March), but they do indicate that the issue is still being debated in Beijing. China ultimately has no intention of selling the greenback en masse — which would wipe out much of the country’s foreign currency reserves in less than the blink of an eye. Instead, China intends to slow or stop the purchase of new batches. Allowing mouthpieces such as Cheng to speak out helps Beijing prevent any pre-emptive foreign speculation about potential changes to China’s financial policies.

That’s from a site called Stratfor. They break down impact country by country. According to them there is no economy ready to overtake the U.S. economy. They’re all too fragile within themselves.