Cleveland Sports Forum

Darkstar wrote:Here's my take on progressive-ism:

• 1. It is progress to remove the old theological shackles and allow people to be free of a religiously-influenced government.
  2. It is progress for historically disenfranchised to be given "extra help" in order to succeed.
  3. It is progress for the downtrodden to receive support from the state.
  4. It is progress to get rid of drugs.
  5. It is progress for the state to take care of the elderly.
  6. It is progress to push our children to learn more, by funding head start.
  7. It is progress to aid women's health, by funding planned parenthood.
  9. It is progress against teenage pregnancy to teach contraception in schools.
  8. It is progress to end dependence on foreign oil, by subsidizing alternative energies.
  9. It is progress to tax the successful more, so as to fund programs for the disadvantaged.
  And so on

40 year war on poverty - FAILURE. Senior citizen safety net is broke - FAILURE. Births to unwed mothers is at an all-time high - FAILURE. 20 year war on drugs - FAILURE. We have more citizens getting foodstamps that any other time -- FAILURE. We spend more money on educating our kids, but they consistently rank outside of the top 10 (20?) in all categories -- FAILURE.

My question to progressives: Where's the [expletive deleted] progress? The only good thing to come out is the end to (overt) racial and gender discrimination. Everything else is an abject and complete utter failure.

Well reasoned post, and well stated.

Sad, just the same.

Mt. Fan

Are you even reading my posts?

I clearly posted that after Jefferson's public career was over he wrote letters that showed he was not a Christian, but that during his career he was totally different. I don't know why the change but I fully realize that and said as much.

Then you reply to me with letters he wrote after his public career was over.

I already said that. I'm very familiar with the letters you speak of. I'm also very familiar with what he said and did while in office, which was totally different, and that is the point I was making. How they set up and expected the government to run.

I also posted part of Washington's farewell address to the country just to have you reply to me that Washington didn't wear his religion on his sleeve.

Heck, if anything I think the fact that Jefferson led such a Christian life and ran his government in such a pro-religious way while in office despite the fact he had personal feelings that he had toward Jesus only strengthens my belief in the way the founders expected our government to run, in such a pro religious way. It was almost as if Jefferson was doing what he viewed as his religious duty as head of our nation, and did it extremely well, despite the fact he may not have personally believed. (or changed his mind later, or went senile, or whatever)

This is what we're stuck with now...

America’s Most Biblically-Hostile U. S. President

David Barton - 02/29/2012

When one observes President Obama’s unwillingness to accommodate America’s four-century long religious conscience protection through his attempts to require Catholics to go against their own doctrines and beliefs, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Catholic. But that characterization would not be correct.

Although he has recently singled out Catholics, he has equally targeted traditional Protestant beliefs over the past four years. So since he has attacked Catholics and Protestants, one is tempted to say that he is anti-Christian. But that, too, would be inaccurate.

He has been equally disrespectful in his appalling treatment of religious Jews in general and Israel in particular.

So perhaps the most accurate description of his antipathy toward Catholics, Protestants, religious Jews, and the Jewish nation would be to characterize him as anti-Biblical.

And then when his hostility toward Biblical people of faith is contrasted with his preferential treatment of Muslims and Muslim nations, it further strengthens the accuracy of the anti-Biblical descriptor. In fact, there have been numerous clearly documented times when his pro-Islam positions have been the cause of his anti-Biblical actions.

Listed below in chronological order are (1) numerous records of his attacks on Biblical persons or organizations; (2) examples of the hostility toward Biblical faith that have become evident in the past three years in the Obama-led military; (3) a listing of his open attacks on Biblical values; and finally (4) a listing of numerous incidents of his preferential deference for Islam’s activities and positions, including letting his Islamic advisors guide and influence his hostility toward people of Biblical faith.

1. Acts of hostility toward people of Biblical faith:

April 2008 – Obama speaks disrespectfully of Christians, saying they “cling to guns or religion” and have an “antipathy to people who aren't like them.” 1

February 2009 – Obama announces plans to revoke conscience protection for health workers who refuse to participate in medical activities that go against their beliefs, and fully implements the plan in February 2011. 2

April 2009 – When speaking at Georgetown University, Obama orders that a monogram symbolizing Jesus' name be covered when he is making his speech. 3

May 2009 – Obama declines to host services for the National Prayer Day (a day established by federal law) at the White House. 4

April 2009 – In a deliberate act of disrespect, Obama nominated three pro-abortion ambassadors to the Vatican; of course, the pro-life Vatican rejected all three. 5

October 19, 2010 – Obama begins deliberately omitting the phrase about “the Creator” when quoting the Declaration of Independence – an omission he has made on no less than seven occasions. 6

November 2010 – Obama misquotes the National Motto, saying it is “E pluribus unum” rather than “In God We Trust” as established by federal law. 7

January 2011 – After a federal law was passed to transfer a WWI Memorial in the Mojave Desert to private ownership, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled that the cross in the memorial could continue to stand, but the Obama administration refused to allow the land to be transferred as required by law, and refused to allow the cross to be re-erected as ordered by the Court. 8

February 2011 – Although he filled posts in the State Department, for more than two years Obama did not fill the post of religious freedom ambassador, an official that works against religious persecution across the world; he filled it only after heavy pressure from the public and from Congress. 9

April 2011 – For the first time in American history, Obama urges passage of a non-discrimination law that does not contain hiring protections for religious groups, forcing religious organizations to hire according to federal mandates without regard to the dictates of their own faith, thus eliminating conscience protection in hiring. 10

August 2011 – The Obama administration releases its new health care rules that override religious conscience protections for medical workers in the areas of abortion and contraception. 11

November 2011 – Obama opposes inclusion of President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous D-Day Prayer in the WWII Memorial. 12

November 2011 – Unlike previous presidents, Obama studiously avoids any religious references in his Thanksgiving speech. 13

December 2011 – The Obama administration denigrates other countries' religious beliefs as an obstacle to radical homosexual rights. 14

January 2012 – The Obama administration argues that the First Amendment provides no protection for churches and synagogues in hiring their pastors and rabbis. 15

February 2012 – The Obama administration forgives student loans in exchange for public service, but announces it will no longer forgive student loans if the public service is related to religion. 16
2. Acts of hostility from the Obama-led military toward people of Biblical faith:

June 2011 – The Department of Veterans Affairs forbids references to God and Jesus during burial ceremonies at Houston National Cemetery. 17

August 2011 – The Air Force stops teaching the Just War theory to officers in California because the course is taught by chaplains and is based on a philosophy introduced by St. Augustine in the third century AD – a theory long taught by civilized nations across the world (except America). 18

September 2011 – Air Force Chief of Staff prohibits commanders from notifying airmen of programs and services available to them from chaplains. 19

September 2011 – The Army issues guidelines for Walter Reed Medical Center stipulating that “No religious items (i.e. Bibles, reading materials and/or facts) are allowed to be given away or used during a visit.” 20

November 2011 – The Air Force Academy rescinds support for Operation Christmas Child, a program to send holiday gifts to impoverished children across the world, because the program is run by a Christian charity. 21

November 2011 – The Air Force Academy pays $80,000 to add a Stonehenge-like worship center for pagans, druids, witches and Wiccans. 22

February 2012 – The U. S. Military Academy at West Point disinvites three star Army general and decorated war hero Lieutenant General William G. (“Jerry”) Boykin (retired) from speaking at an event because he is an outspoken Christian. 23

February2012 – The Air Force removes “God” from the patch of Rapid Capabilities Office (the word on the patch was in Latin: Dei). 24

February 2012 – The Army orders Catholic chaplains not to read a letter to parishioners that their archbishop asked them to read. 25

3. Acts of hostility toward Biblical values:

January 2009 – Obama lifts restrictions on U.S. government funding for groups that provide abortion services or counseling abroad, forcing taxpayers to fund pro-abortion groups that either promote or perform abortions in other nations. 26

January 2009 – President Obama’s nominee for deputy secretary of state asserts that American taxpayers are required to pay for abortions and that limits on abortion funding are unconstitutional. 27

March 2009 – The Obama administration shut out pro-life groups from attending a White House-sponsored health care summit. 28

March 2009 – Obama orders taxpayer funding of embryonic stem cell research. 29

March 2009 – Obama gave $50 million for the UNFPA, the UN population agency that promotes abortion and works closely with Chinese population control officials who use forced abortions and involuntary sterilizations. 30

May 2009 – The White House budget eliminates all funding for abstinence-only education and replaces it with “comprehensive” sexual education, repeatedly proven to increase teen pregnancies and abortions. 31 He continues the deletion in subsequent budgets. 32

May 2009 – Obama officials assemble a terrorism dictionary calling pro-life advocates violent and charging that they use racism in their “criminal” activities. 33

July 2009 – The Obama administration illegally extends federal benefits to same-sex partners of Foreign Service and Executive Branch employees, in direction violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 34

September 16, 2009 – The Obama administration appoints as EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum, who asserts that society should “not tolerate” any “private beliefs,” including religious beliefs, if they may negatively affect homosexual “equality.” 35

July 2010 – The Obama administration uses federal funds in violation of federal law to get Kenya to change its constitution to include abortion. 36

August 2010 – The Obama administration Cuts funding for 176 abstinence education programs. 37

September 2010 – The Obama administration tells researchers to ignore a judge’s decision striking down federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. 38

February 2011 – Obama directs the Justice Department to stop defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 39

March 2011 – The Obama administration refuses to investigate videos showing Planned Parenthood helping alleged sex traffickers get abortions for victimized underage girls. 40

July 2011 – Obama allows homosexuals to serve openly in the military, reversing a policy originally instituted by George Washington in March 1778. 41

September 2011 – The Pentagon directs that military chaplains may perform same-sex marriages at military facilities in violation of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. 42

October 2011 – The Obama administration eliminates federal grants to the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops for their extensive programs that aid victims of human trafficking because the Catholic Church is anti-abortion. 43

4. Acts of preferentialism for Islam:

May 2009 – While Obama does not host any National Day of Prayer event at the White House, he does host White House Iftar dinners in honor of Ramadan. 44

April 2010 – Christian leader Franklin Graham is disinvited from the Pentagon’s National Day of Prayer Event because of complaints from the Muslim community. 45

April 2010 – The Obama administration requires rewriting of government documents and a change in administration vocabulary to remove terms that are deemed offensive to Muslims, including jihad, jihadists, terrorists, radical Islamic, etc. 46

August 2010 – Obama speaks with great praise of Islam and condescendingly of Christianity. 47

August 2010 – Obama went to great lengths to speak out on multiple occasions on behalf of building an Islamic mosque at Ground Zero, while at the same time he was silent about a Christian church being denied permission to rebuild at that location. 48

2010 – While every White House traditionally issues hundreds of official proclamations and statements on numerous occasions, this White House avoids traditional Biblical holidays and events but regularly recognizes major Muslim holidays, as evidenced by its 2010 statements on Ramadan, Eid-ul-Fitr, Hajj, and Eid-ul-Adha. 49

October 2011 – Obama’s Muslim advisers block Middle Eastern Christians’ access to the White House. 50

February 2012 – The Obama administration makes effulgent apologies for Korans being burned by the U. S. military, 51 but when Bibles were burned by the military, numerous reasons were offered why it was the right thing to do. 52

Many of these actions are literally unprecedented – this is the first time they have happened in four centuries of American history. The hostility of President Obama toward Biblical faith and values is without equal from any previous American president.

---

That article is from David Barton, a famous, or infamous, conservative historian, depending which side of the aisle you stand on. I love his website, Wallbuilders, and own 3 of his American Heritage DVD sets, and would highly recommend them to anyone that finds our countries history interesting. Unless you are a committed progressive, then watching them may make your head explode..

If you click on the link you can see his 50+ footnotes to back up his facts.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesAr ... ?id=106938

HB,

I love ya dude, but damn, this Barton guy is about as extreme as it gets. I do respect your right to believe anything you want. My problem is... if guys like Barton were in charge of everything, I seriously doubt people like me, and a pretty good percentage of American citizens, would have that same right.

I can read his stuff without my head exploding, but that doesn't make it any less biased. I won't argue that Obama hasn't done some things to piss of certain religions at several points of his presidency, but Barton really seems to think he is the anti-Christ. If Barton is your guiding authority then I don't think we should even waste any more time discussing these topics.

I have agreed with you 100% that the founding fathers completely believed that the country should be governed with a foundation of high moral principles, and a belief in a higher power. But they specifically left out anything in the Constitution that directly would link the government to ANY specific sect or religious teaching. They had very good reasons for this. But that's evidently not good enough for you. I'm starting to wonder if you don't really want the country to be some kind of extremist Christian theocracy, something I roundly reject for too many reasons to list right now.



BTW, I do read every word of your posts, I was just disputing that you keep mentioning that the reason Jefferson would disagree with your view at any point in his life is because he went senile. What a cop-out. From what I can see you start with a pretty extreme stance, then seek out whatever source you can find to validate it. Sometimes it seems that you think that anyone who agrees with you is a person of high intellect, and those who disagree with you are whacko left wing progressives (or they went senile). If that's the case reject that way of thinking.

It should be the other way around, one should simply look for the bare facts then see where they lead you. Of course that would resemble scientific logic and reason, something the extreme right seems to have a big problem with.

As far as George Washington is concerned, he was most likely some blend of a Christian and a Deist, not uncommon in his day. He was certainly someone who supported tolerance of ALL religions, as a part of being an officer in the Freemasons. This much is indisputable.
<Washington held that all religions, and nearly all religious practices, were beneficial to humans. On some occasions, such as during the Constitutional Convention, he attended Presbyterian, Catholic, and Friends Sunday services.

Washington was an early supporter of religious toleration and freedom of religion. In 1775, he ordered that his troops not show anti-Catholic sentiments by burning the pope in effigy on Guy Fawkes Night.[51] When hiring workmen for Mount Vernon, he wrote to his agent, "If they be good workmen, they may be from Asia, Africa, or Europe; they may be Mohammedans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any sect, or they may be Atheists."[22]

Washington was an officer in the Freemasons, an organization which, at the time Washington lived, required that its members "will never be a stupid Atheist nor an irreligious Libertine",[52] which meant that they should believe in God, regardless of other religious convictions or affiliations.[53][54]

Some biographers[55] hold the opinion that many of the American Founding Fathers (and especially Washington) believed that, as leaders of the nation, they should remain silent on questions of doctrine and denomination, to avoid creating unnecessary divisiveness within the nation; instead they should promote the virtues taught by religion in general.>



I kind of wonder if TFISC has read what I've posted, since I'm the one who brought up the fact that a fair percentage of the founding fathers were Deists or Unitarians. I disagree with TFISC's definition of Deist though, I think I had a better one in what I quoted from Watkins. Watkins ( http://www.jameswatkins.com/bio.htm ) is a fair and logical thinker -and an honest orthodox Christian- who is trying to figure out facts, not trying to prove an extreme agenda.


David Barton (author)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Barton
Born 1954 (age 57–58)
Residence Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex
Nationality American
Alma mater B.A., Oral Roberts University
Occupation Writer, activist

David Barton (born 1954) is an American evangelical Christian minister,[1] conservative activist, and author. He founded WallBuilders, a Texas-based organization with a goal of exposing the claimed US constitutional separation of church and state as a myth.[2][3] Barton is the former co-chair of the Republican Party of Texas.

Barton collects early American documents, and his official biography describes him as "an expert in historical and constitutional issues".[4] Barton holds no formal credentials in history or law, and critics dispute the accuracy and integrity of his assertions about history, accusing him of practicing misleading historical revisionism, "pseudoscholarship" and "outright falsehoods".[5][6][7][8] His research has been described as flawed by many historians, who dismiss his work as that of "a biased amateur who cherry-picks quotes from history and the Bible."[9]

A 2005 Time magazine article entitled "The 25 Most Influential Evangelicals" called Barton "a major voice in the debate over church-state separation" who, despite the fact that "many historians dismiss his thinking... [is] a hero to millions—including some powerful politicians."[10] He has been described as a Christian nationalist and "one of the foremost Christian revisionist historians"; much of his work is devoted to advancing the idea, based upon research that many historians describe as flawed,[9] that the United States was founded as an explicitly Christian nation.[11] Barton has appeared on television and radio programs, including those of former Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck, who has praised Barton as "the Library of Congress in shoes".[12]

Sorry, but I refuse to see this guy as being even remotely objective. He may surely have some valid points and objections to Obama. I don't want to get into confirming or denying them all, point by point. But he has an extreme agenda and in my mind everything he does is filtered through that agenda.

I want a President who will beat Congress's arse...or work with them.....to simplify our tax code.

That is what I want most, but I just can't see how or why it would ever happen. It needs to, but it won't.

Mt.Fan:

I have agreed with you 100% that the founding fathers completely believed that the country should be governed with a foundation of high moral principles, and a belief in a higher power. But they specifically left out anything in the Constitution that directly would link the government to ANY specific sect or religious teaching.

Then we agree. What are we arguing about?

As I remember you asked about Santorum's statement and I said I disagreed with JFK as well. That we have distorted what the original intent of "seperation of church & state" was. And you posted something in disagreement with me and we were off...

Heck, if you believe the above statement then we agree and we should just go back to bashing Obama.

As far as the rest of your comments about me ... wanting an extreme Christian theology running our givernment ... What did I say to give you that idea? I just wanted to point out that while serving and running the government that Jefferson lived a Christian lifestyle. That was just kind of a side point to our discussion though. But what did I say for you to come up with the idea I want an extreme Christian theology running our government?

And me believing anybody that disagrees with me is a wack job.

Listen, to me, if a person is willing to resort to dishonesty and questionable tactics just to win a political point then they are left or right wing wack jobs.

The whole global warming mess is a good example. All those scientists who fudged the data just to win that political argument = left wing wackos. .... Richard Nixon and his boys broke the law to win political points so they = right wing wack jobs. .... People who distort founders words and deeds to try and distort the true meaning of seperation of church & state = left wing wackos. ... They all are educated and should know better. Intellectual dishonesty really peeves me off.

But I do not call people names just cause they disagree with me. We have been disagreeing for the last two days and I haven't said anything nearly as insulting to you as I am by that comment.

As far as this last thing ... Barton is absolutely biased and hope it didn't look as if I was trying to hide that. I mentioned progressives heads would explode, that was a pretty good sign..

I didn't address that post to you, I mentioned his groups DVD's cause I thought some people like Cali or Darkstar may find them interesting.

I have learned a ton from the DVD's, and even though he is biased he does back up everything he states on them.

For example, let's say he is talking about the role of the judiciary as it was originally intended and how it is blown out of proportion now ... That is a subject I love... He will say something like, this is the role as it was supposed to be and I know that because "so & so founding father" wrote "such & such" in "such & such section of federalist paper number such & such". Or "such & such, who was an original chief justice" wrote "such in such" in his book "such & such". (fill in the quotations with actual people and writings)

Biased or not the guy gives facts and backs them up. And his group owns an extroadinary amount of historical books and papers. He has all the info at his fingertips.

And on his article .... As I said, if you click on the link I provided there is footnotes proving everything he posted in that article. Everything he posted is fact. Wouldn't expect you to take his word for it, that is exactly why I mentioned the footnotes. He provided links for everything in that article. So if you have a problem with something he wrote, let's say #19, all you have to do is scan to the bottom of the article on the page I provided and there is a link to the speech Obama gave, or the news report of what he said or did, or whatever.

HB,

Fair enuff, we agree on the main gist of our discussion, "that the founding fathers completely believed that the country should be governed with a foundation of high moral principles, and a belief in a higher power. But they specifically left out anything in the Constitution that directly would link the government to ANY specific sect or religious teaching".

It may have been a mix of using that Barton guy as a reference, and the slight oxycodone hangover (I had some oral surgery yesterday, more work done today) that made me wonder about just what kind of government you want to see. Seeing as Barton is pushing that the idea that the US was founded as "an explicitly Christian nation", and he somewhat of a "Christian nationalist", it gave me a flashback to my cousin George... who is currently serving time in a federal penitentiary for selling automatic weapons to a federal agent who posed as a follower of George's Christian fundamentalist cult. It seems George also had a basement full of bombs, and he was fixin' to kill him some cops. Now no doubt that's stretching the connection much too far, but it's one of the things that jumps into my head when I start hearing terms about a Christian nation, Christian government, and so forth. No doubt George is a few clicks further to the right, into the realm of crazy. I've had the misfortune to know a few too many people who lean a little too far George's way...met them in Wyoming, Montana, and Idaho. They're out there. Waiting for a popular enough movement to gain enough legitimacy that they can latch on to the fringe of it.

So, maybe I'm a little over-sensitive when I hear certain kinds of talk. I have zero problem with Christians governing according to their moral convictions, and I don't really see anyone who does like some people seem to believe. For that matter I don't have a problem with Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Mormons, or Scientologists for that matter... as long as they just run the damn government and don't try to push their religion into the process. Sometimes it does bother me to think about someone who believes in and is hoping for the rapture to come about having their finger on "the button". I would hope that checks and balances would neutralize that fear. I will say that some of the kookier beliefs make me question the judgement of the person running for office, that they can believe in Planet Kolob, etc.etc.

I have a lot of very right wing friends, that's the world I mostly live in. And they're all really wonderful people, salt of the earth. But unlike you, the majority of them don't read much, they mostly just parrot whatever sound bite they heard on Rush Limbaugh or Fox news. And they'll often make statements about nuking whatever country is giving us a problem without much actual thought about it. I try to inject a little common sense and factual information here and there, otherwise I ignore most of the sound bites.

No doubt there's places in the country where extreme left wingers do something similar, I hear some of them on Sirius radio from time to time. But I don't see much of that side of the argument. When I am confronted by B.S I call it out, on either side. As I have said many times, most left wingers who know me think I'm a right winger. Most right wingers I'm around think I'm a moderate, except for the extremists.

I appreciate that you have a passion for some of the deeper questions, and seek out verification to back up your ideas. I'm at the point where I'm really skeptical about both the right wing and the left wing agendas.

I'd like to blow up the 2 parties and ban them, make people run on ideas alone without all the hype, pandering, big $$$, and deep B.S. Elect legislators and the executive branch based on what they can get done, how well they can identify areas of common ground and effectively act on those areas.

Yeah, I'm of the opinion that Obama is just another politician. I don't have as strong a dislike for him as a lot of people, and I end up defending him against some of the more outrageous charges against him. I think he made a huge mistake in failing to adjust to the situation that was in place when he took office. Although I'm not against health care reform, in my opinion he should have dealt with the 900 pound gorilla first (jobs and the economy). His war on medical marijuana clinics is a proxy war on behalf of the major pharmaceutical corporations, and goes against lawful elections in the states that passed it. (Actually this has no effect on me except on philosophical grounds, it exposes Obama as a hypocrite). While I'm ecstatic that he pulled the trigger on things like the Bin Laden raid and other Al Quaida figures (and it's laughable the way Obama's opponents dismiss this) he has been slow to get us out of our 2 wars. Afghanistan is now a waste of time, money and lives since Bin Laden has been dealt with, and no matter what the US does the Taliban will be back in charge there sooner or later, regardless of how many lives and how much money we spend there. Hard to believe that people call him soft... compared to who, Stalin or Mao? If that's soft then I don't want to see what the harder line option is. We need to deal only with real threats, and mind our business otherwise, and quit trying to change people who don't want to change.

Although I wouldn't be as extreme as Ron Paul in this area, his general idea is correct on this and many other counts. I'll probably just write him in this time around.

Mean this sincerely. You 2 are really serious about this stuff. I'm not sure I take my golf game as serious as this discussion.

I do appreciate that you are able to discuss this topic without mention of wives, girlfriends, bar maids, or hookers !

rusty2 wrote:Mean this sincerely. You 2 are really serious about this stuff. I'm not sure I take my golf game as serious as this discussion.

I do appreciate that you are able to discuss this topic without mention of wives, girlfriends, bar maids, or hookers !

We'll have to save those topics for a night when the Jack Daniels is flowing (pretty few and far between these days, the stuff's hard on a guy )

And I had to make sure HB isn't hooked up with my crazy cousin George (he's for real, led a group called the Christian American Patriots Survivalists in NW Pa.) Just a bunch of harmless country boys getting ready for Armageddon. Good thing HB is safe and sound in Montana where there aren't any of those survivalist cults...

VT'er wrote:

I want a President who will beat Congress's arse...or work with them.....to simplify our tax code.

That is what I want most, but I just can't see how or why it would ever happen. It needs to, but it won't.

The best chance at present would be for Republicans to take The White House, The Senate and The House.

And for the rest of us Republicans, conservatives, Libertarians et al to light fires under them to get something done....or else go home as forever hounded one termer's.

Mt. Fan:

Forgive my late reply. Our conversation was beginning to confuse me so I decided to take a breather.

One more thing I will say in my defense, remember it was just last week I was talking about my socially liberal views on gay marriage and abortion. I doubt very seriously your cousin or anyone else of that ilk would allow me in their cult with views like mine. I guess that's why I was a little confused.

I am just a staunch believer in our constitution, our fair market system, and the old fashioned American way. The way our founders set this country up has created the richest and strongest country this planet has ever seen and there isnt a close 2nd. And I really do think all of it is under attack from the far left. It isn't my fathers democratic party anymore.

Yesterday's flower children are today's blooming idiots, and I personally think they're dangerous. This country is slowly deteriating, IMO. And the more we lose that moral compass the lower the bar is set for how low we can go.

I guess this may be where I start veering a little too right for you. Cause I think if our kids were still getting it instilled in them at a young age the differences of right and wrong we would be far better off in the long run. And I think the deteriation of the institution of marriage and our families is killing us as well. We seem to be rotting at our core. From inside out. Our citizenry.

Hillbilly wrote:Mt. Fan:

Forgive my late reply. Our conversation was beginning to confuse me so I decided to take a breather.

One more thing I will say in my defense, remember it was just last week I was talking about my socially liberal views on gay marriage and abortion. I doubt very seriously your cousin or anyone else of that ilk would allow me in their cult with views like mine. I guess that's why I was a little confused.

I am just a staunch believer in our constitution, our fair market system, and the old fashioned American way. The way our founders set this country up has created the richest and strongest country this planet has ever seen and there isnt a close 2nd. And I really do think all of it is under attack from the far left. It isn't my fathers democratic party anymore.

Yesterday's flower children are today's blooming idiots, and I personally think they're dangerous. This country is slowly deteriating, IMO. And the more we lose that moral compass the lower the bar is set for how low we can go.

I guess this may be where I start veering a little too right for you. Cause I think if our kids were still getting it instilled in them at a young age the differences of right and wrong we would be far better off in the long run. And I think the deterioration of the institution of marriage and our families is killing us as well. We seem to be rotting at our core. From inside out. Our citizenry.

HB,

I was mostly kidding and yanking your chain with the stuff about my cousin. I hope none of that was taken even remotely seriously. He's a nut case. I think he might be out of prison now. I've actually never met the guy, he was up and out of my uncle's house when I was still too young to have ever met him.

The only relevant part to any of that is that when I hear stuff about Christian nationalism I tend to think about those guys. The general direction is the same, but it comes to a matter of degrees of how far down that path people take it. I've met too many of those guys in my travels, and I would greatly fear any general movement in that direction.

The Norman Rockwell days are pretty much long gone in this country, but it seems a part of the population wishes we could get back to something similar. Unfortunately if you look at the whole picture, a lot of what was actually going on in those days was a pretty raw deal for a lot of people. I could agree we need to get back to some kind of basic moral foundation, as long as it includes tolerance of all religious ideologies and respect for freedom from religion as well as freedom of religion. That's really what the founding fathers were shooting for IMO.

Not sure how that happens, but solid families and good parenting would be a start. The genie has gotten pretty far out of the bottle on some of those concepts. But one thing I've noticed is the pendulum seems to always swing back the other way. After young people see the results from the mistakes of their parents they tend to go in the opposite direction when they make decisions about how they want to raise their kids. So maybe the things you want to see will someday become the norm. We can only hope.

I missed the fact that Dennis Kucinich was voted out of office in the Ohio Primary a few days ago.

Lots of spin on the reasons why.

I saw one guy claim it was because Northern Ohioans do not appreciate "cradle robbers."

Apparently the 65 year old Kucinich took on a wife who was born in 1977. When he married her she was some kind of muckety muck at something called the American Monetary Institute.......based in Chicago.

Go figure.

Wikipedia claims she has her tongue pierced with a silver stud, not that there is anything at all necessarily wrong with that....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Kucinich