Typical response by the left as shown by simonesdad2008. Instead attempting to rationally rebut this article he resorts to that age old childish, "My dad is better than your dad" response by stating, "Barack is STILL kicking your man's butt." Yeah, that will convince me to vote for Obama in a heartbeat.

This seems typical of those who see Obama as a prophet that will save us from ourselves by loading us with government regulations that take away our personal responsibility for our lives. If you cannot disprove the evidence against "your man" you whine and cry and jump up and down like a child, throw a tantrum, hold your breath, and hope mommy and Uncle Sam give in to your wishes and treats you like the irresponsible child you are.

No Wade, what I'm saying is that the majority of Americans reject these sad arguments and this candidate of yours. There is no need to rebut anything. My candidate IS better than your candidate and that's why he will win. You are supposed to feel the same way about McCain but you don't so are reduced to whining or crying yourself. All you have is attack politics. You don't have a candidate you are excited about. You can read all of the posts by UC and all of the comments on this conservative site. No one is sticking up for Father Time. All there is is why you should or shouldn't vote for Barack. There are no this is why you should vote for McCain discussions. He's a non-issue as a candidate. That says it all. Elections are all about enthusiasm which equals turnout. John Kerry was not the ideal in 2004 and still almost won. Do you think Barack can improve upon those results? Even if Barack was not the ideal himself, W has all but handed to him anyway. I'm not trying to convince anyone to vote for Barack. That is his job and he is brilliant at it. I could care less if you or any cons miss the boat. It's sailing with or without you. Americans have seen what the republicans are capable of the last 7 years and are sick of it. So when you speak out against Barack as you do it is almost an endorsement of him given your own record. If you praise Father Time it has the opposite effect as well. Maybe that's why we don't hear a peep when it comes to McCain. It is a masterful political stroke by "my man."

When President Clinton ran for office, his message was that of change. Back then, Bill Clinton seemed like someone who would bring a fresh new "Charismatic" approach to the white house and liberals jumped on board--well sort of. With out Ross Perot, Bill Clinton may not have been elected, but this takes make off point.

The political machine in Washington forces everyone to get a long to go a long. President Bush said it best, to assume some brilliant argument is going to convince people they were wrong all along is naive.

The only change liberals seem to want is one from a Democracy to that of Socialism. In the end, Senator Obama's message of change is to take from the rich and give to the poor. I, for one, don't believe a Robinhood approach is any different than the way the Democrats party leadership have run things for the last 50 years.

What's missing between "simonesdad2008" and "Wade" is the hard fact that, just as in our current fuel fiasco, each of us needs to connect the dots. I remember the first lines at the pumps with griping, complaining, etc. yet each of us kept pumping and driving. Even now with unprecedented prices, we continue to raise the 'break-even point' when we will get serious, buy a bike, take the bus, trade in our SUV for a 4 cylinder, turn off the lights, etc. (An aside, how about Al Gore spending enough for 230 homes AFTER an energy re-do) Politics is no different. Ask yourself some basic questions, who besides the presidential presumptive nominees, are running for office not just federally but in your state and local elections? What issues are you passionate about, can articulate, and are willing to do something about besides just blogging, etc? Do you know where each candidate stands, (their record and not just what they say!!), do they align with your values, care about your country? Check out such web sites as http://www.votesmart.com, the roundtable or whatever in your state - know that you are responsible to vote intelligently across the board from dog catcher to president. Do the letters ENDA, LOST, and other such acronyms mean anything? Will your candidate put responsible judges in at the local, state and federal level (they and their actions last longer than the president/official who nominated them)? We, the people, are the government! If party holders don't represent you, petition or whatever to get them out of office. End such killing of our current generation (white and black unborn citizens) by abortion (50 plus million since Roe v. Wade), etc. This 'rant' could go on but you get my drift. Failure to do so could bring a substantial change to the USA to such things as the American Union,(Canada, US and Mexico - http://www.TransTexasCorridor.com) the UN controlling the seas (Laws of the Sea Treaty), and rampant Christian criminalization (The Criminalization of Christianity by Janet Folger, http://www.f2a.org)
Dave.

My candidate IS BETTER THAN YOUR CANDIDATE BECAUSE HE IS BETTER. Backing up my point simonesdad2008, no valid argument, just may candidate is better than yours because he is. You have fallen for Obama's slick tongue. Is that all it takes to elect a president? Obama sounds good even though his speech has no substance, jut flowers, and that is what he is captivating everybody with, flowers.

Remember, the more a candidate promises something the less he/she understands the presidency. The president is not all powerful. Remember that group called Congress? They are the folks that control the President's power.

And before you assume anything, I never said I was voting for McCain or that I like the guy. Neither candidate is fit for president.

Do you Remember (Panama) Mireya was "loosing at the end of the 10 oposition candidates list on 1994... and... 1999?" (her statistics where taken out at the beginning of campaign, because "arnulfists where suposedly extincted before may 94 ")?...
They said "panama loves prd", "and castrocuba", "and hates USA, Bush"
Remember Bush was "loosing all the way" and john skerry was "winning?... all the way"?... Bush was re-elected by record voting, on another massive record voting...
Candidates supporters, on left have media machinerie$, politician$, citie$, countie$, "ordinary people", "what asimetric pre invasion civilian army mind-orinted, terror logistics, what's wrong about help castrocuba"s anti-war on Iraq propaganda?, anti-war on Iraq authoritie$?, anti-Bush authorities, anti-Mireya authorities?, fidelcastro's accusation against oppositors (of terrorists) using Panama&Miami's governments?, no God at schools, sexgangland, paralegafesting$?...
"What can do local attorney"?, why are the feds and cias doing the job "local authoritie$" never did?, like anabelenmontes or carlosalvarez jobs? network$?, Pentagon's clinton era made castro spy and, another, on miamidade police "psicologist&recluter, both, 1st big 911 arrests?...
"What about coyotechildren&family?...
And, at the end: terror legal curtain, self-censured, local authority $tabli$ment, mental programing, selective prosecution, always helping castro, chavez, manuel noriega, iran, hamas, anti war on Iraq...
the bottom: local attorney says (rules) "I can't do anything without proves, if you "have the (public) proves, trail them"... whit already mega$candal$, permanently, feds in, cia now comming in...
local attorney's denial covers and helps paralegaland, related to terror governments, farc laundrie$, coyoteland,
no Godschoolgangland, to continue marching&chanting inland, "rebuilding" their $anctuarie$, saying "you" accuse mayor, superintendent, well, "do my job: prove it", and spend bill$ on attorney$, against same city attorney$ machinery "$y$tem", terror logistic decades experienced...
Any city on the continent, and globaly, the remaining terror logistic, can be metter, marketed, branded, on specific time and space, on patrons: anti-war on Iraq 2000's oriented minds...

BUYING THE PRESIDENCY OF THE U.S. ...
How many of the 1.5 million people who sent $200 to Obama's campaign were black? After all, Obama got 90% of the black vote. Is it possible that a group which comprises about 15% of the population in America could rule the other 85% ... simply by buying the election via contributions from 1.5 million people, in a country of 300 million people?

Even if every single donation to Barack was from a black person, what's the point? Groups don't "rule" other groups in America (anymore). I think the point you are trying to make is that you are white and you are scared. You are seeing America grow up in front of your very eyes. It's like your teenage son beating you in basketball for the first time and you know he's growing stronger and more confident in himself everyday. You don't want to accept it initially because its only ever been one way and now that's changing. Barack running and winning means more than just winning. This country can finally turn an ugly page. Remember the movie "Back To The Future" There was a scene where Michael J. Fox's character plays with the band. He goes off on this heavy metal riff (because he is from the future) and these kids from the 50's look at him in stunned shock. They have no idea what he is playing. It's just noise to them. He says, "you don't understand, but your kids will love it." I would say that President Obama (yes, get used to it) will have infinitely more compassion for the citizens of this country that are white than the majority of his predecessors had for black citizens. Boo!

David Fouser,

I do ride a bike, 20 miles a day weather permitting, I do more than just blog, all my elected officials in the Michigan and DC House and Senates are familiar with me. I was also took part in getting rid of MTBE (a fuel additive) from gasoline here in Michigan.

I do not ride a bus, there is no bus service or MTA available for me to get me from home to anywhere, and work is 30 miles away. Bikes and MTA services are great in big cities, but not all 300,000,000 Americans live in areas that have bus or MTA service.

There are many of us here in America that have been told (since Jimmy Carter was president) that we need to make sacrifices. Quite frankly, I am tired of being told that when our ineffective politicians don't make any sacrifices themselves (Al Gore, Barack Obama to name two).

Until 4 cylinder cars can safely haul a family, until hybrids are more affordable and actually get the mileage they are touted to get, I will continue to drive my current LEV (Limited Emissions Vehicle) with the AC turned off and the windows open, and I will ride my bike when and where it is feasible for me to do so.

That is all the sacrifice I will make, unless my freedom itself is threatened.

So what you are saying 'dad, is that blacks are only voting for Obama because he is black and that means America is growing up? I have been beating this drum since Obama and Clinton announced they were running and the main stream media kept asking is America ready for a black or female president, that drum being;

If we in America have to ask if we are ready for a black or female president, it is a sign that we are not ready and America is not growing up and needs to grow up. If that is the whole basis to vote for someone, we are just as screwed up as our politicians and the MSM.

Let me make this clear, I don't give a hoot if a president is black or white, male or female. I care about what that person is going to do to for my country. This black issue has to stop! By bringing it up all the time we keep ourselves from overcoming racism. I let my ears do my listening, not my eyes.

Wade:

"So what you are saying 'dad, is that blacks are only voting for Obama because he is black and that means America is growing up?"

No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm actually saying is that whites voting for Barack means America is growing up. Some people take an enlightened, measured, intelligent approach to casting a vote. Some people vote R or D because, "My dad was one and my grandfather was one and his father was one"... and so on and so forth. I'd say much more than 90% of McCain supporters are white. Nobody is saying that THEY are voting their race. That seems to only apply to blacks. You can alway ascribe motives or reasons for other people's vote. The only one you can control is your own. Plus no one remembers that more black people supported Hillary Clinton over Obama prior to Iowa (look it up). The crossover happened when people saw that he could win white votes in significant numbers. That was the basketball moment in the driveway for America. But it wasn't just black people (who vote democrat overwhelmingly anyway). It started a movement. In a movement people come out on their own. In a campaign you try to persuade people to come out. The goal of any election is to get more votes than your opponent. Barack Obama, for whatever reason you want to assign to it, has done a better job of attracting voters. In an election season that is the number one focus. People have used lies, fear, dirty tactics and oh by the way, issues to sway voters. People vote for someone who they would drink a beer with. People vote against their own best interests. People vote along ethnic and religious lines. The only reason anyone votes for anyone is completely up to them.

So what you are implying; blind support to neutralize white guilt or a feel good story for black people all at the peril and detriment of the country is fine. Some of it may even be true but don't tell me that every vote for Father Time is a "pure" vote either. There are people today, right now, in 2008, who would never vote for Barack for exactly one reason. That is their right and so is the opposite. Vote your heart and conscience and mind and country. Vote your issues. Vote to participate in the democracy. In the end all we can control is our own vote.

"So what you are implying; blind support to neutralize white guilt or a feel good story for black people all at the peril and detriment of the country is fine."

No, read my post again, it is obvious you missed what I am saying which is, people shouldn't vote based on race or gender, if America has to bring it up as an issue it means America is not grown up at all. It is not a matter of voting Republican or Democrat because that is all I vote or the way my family votes. It should be as you said it yourself, "Some people take an enlightened, measured, intelligent approach to casting a vote." Unfortunately, those people are in the minority.

Wade:

I thought republicans wanted to deregulate everything. What is your obsession with controlling other people's vote or controlling the national conversation about the president? Simply asking the question doesn't mean we are or are not ready. What I read when I read your posts, Wade, is someone who is saying, "Listen to me. I have studied the issues and I know what's best for me and you. If you haven't done the same due diligence, stay out of it. Having a good president is more important than having a black or woman president." Did it ever occur to you that we could have both? It seems like everyday more and more of what dems warned America about regarding W has come to pass with more to come I'm sure. I'd bet good money that no one could have talked you out of that vote in 2000 or 2004. Assuming you did vote for the "compassionate conservative" twice (and correct me if I'm wrong) would you vote for him in this cycle if he were eligible? I'm sure you took the same intelligent approach you are taking now, right? You were wrong then and you are wrong now. It just so happens that the person best suited to run this country, to restore America's rightful place in the world just happens to be black. Him being black may actually facilitate and expedite us gaining some credibility back quicker. That's not saying he doesn't have work to do because he has a huge mess to clean up. Every little bit helps though. What I'm saying is that when Bush wanted to sell his war, HE didn't go up to the UN. Cheney didn't go. Rumsfeld didn't go. Rice didn't go. They sent the only person who had that level of stature and gravitas on the world stage, Colin Powell. They listened and they believed and the US got its wish. Barack has that stature. Sometimes a man's very existence is bigger than his actual deeds. Nelson Mandela comes to mind. To the world a black POTUS is a signal. It's a sign that things can be different. Meanwhile back here at home some people are chalking up Barack's candidacy to Affirmative Action. Is that your position, Wade?

What? Wow. Just like the left, twisting everything the right says. I never said anything about controlling anything! I said, if we need to talk about whether or not we are ready for a black or female president, it proves we are not ready. We have too many issues with racism and gender discrimination in this country yet. We need to get over race and gender and vote BASED ON WHO WILL DO THE BEST JOB FOR THIS COUNTRY.

To quote you, "To the world a black POTUS is a signal." Who cares what the WORLD thinks? This is not about the world, this is about the United States of America. I don't care who other countries think I should vote for, especially if it is based on race. I'm note gonna vote for Barack because it is the politically correct thing to do and it will send the world a "sign".

I, and others like me, will vote for whichever candidate based on how we feel which candidate best supports our issues. Who cares whether the president is black or female or both? It is about the right person for the job, PERIOD.

This politically correct bull about sending the world a sign and having to vote for Barack because he is black is what is destroying this country. You want to take away my freedom to vote for anyone that is white because you say it is time for a black president and to send the world a sign.

I will vote for whoever I want whatever race he maybe based on his ability to effectively run this country. Also, read one of my previous posts, I NEVER SAID I WAS GOING TO VOTE FOR MCCAIN. You assume that I am going to walk the party line just because I am Republican.

Have a nice day. Until you can quit twisting my words and ignoring other words, I will not waste another post on you.

I haven't done this in a long time but I'm going to break you down point by point. I actually agree with the essence of some of your points but I think you are slightly misguided my friend. Will you answer my questions?

1. Did it ever occur to you that the best candidate just happens to be black?
2. Did you vote for Bush twice?
3. Would you vote for him a third time if you could?
4. Is Barack's candidacy and success just Affirmative Action?

Ok to your points...."if we need to talk about whether or not we are ready for a black or female president, it proves we are not ready."

This country is 232 years old. There has been exactly one non protestant president (JFK). Do you think there was a discussion at the time about whether America was ready for a Catholic president? Did the presence of the question mean that we weren't? History says no. What about Romney? Because he is Mormon and we discuss his Mormonism "proves" we are not ready for him? It doesn't make sense. Are you saying the question itself proves something? Existence of these type of questions by themselves does not disqualify America from being ready.

"Who cares what the WORLD thinks? This is not about the world, this is about the United States of America. I don't care who other countries think I should vote for, especially if it is based on race."

First off I said it would help us in the world. Whether you care or not, having the world on our side makes us better off. It makes us stronger. It makes us safer. But you are right, this is about the US. I want a strong country. There is strength in numbers. There is strength in credibility. Barack can manage and organize and optimize and communicate. All you have to do is look at his campaign. Those are all qualities America needs and has been lacking in the last 7 years. I believe your beloved W has taken your, "Who cares what the WORLD thinks" mantra to heart with disastrous results. And if we need to take action anywhere around the world it is better to have the world with us versus what we have now. Barack is the answer for the US AND is a positive sign to the world by extension. They are not mutually exclusive entities.

"I, and others like me, will vote for whichever candidate based on how we feel which candidate best supports our issues. Who cares whether the president is black or female or both? It is about the right person for the job, PERIOD."

I can almost hear the Battle Hymn Republic playing in the background....

"This politically correct bull about sending the world a sign and having to vote for Barack because he is black is what is destroying this country. You want to take away my freedom to vote for anyone that is white because you say it is time for a black president and to send the world a sign."

I've already sort of addressed this but absolutely no one is taking away your freedom. No one is telling you who to vote for. You are perfectly free to be politically correct or politically incorrect or politically whatever. You can freely state that you would never vote for a black candidate or woman candidate or a white candidate or any candidate for whatever reasons are important to you. No one will arrest you. Your freedom is intact. Your right to vote is intact. Political correctness is an abstract concept. That's it. If you choose to be swayed by it, that's on you. There is no correctness police or jail. These are ghosts getting you all fired up and "destroying this country."

You have stated that you won't waste another post but at least answer the questions. THE QUESTIONS!!!! (to quote John McEnroe) Ha! Ha!

@ Simonsdad

1. Did it ever occur to you that the best candidate just happens to be black?

No because he is not. He is going to take this Country in a direction that we will never recover from. Look at the issues all of these socialized Countries like Canada and France have. Do you really want to live in a country with sub-par health care, where you have to stand in long lines for any medical issue? Or where a 12 year old can sue her dad for grounding her for posting nude pictures of her self on the internet. Because pal that is the direction Barack is going to take us, and once we go down that path there is no going back. Once you become dependent just like welfare, as a nation there is no way to get away from it.

Also just because a majority of people fall for what Barack is saying does not make him the better candidate. Every one in Germany fell for Hitler, and I don't think that they where happy in the end. And no I'm not saying that Barack is anything like Hitler, just using it as an example that the masses are not always correct.

2. Did you vote for Bush twice?

Yes I did, and I don't regret it at all. Once you look past all of the lies, and half truths that the media has spewed you would see that Bush has done great things in the face of very hard times. After the being directly attacked Bush has made sure that it has not happened again. While you may disagree with with the war in Iraq, I have been over there and I know the truth that the media will never tell you. that the majority of the people want us there, and are very happy with the direction that there own country is going in. We are not there stealing oil, and we are not rapping and pillaging. We have brought freedom to a nation that has been ruled with an Iron fist, where at any time a citizen could be murdered by there own Government. Not everything went perfect, and there where plenty of mistakes just like there are in all wars, but at least we took a stand, and said we will not stand by and watch it continue.

3. Would you vote for him a third time if you could?

NO because no many should be in power for to long not matter how good they are. Every nation should have change in their leaders to help keep things fresh. This however does not mean that Barack is the right change, nor does it mean that McCain is the right change.

4. Is Barack's candidacy and success just Affirmative Action?

Not sure what you are trying to say here, but Affirmative Action, like public housing, and welfare has done nothing but make generation after generation of dependent people. People who are dependent on the Government and special rules to survive. Sometimes in life in order to figure out how to live a safe and secure life you have to stumble and fall, get up and try it again. But when the Government gets into balling everyone out, or holding there hands, the become dependent on that, and forget how to survive on their own.

We are never going to agree, you have your views and I have mine. I believe in the power of the people to self govern, and generally take care of themselves and each other with out the need for big government. I believe that people are more willing to give the charity when there money is not forced from them by the Government and redistributed. This past year again despite all that is going on American's gave more to charity then any other year.

This world is not always a nice place, and it is not always fair. The people will only take so much, and when the Government starts to try to rule the peoples every move, the people will revolt. There is nothing wrong with this Country if you are willing to work hard, and you make sound financial decisions they will do just fine.

Sweet mercy, simon, that you can express such odd views as though they were the normalcy is very frightening. That Obama can unite the people as he has is a BAD THING. There are reams of substantial controversy surrounding his character and beliefs; that people overlook those controversies because of his color or his silver tongue is a BAD THING. It shows that people aren't examining the candidates.

Clinton would have been a better candidate for one reason: she has no ties to radical racism. All conservatives would have against her is her liberal ideology, which is the way it should be. As it is now, though, we fear that a freakin' segregationist is going to be elected president.

Jarrod,

"Once you look past all of the lies, and half truths that the media has spewed you would see that Bush has done great things in the face of very hard times."

So I guess Father Time has bought into the lies and half truths of the media, right? He is running as fast and as far away from W as he can. There is not a republican out there that wants any part of the Bush legacy. Were they brainwashed by the media too? I'm going to let you own that one, my friend. I'll be sure to revisit it every time you I respond to you. I'll focus on your use of the word "great." But you are right, you have your views and I have mine. When you get here, I'll be the first to welcome you to the 21st century.

Reaper,

"That Obama can unite the people as he has is a BAD THING."

Really? The fact that you see my views as "odd" is a badge of honor. What's odd is your desire for a divided country. What's odd is the idea that conservatives are AGAINST a segregationist. I would think you cons would be flocking to him if that is what you really thought he was.

See, you only took issue with my comment because you don't consider Obama's ties to black liberation, racism, and segregation bad traits. You must understand, though, that those of us who don't desire those traits in our president find it utterly astonishing that anybody would fly his banner. Hence my comment, though I guess since quoting without context is so prevalent, I should have encapsulated my entire thought process into the middle of the sentence. "That Obama can unite people with a decorated history of racism is a BAD THING." Thar, much better.

As for your implying that conservatives are segregationists, liberal ideology contains far more divisive desires. Can you name me some conservative legislation that even makes distinctions based on race?

Jarrod,
I swell with pride as an American as I read your supportive words for our President:
"Yes I did [vote for President G. W. Bush], and I don't regret it at all. Once you look past all of the lies, and half truths that the media has spewed you would see that Bush has done great things in the face of very hard times."
Sir, without knowing your background, I trust that you are serving, or have served our great nation. While we cannot always believe in what our superiors ask of us, we should at the very least trust in their ability to lead. I do not have the luxury of hitching my wagon to the latest fad and trampling over the one that guided me through tumultuous times...those perhaps borne by the "great President of the 90s".
The youth may bring this man of many colors close to winning our most revered office, but our seasoned experience and guidance will pave the way for a future devoid of ignorance and socialist ideals. After all, we live in AMERICA. Please help me spread the word through our armed services that our sacrifices are not in vane; that the lives lost are with purpose; that TRUE AMERICANS have not forgotten.
GOD BLESS AMERICA, LAND THAT I LOVE. Stand beside her, and guide her, Thru the night with a light from above.

Fear not the ignorant that attempt to derail our values and ethics! Stay true to the God-given rights that established our nation and embrace your values. Ours is the time of great things. When we win the day, our nation will show the Marxist and Socialist factions that our liberty is not for sale, nor bargain, nor trade. Peddle your wares elsewhere Mr Obama...America is not buying.

Double standards. This is what I have heard throughout. Barack gets a pass because of PC or the media or whatever half baked theory thrown out there, hoping, praying it will stick. He gets a a pass for being a liberal or Muslim (that's my favorite because everyone knows how liberal the Muslims are). With that in mind, here is the free ride Mr. Obama enjoys...

If Barack Obama received a government check every week of his adult professional life as McCain has, you would be reinforcing this as proof of his desire for big government. Add in that this is true of his father and grandfather and you cons would be having a field day. McCain gets a pass.

If Barack Obama left his first wife and three kids behind to marry a woman nearly 20 years younger one month after his divorce was final, you would say that Mr. Obama is reinforcing racial stereotypes about black fathers. Never mind, McCain's self admitted "indiscretions" outside of his first marriage. Never mind the now famous c-word comment directed at his current wife. Barack would be excoriated. McCain gets a pass.

If you took Mrs. McCain's bio and switched it with Mrs. Obama's, Barack couldn't even consider running for dog catcher let alone president. I can just see the headlines now, "Black woman steals drugs from charity, enters rehab." Add in a convicted felon for a dad and it's case closed. McCain and his wife get a pass.

The truth is Father Time gets lots of passes mainly because he was a POW. One could argue Barack gets passes because of skin color. Let's call it a draw for the sake of this discussion. Does anyone think Barack Obama even considers running for president with McCain's history? And if you say Barack doesn't have any experience let me tell you a little story about an alcoholic lost child of privilege who was the Governor of Texas once upon a time. Well, once upon a time you voted for him TWICE. McCain gets passes like old white people get passes for calling anyone who isn't white "colored" or worse because back in their day it was socially acceptable. To hell with PC! Infringement on my right to call someone the n-word is destroying this country. McCain gets a pass for being technologically illiterate in 2008. This is a man who doesn't know how to use a computer. A computer! OK, but what about a Blackberry? No! If Barack Obama attempted to run for president and said he did not know how to use a computer, how far do you think he would get? I can hear the cons now saying he was unqualified and the racists reinforcing stereotypes about blacks and learning capacity. Old Man River gets a pass.

Yeah those darn double standards......

@Rick

"Fear not the ignorant that attempt to derail our values and ethics! Stay true to the God-given rights that established our nation and embrace your values. "

What are these "values and ethics" that you apparently have in your fragile grip? What "ignorant" person(s) are trying to remove them from you? (Actually, they must be pretty clever, these unknown persons- to wrestle away from your mind what you claim to be firm convictions of some sort).

"God-given rights"??? - just what are these? ...and while you are at it, explain please how you figure this god of yours decided to establish this nation? Just how did this come about?

... "our liberty is not for sale" ...no sir-ee...you fear freaks just give it away and this does not even seem to bother you in the slightest.

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."~ Ben Franklin

"I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology." ~Thomas Jefferson

“You can protect your liberties in this world only by protecting the other man's freedom. You can be free only if I am free.�?~Clarence Darrow

@Toe
Atheist or agnostic, doesn't really matter young man. You have miles to go before you understand the gift of liberty that you perch atop of in these forums. If you must ask me why God blessed our great nation, or why we were granted unalienable rights, you have obviously not spent enough time in civics class. Then again, what with the judicial push to eliminate values in schools, you might have spent more time learning about lesbian lifestyles...might I suggest a semester of political science? Get back with me when you grow up and actually understand the principles on which our great nation was formed, k?

your failure to answer any of my questions is not at all surprising.

i am neither young nor a man. why don't you enroll in a civics course to discover a few basic principles - you are quite obviously ignorant of many facts regarding the founding of this country, the three branches of government and the thought behind this...then, you might attend a PFLAG meeting to have some sensitivity training and understanding ...perhaps, someday, if you are man enough, you will be able to address your fears and phobias- in the meantime, the rest of the sane and rational thinkers will be moving along without you. not to worry, little man, there's hope for you- it's called: education. give it a go.

simones, nowhere has anyone indicated that McCain is an ideal candidate, or that he is without blemish; in fact, quite the contrary has been stated. He is merely enjoying the "lesser of two evils" status.

However, marital infidelity is obviously not that big an issue to either side. Remember Mr. Clinton? He didn't exactly get lynched for that one, so why you think McCain's version of infidelity (no civil wrong done, mind you. He did it the right way...as right as you can be with something like that, at least) should be considered an issue is rather confusing.

How you also compare that to questions of Obama's allegiance to his country and his open ties to racism is also confusing.

...and you're finally saying that Obama would be raked through the coals if he couldn't use a computer? Are you daft, man?

toe, you may be one of those who was raised by persons trying to de-emphasize Christianity's role in the formation of our government, but it an immutable fact: we were established as one nation UNDER GOD with a system of morality and ethical structure virtually mirroring Judeo-Christian values. Like it or not, those are our roots under which this nation has THRIVED, and those are what many would like this nation to go back to.

Our liberties are in danger; the very sovereignty of the Constitution is coming under attack; entities such as the ACLU seek to undermine it every day by injecting foreign systems of judgement into its evaluation; eventually they seek for international law to supersede the Constitution. Others seek to simply rewrite it; these such attacks come from both "sides," but they amount to the same thing: they want the government to assume control of everything. Some want a nanny state, others want a police state. Different though they may seem, they're the same, and we must fight them both.

reaper, i should have known that rick needed a spokesperson-

as for the constitution coming under attack, yes it is- and for this sad fact and the guilty party, you no need look any further than yourself for the blame as you turn a blind eye in your support for this current administration and it's constant and continuing impeachable offenses and erosion of the constitution.

The ACLU has maintained the position that civil liberties must be respected, even in times of national emergency.

As much as i disagree with your political leanings and the phony "patriots" here- (those of you who think nationalism and patriotism are the same thing- those who say "america, love it or leave it", those of you who spout hate for those with a mind-set, or color, or sexual preferance, or religion other than yours... as repugnant as you are, the ACLU will even stand up for you and your right to stand on your flimsy soapbox and spew rubbish.
carry on.

If I hadn't read it with my own two eyes, no one would have been able to convince me that Mr. Reaper, conservative republican, is explaining away marital infidelity. I thought you guys were the family values party. I only used it as an example of a double standard, not as an issue. Had this been Barack's story and his explanation was, "I did it the right way...well as right as I could with something like that" all of you cons would be up on your sanctimonious soap boxes. Given the fake smears that are already out there, what do you think you guys would be doing with this one if it were true like it is with Good Time Johnny?

My how the cons rigid discipline and standards have fallen. Lesser of two evils? You guys haven't eased up on any of your issues since you relaxed the bow tie rule. Now you want to put Good Time Johnny in the Oval Office because he is the lesser of two evils? Maybe not you, Reap, but your fake conservative (really just run of the mill republican) friends do. None of you have the stones to vote for Bob Barr. He is by far the MOST conservative candidate in the race. And don't give me that "he can't win" crap. Real conservatives stick by their principles even in the face of overwhelming unpopularity. Your boy Rick says Bush has done a "great" job. Now either he is off of his meds or he is sticking by his man through thick and thin. I'll say he is loyal, but McCain? You cons are going to sell out for John McCain? I don't blame you for trying to tear down Barack. That's your job (sort of) and you cons follow orders like nobody's business. What troubles me is that you tear down Barack in the name of a candidate you, yourself don't even believe in. That's not principle. In fact it's the opposite of principle. Live up to your conservative principles or stand aside. Make a case FOR someone, anyone instead of just attacking for attacks sake.

FYI, toe, I'm on the fence about the current administration; I'd enumerate but that'd just dilute the dialog with other stuff you'd feel the need to respond to (a problem I'm all too guilty of myself). As I said, though, the attacks on the Constitution come from both ends, and Bush is obviously leaning to the police state end. The ACLU, however, only protects civil liberties when it serves their erosive ends. They have stated flatly that they want international law to have weight against the Constitution. Of course this will only give you pause if you oppose things such as the ICC and the UN.

simonesdad, I personally view marital infidelity as a disqualifier for the presidency, and I would vote for someone based on his or her views, but...the system simply doesn't work that way, sadly. It is hardly my choice who is nominated, so I am left with three choices: vote for a third party, which will only dilute the Republican voter base, not vote at all which will have the same effect, or vote Republican. Since my goal is to keep Obama out of the White House, voting for McCain is my only option, marital infidelity or no.

I like the sinking ship analogy, though, but you got it a little wrong. America is the ship; we will stay with her 'til the end. We simply want the best captain we can muster; and at the very least we want one we can be sure won't lead to her sinking.

My question to the liberal camp is why haven't you left yet? Europe is your utopia, isn't it? They have open borders! Go there! Live out your socialist, welfare state dreams! Let America be the bastion of conservatism like it has historically been. Some of you have even threatened to do that, but you haven't! We conservatives have no utopia. Are we not entitled to one?

Ooo, I apparently fabricated the sinking ship analogy. Must've read it somewhere else...

why should i leave.? .you are in the minority... your support for minority rights is even more important than ever. don't lose the ACLU's phone number.

Conservatives are in the minority? That is patently untrue; partiality sways cyclically between Democrats and Republicans because both parties completely screw everything up when they're in power, but liberalism and conservatism are only tentatively linked to the two parties; I'd say virtually everybody except those who live in heavily metropolitan areas and those who inherited wealth actually lean toward conservatism. We're only transitioning to Democratic control because...well, Republicans completely screwed everything up, at least in the eyes of popular opinion.

@toe:
I owe you an apology. Unfortunately, I am not accustomed to a woman's prose oozing with such disdain and derision, which is why I confused you for a male. For that, I am indeed sorry.
Taking you to task on your recommendation that [I] "attend a PFLAG meeting to have some sensitivity training and understanding"; before you decide what another should do to meet you on some middle ground (that you've established), perhaps you should attend the same training that you recommend simply to learn the basic components of human relations and interpersonal communications. Your vicious attacks on anyone questioning your arguments certainly proves that you lack a fundamental understanding of both sides of an issue. The fact that your words are seething with contempt only supports this argument.
It is certainly understandable that in this genre, you feel free to attack at will, without regard for the competency and background of your assailant.
God forgives you for your transgressions, as I do I. Have a blessed Monday.

Wow I guess I should not have taken the weekend off from Blogging.

I love some of the points that have been brought up, but rather then talking about them one at a time let me just add some thought to it all. First it seems to me that Toe, has a warped sense of liberty and freedom. In America you can be what ever you want, the police are not going to come knocking at your door because your gay or lez, or transgender. The fact of the matter these groups that promote Gay and lez parades, and feel the need to stick it in everyone’s face I take issue with. I could care less who you sleep with or what you do in your bedroom as long as it does not involve children, and I DON"T HAVE TO FUCKING HEAR ABOUT IT. It is called decency. I won't tell you what I did last night, as long as I don't have to hear about what you did. Gay bars have been around a long time, your into that go to one. Marriage is a Religious think, since a person is gay, and 9 time out of 10 take exception to God, then why they would want to get married is beyond me.

I have no issue with a person being Gay, the Bible is my guide, and it says love all man, because we are all sinners. Being gay does not make one less of a person, it just makes them sinners like the rest of us.

Moving on. I agree with the lesser of two Evils analogy, in this particular case it is very true. I have said for years that they should put a non of the above category, and with enough not of above selections we do the thing over with two new candidates, but since we know that is not going to happen, I have to vote for the guy who is not going to take us down the path to socialism. If I wanted that I would just move to Canada. Yes for who ever said it before, YOU DON�?T LIKE THIS COUNTRY, THEN GO FIND A NEW HOME. There are plenty of hard working Mexican’s that would die to have your place. Maybe we should start doing a one for one swap. You don’t like this country, or you don’t want to work then we trade you out for one hard working Mexican that would love to have a job, and be a citizen.

The fact of the matter is that it seems Republicans can at least admit that McCain is not a true conservative, and that he is nothing more then a RINO (Republican In Name Only). But we also know that at the end of the day we don’t have a lot of choice, and so it is a matter of picking the one that is not going to destroy this country before true leadership can be found.

rick,

find me one of my "vicious attacks". find a statement of mine here that represents this accusation of yours. if you believe that anyone who stands up to say "you're promogating lies, knock it off!" is vicious... you have more problems than i can list here.

jarrod, why is it that you bible-thumpers are so foul mouthed? and where is this "chrisitan" brotherly love that you claim to have? what part of you actually lives what you claim to believe? and do you spend all of your days and nights in your bedroom engaging in sexual activity? is this why you can only think of gays in these terms?

I ain't Jarrod, but I can say that if we have to quote you in order to point out vicious attacks, you obviously don't construe them as such in the first place so it is pointless. I have certainly seen what I have previously called "verbal diarrhea" in gross excess from most of the commentators on this blog, present company included. Heck, I may have slipped some in myself, though I have taken pains to avoid it. BUT, to assert that someone here is openly lying is downright duplicitous. We're all being honest to the best of our ability.

As for Christian decorum, I've always maintained that the best Christians are the people you'd never know were such; those who lead by example rather than pontificate on a pedestal. It is in that spirit that I can safely disregard those who preach hate as non-Christians, because it goes against the spirit of the religion.

As for "our" collective beef with gays, "they" always seem to deify themselves. As with Christians, the best gays are the ones you don't know are gay. However, there's a movement that declares on a mountaintop that they are gay, and that they DEMAND EQUAL RIGHTS as though they weren't allowed to shop in heterosexual stores and drink from heterosexual water fountains. It is endlessly irritating, and many maintain that a developing child doesn't need that discourse when he or she hasn't even matured sexually yet. Men are built to have sex with women, and that should be declared the norm until such time that mother nature decides to change the paradigm. If a child grows up with the men + women equation and still prefers same sex company, then so be it.

As for marriage, it is an institution of religion which the government has no right to define. That is one aspect of the separation of church and state that has merit; if the government wants to lawfully respect a religious institution, it must do so equally to all religions...which would allow a frighteningly wide array of horrible combinations. The solution? Use civil unions and strictly define them however you wish; allow them between a man and a woman or just between a pair of consenting adults -- I don't really care which -- and respect marriages from any religion as civil unions so long as they lawfully conform to the definition. For those who still fall outside of the lawful civil union, allow civil partnerships whereby shared property and visitation rights exist between all members therein, and perhaps remove all tax exemptions from them.

JarrodM,

Take the week off.

"Marriage is a Religious (thing), since a person is gay, and 9 time out of 10 take exception to God, then why they would want to get married is beyond me."

Marriage is a function of government. You can be married in City Hall, in your back yard, on the beach or anywhere you want including a church. A Justice Of The Peace can marry you or ship captain or judge or mayor or your religious leader. What you CAN'T do is get married without a marriage license. That comes from the government. That license entitles you to certain benefits and rights recognized by business and industry as well as the government. Yes, it has religious connotations. The Pope could preside over your wedding but without that piece of paper from your town or state, you are just living together.

I'm just cherry picking here. Your whole rant tells me you should have taken the whole week off as well. You don't stand for anything. You call yourself a conservative but you have sold out to John McCain? Maybe for the price of your vote he will come to your house and tell you to F*** Off or call your wife the c-word since you love profane language so much. I never dreamed the end of conservatives as a viable constituency would come at the hand of McCain.

I think I hear an echo, simonesdad. Have our lengthy explanations of our support for McCain not satisfied you or are you simply trying to bait conservatives to vote for a 3rd party, thus drawing votes away from McCain and giving Obama a leg up on him?

Reap,

I can't get anything past you...and I would have gotten away with it if it weren't for those crazy conservative kids.

Seriously, I'm going to hammer you guys on this. I am sick of you cons and your holier than thou, sanctimonious, self righteous garbage. You are sell outs just like the rest of us. Yes, I include myself. The difference is, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life or claim that I'm a super patriot and you are a traitor. You can sleep with and marry whomever you want. I can't say for sure if you are going to heaven or hell when you leave this earth. I do believe it is in your hands though. If I disagree with you or have a different point of view, I'm not going to assign some sinister motive to your beliefs. Live and let live, my friend. I respect(ed) conservatives discipline. You guys are a tenacious lot. When I see the one thing I actually admired about you guys go by the wayside, it's sad. When it's John McCain that got you to do it, it makes me think you are phonies. As I said, I agree with about 5% of what you guys stand for but I always believed YOU believed it. Now that's gone.

As an aside, people who self-identify as conservatives (or liberal for that matter) always rang false to me anyway. I believe people are a bit conservative and a bit liberal as well. It depends on the particular issue. You would call me liberal (among many other choice words, I'm sure) but I'm a dad too. That's how I identify myself first and foremost. Ask my daughter if she thinks I'm liberal. I'm always going against the grain with the other parents in her class and I know for a fact there are some "conservatives" among them. So I have been seeing your ranks beginning to break, first hand, for a while now.

Too much personal stuff, I know....back to the bashing!

See, you're doing what experts call "grossly overgeneralizing the population." But that is a common affliction, so it's not exactly a big deal. What I do find ironic is this, "holier than thou, self righteous garbage" you attribute to conservatism; you apparently fail to realize that the socialism that the left wishes to impose on America is holier than thou, self righteous garbage incarnate. They believe they know best, and they want to force everybody to conform by law. Affirmative action, welfare, open borders, and this anti religious undercurrent all seek to impose conditions on everybody because "they" know best. You know what? Conservatives, as you say, do the same thing. We don't want gay people groping each other in the streets (we don't particularly care for heterosexuals doing it either; we like to keep that stuff behind close doors); we don't like seeing dictatorial regimes lopping heads off like it was some kind of competition. The only semantic difference I see is that conservatives don't make a damned law in effort to correct every perceived wrong in society.

Just for kicks, though, what have I done that you consider a holier than thou attitude?

Reap,

Holier than thou and anti religious? So now we are pretzels too. Yeah, it's a generalization. How gross it is depends on your perspective. Affirmative Action, welfare. We will never agree on it. Some segments of society need help. Most fairly middle class families are a missed paycheck or two from being homeless. We are rich enough as a country to help people when they fall. Do some abuse the system? Absolutely. Do we throw the whole thing out? Of course not. Affirmative Action has been around since Nixon (he signed it into law). It has primarily helped white women statistically. I see it more as a surveillance camera on the honor code candy dish. People are more inclined to do the right thing when they think someone is watching. I doubt you or anyone you know has lost anything to Affirmative Action. It's a perceived injustice whose cause you have taken up. That's right, stick up for the privileged white men who have enjoyed every advantage, every benefit of every doubt, land of the law (written and unwritten) dominance for the entire history of this country until the mid 70's. Not exactly a bold stance. I think of AA like the IRS. What if everyone would just pay what they think they owe in taxes on their own and if they didn't, nothing would happen to them. How do you think that system would work? I agree with you. People should be free to make their own decisions and not have the government make them for us. At the same time there needs to be some regulation in some instances. What instances? Well, there's your argument point. I don't believe in legislating behavior either but if your entire history as a nation has shown that if given a choice and left unchecked you will enslave, discriminate and exclude a segment of your own population, then there needs to be something in place.

And to answer your question, Reap, I can't call you out on anything you have said specifically. I tend to lump all of you cons into one uptight heap. Your positions are pretty typical but your tone is respectful for the most part. That makes you a rare bird in these parts.

simonesdad2008 and the rest of the libs,

It amazes me at your lack of miss understanding even everything is explained to you over an over. No one on here is saying that they have any issue with Gay's. The issue, and this is always the thing, is that we just don't like to have it stuffed in our face. There is no need for these parades with half naked people running around in leather sex outfits.

There are no liberties that are being infringed when it comes to gays. They can do everything in this world, including serve in the military, raise children, and everything else. The only thing that we are asking is to leave a religion based institution alone, that being marriaged.

"It amazes me at your lack of miss understanding even everything is explained to you over an over."

That is a confusing statement to say the least but if I am reading it correctly, you are actually saying I understand exactly what you are explaining. A lack of misunderstanding means I understand, correct? I know that's not what you mean but it's ironic and very funny. "Stuffed in our face" is also rich imagery considering the topic. Are you trying to tell us something Mr. JarrodM?

So you are saying gay is ok as long as they don't want to get married and have parades or kiss and hold hands in public? Your marriage argument is based on your religious beliefs. I can certainly respect that if it were true. Let me ask you, can gay people be baptized or take communion or cross themselves or pray or be sworn to tell the truth on a bible or seek counsel from clergy or attend church? Those are all religious based institutions or traditions. And they can all be done without government intervention. Now you need a license to get married and a permit to have a parade and it's interesting that this is where you draw the line. You want your government to restrict a segment of the population from doing something that is available to every other American citizen. I would imagine that if the Rotary Club had a parade and someone exposed themselves they would be arrested. If the Klan wanted to have a rally on the town common and got the proper permit, they would have their rally and that's their right. The town could also deny the permit based on safety or cost issues but that's the city or town's issue. I don't want sexually explicit material paraded down Main St. either but on many Main Streets there are adult book stores also. It doesn't make it right but it is really no different.

I get what you are saying perfectly. I don't agree with what you are saying. When you start asking American citizens who they are sleeping with before you grant them their rights, you can see where that leads. Plus if you are married yourself, there is a 50/50 chance that it will not last. I would concentrate on preserving your own marriage before committing any energy to denying others the right.

jarrod, no one is stuffing anything in your face. all of the televisions that i own have a little knob/switch on them that controls the power supply. i even have a device that will allow me to change the channel. why don't you invest in this type of television- it's all the rage.

"There are no liberties that are being infringed when it comes to gays. They can do everything in this world, including serve in the military, raise children, and everything else. The only thing that we are asking is to leave a religion based institution alone, that being marriaged."

("marriaged"?- well, i make up words from time to time too)..however, your ignorance is evident in your statement above regarding civil rights that are automatic for heterosexual couples- and not available to gay couples. perhaps we need to remove your "special rights"- since these don't seem to matter to you.

here is just a brief listing of items not available to gay couples in most states..

keep in mind also that as a married heterosexual, you can travel from state to state and have this recognized... whereas gays may be able to go to california for a marriage- but it will not be recognized by a wide majority of other states. i guess that's ok with you too.

Hospital visitation. Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same-sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured loved one in the hospital.
Social Security benefits. Married people receive Social Security payments upon the death of a spouse. Despite paying payroll taxes, gay and lesbian workers receive no Social Security survivor benefits – resulting in an average annual income loss of $5,528 upon the death of a partner.
Health insurance. Many public and private employers provide medical coverage to the spouses of their employees, but most employers do not provide coverage to the life partners of gay and lesbian employees. Gay employees who do receive health coverage for their partners must pay federal income taxes on the value of the insurance.
Estate taxes. A married person automatically inherits all the property of his or her deceased spouse without paying estate taxes. A gay or lesbian taxpayer is forced to pay estate taxes on property inherited from a deceased partner.
Retirement savings. While a married person can roll a deceased spouse’s 401(k) funds into an IRA without paying taxes, a gay or lesbian American who inherits a 401(k) can end up paying up to 70 percent of it in taxes and penalties.
Family leave. Married workers are legally entitled to unpaid leave from their jobs to care for an ill spouse. Gay and lesbian workers are not entitled to family leave to care for their partners.
Immigration rights. Bi-national families are commonly broken up or forced to leave the country to stay together. The reason: U.S. immigration law does not permit American citizens to petition for their same-sex partners to immigrate.
Nursing homes. Married couples have a legal right to live together in nursing homes. Because they are not legal spouses, elderly gay or lesbian couples do not have the right to spend their last days living together in nursing homes.
Home protection. Laws protect married seniors from being forced to sell their homes to pay high nursing home bills; gay and lesbian seniors have no such protection.
Pensions. After the death of a worker, most pension plans pay survivor benefits only to a legal spouse of the participant. Gay and lesbian partners are excluded from such pension benefits.

If I am a Heterosexual:
1. I can go into a music store and find the language of my sexual orientation represented in the lyrics.
2. Television and movies reflect my relationships in widely diverse and nonstereotypical ways.
3. My children are given texts and information at school that validates my sexual orientation.
4. Society encourages me to marry and celebrates my commitment.
5. As a responsible and loving parent, I won't lose my children in a custody battle because of my sexual orientation.
6. I can easily buy postcards, books, greeting cards, and magazines featuring relationships like mine.
7. I don't have to worry about being fired or denied housing because of my sexual orientation.
8. I can be sure that if my spouse is in the hospital and incapacities, I can visit and will be consulted about any decisions that need to be made.
9. Insurance provided by my employer covers my spouse and my children.
10. Hand holding with my love is seen as acceptable and endearing.
11. I can serve my country in the military without lying or keeping silent about my family.
12. I can keep pictures of my loved one on my desk at work without fear or reprisal.
13. I will receive all of my deceased spouse's estate, tax-free.
14. I never need to change pronouns when describing the events of my life in order to protect my job, my family, or my friendships.
15. If I'm a teenager, I can enjoy dating, first loves, and all the social approval of learning to love appropriately.
16. If I'm called to work with children or to serve God (in most denominations). I don't have to violate my integrity and lie in order to keep my job.
17. As a responsible and loving adult, I can adopt without lying about my sexual orientation.
18. I feel welcomed and accepted in my church.
19. I can be certain that my children won't be harassed because of my sexual orientation.
20. I can count on my community of friends, strangers, and institutions to celebrate my love and my family, mourn my losses, and support my relationships.

I won't harp on Affirmative Action, but like the PATRIOT Act it leaves MUCH too much room for abuse; just because it hasn't been grossly abused (I'm almost certain it has been, but I'm too lazy to put a few keystrokes into Google, you see) doesn't mean it isn't corrosive to that which this country stands for: equality. Affirmative Action makes distinctions based on race; noble though its intentions may be, it assumes inequity. It also requires the private domain to do something it should not be required to do -- if I want an all white staff, or an all male staff, or an all black or woman staff, nobody should be able to stop me except market forces opposed to my decision. That's my take on it, anyways.

toe, every discrimination you mentioned against homosexual rights can be granted without marriage. I did pretty much address my take on it somewhere up there, so I'll just copy/paste it again here so you don't have to sift through these lengthy comments to find it:

---quote
As for marriage, it is an institution of religion which the government has no right to define. That is one aspect of the separation of church and state that has merit; if the government wants to lawfully respect a religious institution, it must do so equally to all religions...which would allow a frighteningly wide array of horrible combinations. The solution? Use civil unions and strictly define them however you wish; allow them between a man and a woman or just between a pair of consenting adults -- I don't really care which -- and respect marriages from any religion as civil unions so long as they lawfully conform to the definition. For those who still fall outside of the lawful civil union, allow civil partnerships whereby shared property and visitation rights exist between all members therein, and perhaps remove all tax exemptions from them.
---end quote

Beyond that, you mentioned how homosexuals aren't equally represented in society. That is the homosexual community's problem, not ours or the government's. As you may have noticed, they are rather quickly addressing that problem, too. The only objection left is whether the government should espouse it as an acceptable way to live one's life, and I don't think it should even be brought into the dialog. Just like the government can't reasonably educate growing students about every culture or religion in the world in the interest of ensuring that everyone is equally represented, neither should sexual desires; if we discuss one, we must then discuss polygamy, and then NAMBLA will lobby to educate our young about the beauty of pedophelia. PETA will demand bestiality be given its spotlight. The natural norm is that men and women are built to have sex with each other. When mother nature sees fit to change that, then the government can revise its texts.

Two Different Versions! Two Different Morals!

OLD VERSION: The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant
is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in
the cold.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!

-------------------------------------------

MODERN VERSION:

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, 'It's Not Easy Being Green.'

Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant's house where the news stations film the group singing, 'We shall overcome.' Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper's sake.

Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.

Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.

The ant loses the case.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant's food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant's old house, crumbles around him because he doesn't maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.

MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote in 2008

Well spoken, Thunderdome.

Simon's dad is funny - I hardly read the comments anymore much less comment because he is one of those guys who instead of reading the facts and taking them all in he is already thinking about what he will say in rebuttal.  No candidate is perfect, that's for sure, but if the people who are hypnotized by Obama would look beyond his oratory skills and nice smile they would see there is no substance, no morals and only selfish ambition.  If they took the time to look at what a Democratic congress/senate has done to this country in the last two years and what the predictions would be for everyone's taxes under Obama's leadership, they would start questioning their judgment ....on those two things alone - not to mention all the rest.
We are the right----because we are --right.
I probably will not look at any responses because I'm sure Simon'sdad will come up with some crap that I don't have time arguing over....right?  Com- on - I dare ya...

I look forward to hearing President McCain's 1st State of the Union address. I am confident this election will be just like the last. Kerry was the leader in the polls until early fall. In this case though, I feel pretty confident McCain will win by a much greater margin.

A man to read is Dr. Jerome Corsi whether it is his Unfit to Command on John Kerry, "The Late Great USA..." ,  and his latest, and best seller (NYT), "The Obama Nation".  With an earned PhD. from Harvard in political science, each of the above gives abundant reference to back up his arguments.  If nothing else, read the dust covers where Corsi cites his major points.  He details where BHO's campaign gets its cult persona, where the concepts of "hope' and change' come from.  Sorry for the 'book report', but we as voters need to know factually where our government comes from to predict with any possible veracity where they're headed.  IMO the combination of vacuous speech and slathering media attention portend for nothing good!  Dave.

if facts are your interest...they will not be found in this poor excuse for the use of paper and ink.

"Unfit for Publication: Corsi's The Obama Nation filled with falsehoods"

Summary: In its preface, Jerome Corsi compares his new book, The Obama Nation, to his 2004 book Unfit for Command. The comparison seems apt: Just as Unfit for Command contains false attacks on Sen. John Kerry's military service, a Media Matters review finds that The Obama Nation similarly contains numerous falsehoods about Sen. Barack Obama.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200808040005?f=h_top

consider this crap...aslo by this "writer":

Corsi on Catholicism: "Boy buggering in both Islam and Catholicism is okay with the Pope as long as it isn't reported by the liberal press"
Corsi on Muslims: "RAGHEADS are Boy-Bumpers as clearly as they are Women-Haters -- it all goes together"
Corsi on "John F*ing Commie Kerry": "After he married TerRAHsa, didn't John Kerry begin practicing Judiasm? He also has paternal grandparents that were Jewish. What religion is John Kerry?"
Corsi on Senator "FAT HOG" Clinton: "Anybody ask why HELLary couldn't keep BJ Bill satisfied? Not lesbo or anything, is she?"

he is as trash as his writings.

you support of this garbage tells me a lot about you.

^ your support

@toe

"consider this crap...aslo by this "writer":

I am not a writer. I am a humble man, with a small following and an opinion that does not match yours. I ask you again ... and hopefully you will answer this time. Do you wish that everyone in this Godforsaken world would have the same world view as you?

@toe
was your misspelling of "also" also done on purpose?

no one ever accused you of being a writer, mr. uc- and humility is not among your strong suits- as indicated by your pontifications regarding how awesome you claim to be- not unlike your other hero, rush- with "talent on loan from god". 
i noticed the "aslo" too late to catch and, rather than make another edit, let it go- (unlike our friend here that still does not know the difference between two, to, and too...nor does he understand that "there" and "their" are not the same word...even after others have pointed out these constant errors. 
opinions are just that. you have yours and i have mine. the problem begins when opinions are stated as fact- as you have done here frequently...and, just as frequently, i have disputed these.
what i have a problem with, mr uc, is your constant use of the word liberal as a dirty thing and your reference to those people that hold liberal views as something other than decent, educated, thoughtful people who happen to prefer a different road than you do -  
 

you sound a little constipated, mr uc.  tsk tsk.  have some granola.

How is using liberal as a dirty word that much different from calling a conservative a racist, war-monger, stupid, etc?

I'm not saying that you yourself do these things, toe, but you can't deny that mud is often slung from the other side, and I don't think you spend much of your time calling the other side out for committing the crimes you would accuse of UC.

i have said that there are extremes on both "sides" of the political spectrum- michael moore,  and rosie o'donnell  might be the liberal versions of the right wing's ann coulter and michael savage...  there many from both sides that fall somewhere between .  frankly, i don't spend a lot of time worrying about any of the aforementioned individuals - they seem to make fools of themselves easily enough on their own. 
if you were to spend a couple of hours and listen to someone like thom hartmann or rachael maddow you would see where most liberals are in their thinking. 
i have listened to hannity, limbaugh, boortz, ingraham, among others- not because i agree with a single thing they say- but because i really want to understand why these people are this way.
what i have seen is the promotion of ridicule, misrepresentation of facts, promotion of law making to reflect their religion, misquotes and outright lies.  some just like to hear the sound of their own voice- today, for example, rush spent an entire hour talking about how ridiculous it was for obama to say that maintaining one's tires to the proper inflation would save gas.  boortz spent half of his program wondering why we don't have laws to keep people from walking about with their pants belted just above their crotch.  hannity seems to have nothing better to do than continue his misquote of michelle obama and call obama an elitist because he wanted orange juice instead of coffee- while ignoring mc cain's $500 loafers and his wife's expenditures of over $700,000 for daily shopping spree as they jet around in her private jet. 
think about it. you have one candidate,  who's message (among other items) is we need to stop the divisiveness, the "us against them" mentality in today's politics, and encouraged his supporters not to engage in a mudslinging campaign... and then you have mc cain who thinks bomb, bomb, bomb iran is funny, who cannot remember what he said even a day prior, and has placed nothing but negative ads filled with errors and outright lies. 
 

Uh, if you haven't noticed, toe, Obama is playing the exact game he said he wouldn't play.  He's preaching change, a dfifferent kind of politics, but the only change if he's elected will be from white to black.  He's just like any other politician on capital hill (if not further to the left), and if you haven't observed that, then I feel deeply sorry for you.

and, ms conservative,  not all conservatives are racist, but every single racist i have heard and met are conservatives, politically.
as far as war mongers- mc cain is this and has said so with his agreement with bush in thinking "pre-emptive" wars are the way to go.  as far as stupid is concerned,  i have not called anyone stupid, however, mc cain barely graduated at second from the bottom  of his class...he is an opportunist who panders to whatever crowd is before him- as he is  unable to gather his own crowds or enthusiasm of any measure on his own, he sought out a biker rally where he found it amusing to offer up his wife in their "beauty competition" of a questionable nature.  when is the last time you saw him treat his wife with any respect at all?  when was the last time he held her hand in public, gave her a kiss, walked WITH her instead of IN FRONT OF her?  the answer: never.
compare this with obama, who never fails to acknowledge his wife (and family)  lovingly, holds her hand, embraces her, and shows his pride in his family.
compare mc cain's temper and treatment with a news reporter by ignoring her question -with obama, who despite the most ridiculous questioning has always been polite, respectful, upfront and forward.
i have to agree with obama's statement the other day...some people just seem to take pride in being ignorant. 
those who call obama an elitist seem to be on the short end of the intelligence scale and the deep end of the of the jealousy pool. 

reaper, are you entirely unable to see obama as a human being instead of a particular color of human?
anyone with an ounce of intellect knows that not one person will change washington on their own- not as a senator, not as the president.  what obama will change is how america is seen by the rest of the world. 
you can sit and quibble over obama's ideas on taxes, healthcare, or any other specific item, but the president does not make laws- he does, however lead the country and act as our representative around the world.  from his trip abroad and the very welcome reception received it's a pretty good indication that obama's idea on talking will always be better than ignoring those leaders from certain countries , calling some "the axis of evil"  or making "pre-emptive" wars.
i don't know what "game" you mean, reaper.  you will have to be more specific. try to find some facts and get back to me.

bush the current and cheney are considered by many to be the scum that floated to the top and the cause of the downfall of the conservative movement, however a recent publication: "The Wrecking Crew" gives a better perspective as to the destruction caused not just those currently in office, but the entire ideology that brought us to today's problems:
"Fantastic misgovernment of the kind we have seen is not an accident, nor is it the work of a few bad individuals. It is the consequence of triumph by a particular philosophy of government, by a movement that understands the liberal state as a perversion and considers the market the ideal nexus of human society. This movement is friendly to industry not just by force of campaign contributions but by conviction; it believes in entrepreneurship not merely in commerce but in politics; and the inevitable results of its ascendance are, first, the capture of the state by business and, second, all that follows: incompetence, graft, and all the other wretched flotsam that we've come to expect from Washington."
bush, cheney, rove, and their little band of liars and thieves are only the final straws that broke the back of the american people.  they are the ones that caused the cry for change.  they have no one to thank for this other than themselves. 

A little more humor would help the debate.
"Bop early and bop often."  -Alphonso Carponzo
http://www.bop-o-rama.com

Your Bops really count!

You have to see this petition that is going around.  Tell Pelosi to get off her butt and do something about energy prices!

http://www.houseconservatives.com/petition/

McCain is no Bush and that won't fly in the campaign.  Barack's people already know that.  
In the beginning of the campaigns, Obama was in command, but that star has faded.  So, the question is how can a person (McCain) who no one supposedly cares about, even it up in the polls?  Well for one thing, Barack has been back peddling ever since the dem nomination to get to a center point that's winnable.  
I don't think he's gonna make it tho.  One thing he cannot control is current events.  
As just one example which will probably help sink Obama is the Russia/Georgia war (yep, it's war).  The majority of Americans do NOT believe Barack is any match for Putin.  Rightfully so ..

Obama has already made enough gaffs and blurbs and outright nonsensical statements to cripple any Republican in his stead.  The media has been falling all over themselves trying to cover his flanks.  As usual, they think we aren't paying attention.  But we are.     

In the end, it comes down to two diametrically opposed philosophies.

1.)  Equality of opportunity - (McCain) - Everyone has the right to pull up to the trough and feed through your own wits and hard work, but results cannot be guaranteed (it's called capitalism).  

2.) Equality of results - (Obama) - Everyone has the right to  pull up to the trough and feed, but regardless of your effort, you're results will be averaged out (it's called socialism).

The first way is the foundation that America was built upon and has delivered the greatest economic powerhouse the world has ever seen.  This is no small thing.

The second way is the road to mediocrity and finally tyranny.  
This is no small thing.

So when do the riots start?

out. 

Socialism is bad. Fascism is bad. What's the lesser of two evils here?

You youngsters are showing your age if you think either party is about anything but business as usual.

I'm curious about your thoughts on these so-called "weasel words" McCain used last night at the RNC. 

Is he genuine or just following Obama's lead (literally)?  In either case, looks like you might have some of your own angry words to eat. 

We're all a little tired of the hypocrisy, distortion, and cynicism, including the other candidate, John McCain.

I dont care if Obama is black or white, yellow, brown or whatever.

Actually, he is as much a white man as he is a black man. Remember early during the primaries when many democrats were saying he 'wasnt black enough'?

But race isnt the issue, as much as I would love to see a black president, a female president, a chinese president, a mexican president, I would never vote for Obama or anyone based on race alone. It is based on ideals, world view, political beliefs, character, competency and experience.

I'd vote for Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell long before I'd vote for Obama......why? Their political and world views are closer to mine.

As for McCain, well, he is half liberal, which is why so many democrats loved him and why he can reach across the aisle.  He has demonstrated that in how he votes, as well as his political views. It is also why so many conservatives couldnt stand the man.

And also why I didnt vote for him in the primaries.

As far as I am concenred, in this election, no matter who wins, republicans lose. We either get a half liberal, or a whole liberal.
Despite that, very early on, I actually considered voting for Obama based on one reason: unity.  His 'change' message was one of unifying both parties and healing racial division.
However once he made up racial issues in the primaries against the Clintons, and later against McCain, as well as Democrats always throwing out the race card to further the divide, I decided the change message was all bullshit (even Obama changed his change message from one of unity, to one of 'no more Bush'). Liberals dont want unity......they want to keep that racial divide going.
So, what choice do I have? McCain? Half liberal?
Either one to me stinks, but given these two lousy choices, McCain has more experience, and has a track record of crossing the aisle, as democrats have attested to time and time again. So, I guess since I have no other real choice, I have to go with the lesser of two evils.

To answer Roxanne, they're both weasels and Obama is just as guilty of the hypocrisy, distortion, and cyncism as McCain is. I hope you can open your eyes and see that politicians are politicians, and none of them really give a flying f--- about you or me. 

If you think your candidate is actually 'better' than another candidate, you are really not looking at them objectively and have blindly bought into their well planned marketing strategies, cliches, buzz words and big promises.

@daddysteve #69,

Amen!

Where to begin.

First of all, Hoboboh, I'm not sure anyone is actually fooled by your caricaturing of both parties' positions on "equality."  In what possible world does the Republican system, which privileges the rich, constitute equality of opportunity?  If my father is wealthy and another man's father is not, in what way have he and I been provided equal opportunities?  If my school is excellent and another man's school is not, in what way have he and I been provided equal opportunities?   If I have health care and another man does not, in what way have he and I been provided equal opportunities?

To say nothing of the fact that never, in the entire history of the modern Democrat Party, has a candidate proposed that "regardless of your efforts, your results will be averaged out."  I would hardly say an individual making $4 million annually who pays $1.7 million of that in taxes has been made average alongside his fellow citizen making $22,000 annually.  Maybe that's because I like to apply arithmetic to these situations, and not empty free-market rhetoric.

No Democrat is seriously suggesting that everyone's lifestyle is going to be equal.  The rich will live richly, the poor will live poorly.  Democrats merely suggest that anyone rich has been given opportunities (health, education, business prosperity) that others do not have; in order for there to be equality of opportunity, those on the bottom must be given those same opportunities.  We don't suggest eliminating the lower class; we suggest their standard of living should be raised by those with an excess.

Moving on to Ameriken, I think you'll find that only by the most grim and depressing definition of liberal does John McCain constitute "half a liberal."  Sure, he occasionally "took on his party leadership" - which any sensible person would see as evidence that his party was wrong, and the opposition was right.  The entirety of this election, however, has seen McCain cleave to the conservative teat in such a shameless and disgusting manner that all my previous respect for him has eroded.  Notice his sudden transformation from Episcopal (among the mellowest and most level-headed of faiths) to "Baptist" (a church whose titular ceremony he has never undertaken, and whose most famous national leader he once decried as an "agent of intolerance").  Notice his sudden willingness to swallow his well-justified criticism of said agent and appear at Liberty University; notice his sudden revelation that Christianity "means I'm saved and forgiven."  Who do you think he's trying to please?  Liberals?

John McCain was once respectable for his honesty, his seemingly genuine convictions, his willingness to admit that in dodging the question of the Confederate Flag he had committed a "sacrifice of principle for personal gain."  Liberals still disagreed with him on 95% of issues, but we granted him the courage of his convictions.  Now that he's shown his willingness to say whatever needs to be said, to mock the office of the Vice President, to lie whenever lies might help, he lacks even that courage - and without it, why would you possibly vote for him?

Free radical said:
"In what possible world does the Republican system, which privileges the rich, constitute equality of opportunity?  If my father is wealthy and another man's father is not, in what way have he and I been provided equal opportunities?  If my school is excellent and another man's school is not, in what way have he and I been provided equal opportunities?   If I have health care and another man does not, in what way have he and I been provided equal opportunities?"

The equality of opportunity is not based on everyone having the exact same opportunities.  That would be impossible.  this is where you are OFF the rail my friend.  Let me reduce your misguided angst! 
The citizens of the United States are NOT guaranteed EQUAL OPPORTUNITIES!  They are guaranteed EQUALITY under THE LAW. 

NO, you are not guaranteed a house to live in.  We have just witnessed what happens when the Govt. tries to implement that hair brained idea.

No, you are not guaranteed to be wealthy!   there is an old and tried and true statement.  Sh*t happens!  It's called life.

No, you are not born with the same intellect as others!  One need only read the posts of "Amber" to see that this is correct. 

If your school is worse than your neighbors school, go to that one instead.  That's the way to improve the other, through competition, not socialism.  of course that is NOT the way it is done, and thus "Free Radicals" lament.   By the way, using your logic, shouldn't all the kids in the SAME class get the same GRADE?  No?  Gosh, maybe we are not all equal.

Republicans don't "privilege " the rich (whoever that is), they merely ENCOURAGE it through letting you invest where YOU want.  Letting you KEEP more of what YOU make. 

The NEW SOCIALIST DEMOCRATIC PARTY wants to be the GOOD guys and redistribute monies which do not BELONG to them.  You want to call it being FAIR.  I call it SOCIALISM.

I know, lately people have been actually saying in public that Socialism isn't so bad!  Uh huh, well let me tell you a secret.  Perhaps you can find a country that is doing okay with Socialism.  We won't compare their growth or economic health to the U.S. because lets face it, there are no comparisons that measure up to this capitalist dynamo.  Let's say Austria, or Australia....?  Just random I assure you.  The ONLY REASON any country is doing well with Socialism is because of the HUGE ECONOMIC ENGINE which is the CAPITALIST U.S.!  Turn the U.S. into a Socialist nation and watch everyones standard of living FALL GLOBALLY.  We are the engine which ALLOWS Europe to be Europe.  We even tolerate their bitching and moaning even though we basically FLOAT them all. 

It seems tempting I know, but we are the locomotive which pulls everyone else along even though THEIR Govt. systems are not nearly as efficient or fair as ours.

In the end, life is what YOU make it, not what Obama makes for you.  Only the first way will last and be self regenerating.  The other just leads to apathy and enslavement.

As for the TAXES!!  The founding fathers had no conception at all that a full 30% of the nation would not kick into the till.  Not in their wildest dreams could they believe that would be the case.

If you produce an income, you should pay taxes!  End of story.  If you cannot make an income, then there should be charities to help you along, no argument there. 
Again, if you set up a LARGE portion of the population to RECEIVE MONIES (tax credits, its a joke) for NOT producing, this is the perfect way to hamstring the very engine needed to pull the train of citizens to prosperity.  This also sets up a permanent underclass of people who in the end will become slaves to the Govt. 

This is what the DEM'S are doing right now and it is criminal.

There is a common myth that people who are poor stay that way.  That is only true in Socialist nations, not Capitalist.  This nation has the ability to make ANYONE wealthy.  Everyone can take a shot.  it's up to them.  Even so, not everyone can be wealthy.  If everyone was given a MILLION dollars by the Govt. tomorrow, it would instantly be worth about a thousand dollars.  There is no "trick" to redistribution.  It won't work in the end.

I'll finish with another axiom which is a fitting closer to this post.

Life isn't FAIR.  You can't make it FAIR by taking from Peter to pay Paul.  Better to teach Paul how to keep the monies he makes and invest in BIG OIL where he can retire in 30 years or so.

out.

hoboblah's words above demonstrate what is seen as the difference between the "conservative" ideology of "I got mine- go get your own!" - and the "progressive" ideology that seeks fairness and resolution for the "greater good"
 
What I personally find difficult to understand is how conservatives can say with a straight face that they are "Christian" and hold the "moral high ground" yet boldly demonstrate- over and over again,  that they are not this. 
I see here a constant babble about  socialism and  "the redistribution of wealth"...
Perhaps you can explain to me how you justify your selfish behavior with regards to taxes- for example... with this in mind: 
 LUKE 21: AS JESUS WATCHED RICH MEN PUT THEIR OFFERINGS IN THE TREASURY, A POOR WIDOW PUT IN TWO COPPER COINS. AT THAT JESUS SAID: I ASSURE YOU THIS POOR WIDOW HAS PUT IN MORE THAN ALL THE REST. THEY MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OUT OF THEIR SURPLUS, BUT SHE GAVE WHAT SHE COULD NOT AFFORD.

One man's "greater good" is another mans 'ripoff"  It's called Communism, just say it.

Teach a man to fish and he can feed himself forever.  Give him a fish, and he;ll be at your door tomorrow.

Please don't quote the Bible Toe, it doesn't suit you even when it suits you.

I'm glad to see that the old Lady GAVE.  the 30% do not GIVE.  NO COPPER FROM THEM! 

So your point has no point.  Think again.

Frankly, I would like to see TAX rates hinged to CHARITY offerings.  Taxing according to income is false and misleading.  Yearly income is not a true sign of wealth.  It is however a easy way to add things, even though the data is faulty at the outset.

By the way, since you could not actually refute my ideas, I'll put that one in the win column....  again.

out.

Hoboboh - do you suffer from short-term memory loss, or simply an inability to read?  When I spoke of "equality of opportunity", I was using your words.  If you don't believe in equality of opportunity, why did you use that phrase when describing the system that has ostensibly made America into an economic juggernaut?  Surely a phrase you believe in was available?

I'm certainly glad to see you've fallen back on the tried-and-true conservative rhetoric of "you are what you make yourself; if you don't like your situation, go out and find another one."  That's very cute, and I'd love to see liberals turn America into a country where that's actually possible.  Right now, however, the fact is that I can't attend my neighbor's school.  Most public school districts only accept students from their immediate vicinity; if you live in a neighborhood with a bad school and cannot afford either to move or to attend a private school, you're going to a bad school.  No freedom of choice; no possibility of competition.  That school, one might say, has the monopoly on your market.  Unfettered capitalism at work.

Toe was absolutely right to quote the Bible, and your unwillingness to take his point does not change that.  The quote he used illustrates a fundamental principle of wealth redistribution: that no one would be penalized for their inability to give.  The old woman was laudable because she gave according to her ability; if your ability to give is greater, you give more.  If your ability to give is zero, you give none.  Very Christian.

While we're on the subject, let's switch from Luke to Acts of the Apostles: "All the believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved."

Looks like the Bible advocates a system more communist than any Democrat has ever espoused.  Anyone who calls themselves a free-market capitalist Christian should find either a new religion or a new economic philosophy; I've read the Bible, and it doesn't quote The Wealth of Nations anywhere.

I reposted and clarified my "equality of opportunity", nothing more.  Nothing has changed either.  You seem to interpret that saying as, "everyone gets the same chance at each opportunity".  That is LUNACY.  It is still up to the individual.  You wish to make it up to the Govt.  This is where you look like a LUNATIC!

The Bible post was incorrect as I have already pointed out.  Work on ur reading comprehension.  The old Lady was giving to the TREASURY  ..  i.e.  ..  TAXES!!  She gave!!  THE 30% DO NOT GIVE!  You missed the meaning, I am not surprised.

Either way, I am more than willing to use the Bible in its entirety to govern this land.  Are you? 

If the answer is no, then stop using anecdotal evidence to shore up a ridiculous argument with a source you don't believe in.  It is the height of hypocrisy! 

Toe and his ilk think the "redistribution of wealth" will solve anything.  It will not, except for make everyone a lot poorer.  It's been tried be4 and it fails every time.

Why not just give everyone 1 million dollars each?

Seriously, if we extrapolate out tour "logic", we could TAX all the rich and collect their wealth.  Divide up all the "earnings" and distribute an exact amount to each citizen.  Everybody will start at the same level.  How's that?  Will that work?

out.

@ free radical,

If you can't go to your neighbor's school, don't blame the republicans, blame yourself and your dopey party.

out.

Hoboblah, I have no interest in "refuting" your previous post- I merely pointed out that you supposed "Christians"- are only this when it suits you.
I maintain that the conservative ideology is just selfish. Your rant above shines the spotlight on exactly that. ...  "I've got mine- go get your own!"  

Nice.

I know most of you here beat dead horses...do you also kick stray dogs?  Do you have an ounce of humanity? 
Just wondering.

LOL  Free Radical, I'll translate your opening for you.  """I cannot refute your last posts, so i won't try""".
=====================================================================
It's not, "I GOT mine". 

It's I've EARNED mine. 

Now you go EARN yours.  if you need help or assistance in achieving the DREAM of your CHOICE ..  I will help you.   That does not imply that my EARNINGS can be COPPED because YOU didn't APPLY yourself to the best of your ability.

If you did apply to your best, that is your consolation.  Better to be poor with principles than a liberal wthout any, no matter your bank account.

You are just lazy "Free".  You want others to lift for you.  If you are reasonably healthy and whole and you cannot succeed in this country, you are not trying. 

Don't take my humanity for gullibility.  I can spot a canard where I see one.   The REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH is a BIG ONE! 

The fact that you think it is even viable shows your utter lack of economic and human nature.

I knew you wouldn't touch the Million dollar idea Free, for it exposes the LUNACY of what you preach.

Don't just go read a book.  Read an economic book, FFS!!

Psst ....  Conservatives outspend Liberals in regard to CHARITY by a HUGE amount.  So please, don't preach as if you have some and I don't.  I'll match my contributions on a % basis any day of the week with you.  measuring any other way would make it unfair for you.

out.

Hoboboh - you may want to work on trying to keep your opponents straight.  The poster you were addressing was Toe.  I'm Free Radical.  Nice to meet you.

Indeed, I noticed that you clarified the "equality of opportunity" point.  It's not that I didn't read it - it's that I didn't agree.  There's a subtle difference.

I also noticed that you called the Bible post incorrect.  It's not that I didn't read it - it's that you're wrong.  The woman gave to the treasury according to her ability to give.  Some people in this country have no ability to give; therefore, they will give nothing.  I shouldn't have to make this point again.

You claim you're willing to use the Bible to run this country, but you haven't responded to the section I just pointed out.  Fact: Jesus was a communist.  He preached that you should give all your wealth to the poor and walk around barefoot preaching the Word.  The early apostolic communities described in the Bible are communes.  No country on earth has had a system as socialist as the one the Bible advocates.  Are you willing to do that?

Prediction: your response to this point will include no actual evidence.  You will simply assert that you have already told me I was wrong; why haven't I listened?

Even though, as I said above, you were speaking to Toe and not me, I feel I should clear something up: I'm healthy, whole, and reasonably successful.  The vast majority of other liberals are as well.  Go ahead and check the data if you want to - the majority of people who believe in some degree of wealth redistribution have adequate wealth themselves.

Speaking of data, I'd like to see some hard facts on your statement that Conservatives give more to charity than Liberals.  Warren Buffet is preparing to filter $60 billion through charities.  He's a self-made billionaire with an immense work ethic, and guess what?  He's a liberal who favors the inheritance tax.  He endorsed the bailout.  He endorses Obama.

Richer and more economically intelligent people than you have seen it our way, Hoboboh.  Not every liberal is poor and lazy - in fact, most of us aren't.

Ok Free,

Sorry about not addressing it to toe, but you are all the same to me.  For all I know, you are all the same person.

The Bible analogy on my part is the CORRECT one.  the topic was TAXES, and she gave.  What don't u understand?  The 30% have income and yet, they don't pay.  Why gosh by golly, now they get a "TAX CREDIT"!!  This is LUNACY!!

I'll repeat myself (grr), if you have an income, then you need to be taxed!!  Not what you "think" you can give or not.  If that was the way we did it, no one would send in any money ever!

Having wealth and believing in redistribution is not a correlation.  Having an economic IQ and NOT believing in "redistribution" is a correlation. 

See how that works?

I won't do your research for you.  It is a fact that Conservatives give more to charity than liberals.  You can bring up all the ANECDOTAL evidence you want.  It still won't change the facts.  I'm not talking about "Certain" people.  I'm talking about everybody.  Conservatives are far more generous with their money than Liberals. 

We just know that giving it to the Govt. to dole out is the WORST way to run an economy.  You do not. 

Better to give it to Charity, which is what we do.  Far more than you do.  Get over it and change yourself.

You are economically lazy Free.  You want others to work for you.  Do it yourself, if you can.  if you can't I can give you a list of some charities to help you along.

And that's how it is done in a free society.

out.

Before we go any further, Hoboboh, I have a point-blank question for you to answer: What do you mean when you say you are willing to use the Bible in its entirety to govern this land?  Can you please describe what a Biblically-governed America would be like?

Face it free, you can't go any further.

out.

No intention of answering the question, then?  Content to rest on your laurels?

@ toe who said: "hoboblah's words above demonstrate what is seen as the difference between the "conservative" ideology of "I got mine- go get your own!" - and the "progressive" ideology that seeks fairness and resolution for the "greater good"
 
What I personally find difficult to understand is how conservatives can say with a straight face that they are "Christian" and hold the "moral high ground" yet boldly demonstrate- over and over again,  that they are not this. 
I see here a constant babble about  socialism and  "the redistribution of wealth"...
Perhaps you can explain to me how you justify your selfish behavior with regards to taxes- for example... with this in mind: 
 LUKE 21: AS JESUS WATCHED RICH MEN PUT THEIR OFFERINGS IN THE TREASURY, A POOR WIDOW PUT IN TWO COPPER COINS. AT THAT JESUS SAID: I ASSURE YOU THIS POOR WIDOW HAS PUT IN MORE THAN ALL THE REST. THEY MADE CONTRIBUTIONS OUT OF THEIR SURPLUS, BUT SHE GAVE WHAT SHE COULD NOT AFFORD."

As for the bible quote, Jesus speaks to individuals personally as how each should live their lives, he was not establishing a government agenda or political system. Nowhere in the bible does Jesus say to establish a government to take from one and give to the other, rather it is all done voluntarily. Give and help the poor by our own pockets and our willingness to give to others of our own pocket, no matter we are rich or poor.  

Ever see the lines for food at a Catholic Charity? Or the "Jesus Saves" missions in cities with a line out the door for food and beds?

Why aren't our taxes feeding those people? Why aren't they lined up at 'Liberals Save" or some government office? The conservatives I know give of their own free will to those in need, as well as volunteer in those soup kitchens.

The bible is not a mandate for a political system.

If you are going to point out that conservatives are "not this", then fine. But tell us, what are you doing out of your own pocket thats far better than the conservatives? How are you living up to that standard?

Based on the example of the woman giving everything she had, I suppose that since you are criticizing conservatives for not giving everything of their own, that you are doing just that? Are you giving everything you own in order to benefit someone else who has less than you?

Those that wish for change are going to get it.  Look in your pocket, that's all you will have.  Change.  Be careful what you wish for.  Find a safe place to hide. 

ameriken,

some people dont want to work and think that those who do should give it to them.  they are the deserving ones and want it handed to them.  all those that work will soon be on the same shelf as those who dont.  what's the point of busting your a** anymore?  it will all be taken away.