David--you are not getting what i'm saying.  i'm not talking about hard working Americans who take responsibility for themselves and their families.  I am talking about those who choose to not work or work at low paying jobs because they know the government will pick up the pieces.  now they know obama is coming to "save them."  that is where the "hope" comes into play.  there were people on TV being interviewed that actually think this.  Until this crisis, Americans had choices to be educated, work at jobs that pay decent salaries or start their own businesses.  my mother-in-law, 79 years old, lives in a small town that consists of about 90% welfare.  for hundreds of miles around her city, it is the same.  if you ask them, they either don't want to move, work or are satisfied with below-poverty wages they are making.  now there is a four-year college right there and grants will pay for their education.  so do you call that productive?  there are thousands and thousands of able-bodied people just in a very small area.  oh and try to help them get on their feet and show them how to earn more to care for their families and you will be sorry you brought up the subject!   they consider that an insult and you are considered evil!  however, they just love handouts and complain about who is responsible for their mess (they never blame themselves).   now imagine how many people that would be in the rest of the US?  i can't even began to think about how large of a number that would be.  you and i see productive differently if you think spending more than you earn and then whining about how you are going to pay the bills is acceptable.  that is most of America today.  those are not  productive citizens and they are draining our economy.  If i am paid an extremely good salary for what i do and the company i work for is strong and thriving, i want the CEO to be rewarded.  if Americans want to complain about the amount of the CEOs' salaries, it is not justified because complaining gets us no where.  We were so complacent and lazy and did nothing about it and let it happen.  We could all present a united voice and stop some of this.  however,  let's just complain and ignore it hoping someone else will do the dirty work.  No one wants to rock the boat but yet we are really good at complaining about it.

American workers are the most productive in the world and jackieM thinks they are lazy.........
<< Americans can handle most of the daily problems but for some reason we have become complacent and lazy and want to blame others and take handouts! >>
-yet our CEO's have the highest salaries........
The problem isn't lazy Americans, its greedy CEO's.

if the majority of us are Christian, we need to start acting like it again and get back to the basics.  that would solve most of our problems.  government would then be in the background.  Americans can handle most of the daily problems but for some reason we have become complacent and lazy and want to blame others and take handouts!  Personal responsbility needs to be in place again and valuing human life should be a no-brainer.  people would then start to accept the consequences for their bad behaviors.

david,
I forgive you David.  ;-}

i agree this nation was founded on Judaic-Christian principles.  However, legally, we are a secular nation, with a clear distinction of church&state......
<<Therefore, we ARE (and always have been) a christian nation!  ;-}~>>
-Our values ARE most definitely Christian, but our laws are secular.  i guess we could say we are a secular nation shaped by a Christian heritage.   But the Constitution goes to great pains to keep theology from influencing public policy and laws.
-i have no illusions of changing your mind DS, but the points i make are here for all to read.  i enjoy our arguments, and i hope i don't come across as too severe(........if i do, it's because of the German in me)

david,

Don't get goofy now.  you know that our nation was founded on judaeo-christian principles.  Also, I suspect that the "majority" of people in our country claim to be christian, or practice christian beliefs.  Therefore, we ARE (and always have been) a christian nation!  ;-}~

david,
I would LOVE our "christian churches" to practice this toaday IF government would allow it and stay out of our business!!  If government would stp taxing us in order to give to the "non-christian" people around us who don't share our beliefs, I would DEFINITELY sign up for it!!  And I suspect you would see a lot more people coming to Christ!!  Oh what a day!!!  Let's push for it!!

"...............(since this really is a Christian nation)."
-http://jayperiod.blogtownhall.com/2008/02/25/socialism,_capitalism_and_christianity.thtml
i s'pose if one keeps hearing such nonsense(........coming from "Townhall.com, i'm not surprised) it takes on the appearance of truth. 
DS, tell me where in the Constitution of The United States-(you know, the legal document that spells out how this nation will be governed)
does it say this is a "Christian nation"?

DS (91):
<<You continue to amaze me!  You provide me with additional information which proves yourself wrong.>>
<<None of this is scriptual! >>

For the sake of brevity, i only put the applicable portions of the definition.....
-the portions that deal with what we are discussing.  The socialist nature of the Church described in Acts Ch. 2&4 are indeed "
.....a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state."
There is NO doubt that James wanted this model of living communally to be expanded to the entire nation, in which case, had James been successful (in expanding his community to include the entire province), the province of Palestine(a Roman Province paying tribute to the Caesar) would have been an early example of a socialist state.  But James was stoned(not on weed though......) and his vision for Israel(or Palestine as the Romans referred to it) was not fulfilled.
The group described in Acts Chapter 2&4......
"No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."
-Acts 4:32
is undeniably socialistic in nature as describe in Acts of the Apostles, so therefore it IS scriptural! The early Christian community was a ".....system of society or group living in which there is no private property...."

<<You can base your total belief system on one passage in Acts if you wish.>>
Count 'em........Acts 2&4 is two passages in two different chapters.  Luke must have wanted us to know this fact, don't you think?  I am sorry if this inconvenient fact vexes you so much.  So if you understand the bible to be perfectly true, you have to understand that modern day America is not exactly like the earliest description of a real, Christian community as clearly described by Luke in his  historical account of the Church after Jesus' execution.

harrysmom (88).....
Thanx for adding to the discussion:
<<However, what we do have here is a difference of religious and scriptural interpretation- and we both know that religious tolerance is a basic American principle.  Therefore, political tolerance follows as a basic American principle.>>
-i don't want any misunderstanding about my atheistic beliefs.  DS & i along with some others have had spirited debate about Christianity and also the mistaken notion that The United States of America is a Christian nation.  I seek not to belittle their faith, however i do seek that all really examine exactly what is actually written in the bible, instead of relying on others to interpret what it says to us.  As an atheist, i find wisdom and a sense of justice for the poor and dispossessed in the gospels (especially Matthew) and in OT books such as Isaiah...
"The eyes of the arrogant man will be humbled and the pride of men brought low; the lord alone will be exalted in that day." -Isaiah 2:11
-Now go take Harry for a walk!

<!--StartFragment-->
DS, As I am a teacher, I decided to review your persuasive essay and give some feedback.


Compassion is a word that is thrown around by both Democrats and Republicans.  While both sides approach the subject from complete different directions
(this is an assumption that I don’t have any evidence of…)
 
both are determined that their brand of compassion is the Christian attitude.
(again, an assumption based on what?)
 
So, I thought I would address what both forms of compassion entail, in respect to Christianity (since this really is a Christian nation).
(again, an historically incorrect assumption.  This is a nation founded on RELIGIOUS FREEDOM).
 
 
First of all, socialism cannot be compatible with Christianity. 
(an empirical statement)
It is, in fact, at odds with Christian teaching.
(another empirical statement provided without evidence)
 
 Socialism is determined to provide equality and welfare by government intervention. 
(socialism is not a system of welfare- it is an economic system.  Welfare is a system that exists within a capitalist system and determines the redistribution of wealth.  Welfare cannot exist within a socialist system- so this statement is flawed.)
 
This is what both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama want. 
(actually, both advocate a capitalist system with sufficient redistribution of wealth- not socialism- so again, the argument is flawed)
 
 The idea is that the government must take care of every aspect of life, from fair wages to health care to care for the poor. 
(not exactly- the market must provide for the needs of the majority, and there should be public safety nets for those who the market fails to provide for- this is, historically, between 10 and 20% of all capitalist economic systems)
 
 
 
Christianity, as Jesus taught, teaches that it is up to the people, as individuals, to care for one another. 
(In my assessment and understanding, a valid statement.)
 
 
This is why they are incompatible; socialism preaches government responsibility by compulsion and Christianity preaches individual responsibility from love.
(So, the argument here is that the government cannot operate from a perspective of responsibility and love.  However, in a democracy, doesn’t the government represent the aggregate of individuals that make up society?)
 
Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on Christian compassion. 
(no, it is driven by competition.  Read ANY economics theory.  Milton Friedman- the lightbearer of capitalism said “The most important single central fact about a free market is that no exchange takes place unless both parties benefit.”  How is that Christian compassion?
 
 Without that, it has the potential to be detrimental to society.
(what potential?)
 
  If capitalism is to be compassionate, people must respect one another and be driven by love for one another. 
(sounds like a good theory, but practice has shown otherwise…. “The only relevant test of the validity of a hypothesis is comparison of prediction with experience.” Again, Friedman!)
 
It becomes mandatory that those with means care for those who do not. 
(and this hypothesis has no proven track record.  in fact, history has proven that this theory does not work)
 
 
 They must exercise restraint, resist greed and help those who cannot help themselves.
(yes, that would be nice.)
 
As we look at the early days of Christianity, communal living was evident.
(are we talking about pre or post Roman indoctrinization?)
 
 Scriptures teach that all lived in harmony and had all things in common, where those who had used their excess to care for those in need, as they had need. 
(yes, well, those agrarian societies had it right.  I say we all get rid of our wheels)
 
That does not mean that all were equal, or that those who had means split those means equally with those who did not have means, but rather they provided for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves.
(Really, because this is where I get something different in my interpretations of the scriptures.  In fact, I get that Jesus criticized the wealthy Jews for failing to share what they had freely with the poor.)
 
 It by no means meant that they simply gave to the poor without requirement that they attempt to care for themselves, but that they were expected to attempt to work and provide what they could.
(who advocates simply giving to anyone?  Again, this is an assumption that the redistribution of wealth is a free ride and if you bothered to read the actual numbers and facts (start with Beeghley, Domhoff, or maybe the Census Reports) it would provide a different picture.
 
In this respect, socialism is the antithesis of Christianity. 
(okay             BIG LEAP!!!!  Conclusion made without providing the supporting facts.)
 
 It expects that all will take what they have and distribute it to those who have less, regardless of their need or attempt to care for themselves. 
(have you, perhaps, read the Personal Responsibility Act of 1996?  Even before welfare reform (enacted by President Clinton, btw), there was this ridiculous cultural assumption regarding AFDC that had no factual basis.  Not only does this statement incorporate that misunderstanding, it perpetuates it 12 years after it has been eradicated!  Like much of this “essay,” it is based on uninformed assumptions.)
 
 It, then, produces class warfare, envy and laziness.
(okay?  how so?  There is no psychological evidence provided in this statement; there is no clarification of how each of these is manifested; and there is no empirical measurement of any of these “social ills.”  In fact, there is a good deal of research regarding class warfare - which indicates that most class animosity is generated from the wealthy.  Envy and laziness have yet to garner much academic interest- given that they are fairly arbitrary and subjective variables.  Therefore, they should not be used in a persuasive piece such as this.)
 
  It is often done by compulsion rather than freewill. 
(how does one make this assumption?  I, as a voter, vote with my free will for liberal leaders who will make the redistribution of wealth a governmental responsibility.  It’s my free will- not a compulsion.  I do this based on my Christian core values of taking care of those with less than me.
 
Therefore, it goes against the very teachings of Christ.
(If the first statement (about compulsion vs. freewill) is not able to be adequately established, which is was not, then the “therefore” statement does not follow.  Additionally, there was no valid establishment regarding the teachings of Christ earlier- which is a subjective point anyway…)
 
Yet, capitalism that has lost its Christian soul, is ruled by greed and selfishness.  That will have no compassion, either. 
(this makes good sense to me, but needs to be followed with examples)
 
When, though, a capitalist realizes his duty to be a blessing through his Christian principals, he will have compassion and will fulfill the teachings of Christ.
(and so, in a country that is based on Freedom of Religion, how is this enforced?  Idealism is wonderful, but there is no practical application)
 
The problem with our American society, though, is that we have lost our Christian soul.
(How does a country have a soul?  We are an aggregate of individuals (as pointed out earlier) and although anyone has the right to believe that all Americans should become a particular brand of a particular religion, the government must be conducted under the assumption that this is not the case and it does not have the right to dictate it.  Therefore, we go with a free democratic society.)
 
  This is not to say that those without a Christian underpinning are unable to act with compassion, but those that follow the teachings of Christ, dutifully, are more predisposed to show consistent compassion. 
(again, an assumption anyone is entitled to hold, but not the basis of a good political or persuasive argument.)
 
 On the other side, socialists hold that the greatest form of good in the world is government, therefore violate the very foundation of Christian teaching.
(again, an uniformed assumption regarding socialist theory.  And again, if the premise to an argument is flawed, then the conclusion is flawed as well.  Also, we never actually established Christian teaching.)
 
Truly, unless this country return to its Christian foundation, neither socialism nor capitalism will provide the true compassion required to return this country to greatness.
(Okay, good conclusion statement to bring it home.  However, I have not bought into the arguments put forth, so I am not convinced)
 
 Clearly, though, capitalism provides the only path to that.
(This statement contradicts the preceding one.  First it is stated that neither can function properly without Christian values (which still requires a clear definition) and then it is stated that only one of these can provide the path…the path to “that?”  To what?)
 
 
 The socialism of the left can only lead us down a destructive path, to be sure.
(To be sure of what?  That socialism can only lead us down a destructive path?  How so?  What evidence was provided here?)
 
This essay, which I assume was crafted to persuade the reader that Christianity cannot coexist with Socialism and that Capitalism is the only economic system within which Christianity can exist, contains flawed logic and weak arguments.  I give it a D because the structure is fair and there are few grammatical errors.  
<!--EndFragment-->

david,

You continue to amaze me!  You provide me with additional information which proves yourself wrong.

so·cial·ism Pronunciation: \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm\ Function: noun Date: 1837
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

None of this is scriptual!  You can base your total belief system on one passage in Acts if you wish.  That is what cults do!!  As for me, I'll base mine on the entirety of scripture.  I'll "personally" help the poor and needy as Jesus commanded, BUT I will not support the government implementing policies which steals from one group and gives it to another. 

As in all of our previous talks, we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  

harrysmom,
DS Thank you for the schooling on Marx.  I actually teach Marxist theory at the university level, so I can now print out your post and give it to my students and call it day!  Wow- that saved me a lot of work! 
<<Enough said.  We have nothing in common here!  You're welcome.>>

What I think we are debating here is not a difference in political theory- it's a difference in theological theory.  I believe that is the point that DavidWalters is attempting to make.
<<Are you confused?  See your statement below!  Finally, we agree that our spiritual beliefs guide our political views!!  Again, we have nothing in common here!  Hence, we debate our spiritual beliefs.>>
We can debate politics ad nauseam, but at the end of the day we both know that our spiritual foundations guide our political inclinations- you are right, it's shortsighted of me to fail to acknowledge that.  However, what we do have here is a difference of religious and scriptural interpretation- and we both know that religious tolerance is a basic American principle.  Therefore, political tolerance follows as a basic American principle.  
<>
With that said, we should follow the lead of our President (PRESIDENTBarack Hussein Obama II - I LOVE hearing that) and try to find commonalities in stead of differences.

<<Even though liberals and Democrats refused to do the same for President Bush, I think you will find that most conservatives and Republicans will try very hard to work with Obama.  I think this says a lot about the character of conservatives vs liberals, which "might" be a result of their christian value system.  And I hope that same attitude is extended to the next Republican President.  Somehow, I expect not.>>

DS(86).......
<<Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. One is based on the atheistic philosophy found in the Communist Manifesto; the other is based on the deity of Jesus Christ.>>
I do enjoy reading the bible! In addition to the gem of socialist/communal way of life described by the 1st Church in Jerusalem:
"All the Believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."
-Acts 2:44-45
We have:
"All the believers were one in heart and mind.  No one claimed that any of his possessions was his own, but they shared everything they had."
-Acts 4:32
So Luke goes OUT of his way to repeat this.  Did he screw up, or was he mistaken?  Many believe the words in those pages are the word of God.  Me?  The book of Acts is a good historical reference written by a man who seemed to be close to the apostle Paul.
Anyway, i took your advice and googled .  But i just googled "Socialism definition", and guess what?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socia...
" a system of society or group living in which there is no private property ...."
-Sounds just like what Luke describes in chapters 2&4 in Acts of the Apostles.  Sorry this isn't the foundation you'd like to ascribe to Christianity, but the words are unambiguously there for all to read!

DS Thank you for the schooling on Marx.  I actually teach Marxist theory at the university level, so I can now print out your post and give it to my students and call it day!  Wow- that saved me a lot of work!


What I think we are debating here is not a difference in political theory- it's a difference in theological theory.  I believe that is the point that DavidWalters is attempting to make.


We can debate politics ad nauseam, but at the end of the day we both know that our spiritual foundations guide our political inclinations- you are right, it's shortsighted of me to fail to acknowledge that.  However, what we do have here is a difference of religious and scriptural interpretation- and we both know that religious tolerance is a basic American principle.  Therefore, political tolerance follows as a basic American principle.  


With that said, we should follow the lead of our President (PRESIDENTBarack Hussein Obama II - I LOVE hearing that) and try to find commonalities in stead of differences.


I think that people who take shots at the "Christianity" and "morality" of those who hold diverse political beliefs make themselves look and sound stupid.  You have done that to me, so I did it back.  I apologize.  Please think before you point fingers in the future.

I think this article states it very well.....And this is why I believe that if we REALLY want to help those in need, we need to empower the church to do it.  If government will get out of the way of the church, watch what happens!
Socialism, Capitalism and Christianity

Compassion is a word that is thrown around by both Democrats and Republicans.  While both sides approach the subject from complete different directions, both are determined that their brand of compassion is the Christian attitude.  So, I thought I would address what both forms of compassion entail, in respect to Christianity (since this really is a Christian nation).

First of all, socialism cannot be compatible with Christianity.  It is, in fact, at odds with Christian teaching.  Socialism is determined to provide equality and welfare by government intervention.  This is what both Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama want.  The idea is that the government must take care of every aspect of life, from fair wages to health care to care for the poor.  Christianity, as Jesus taught, teaches that it is up to the people, as individuals, to care for one another.  This is why they are incompatible; socialism preaches government responsibility by compulsion and Christianity preaches individual responsibility from love.

Capitalism, on the other hand, relies on Christian compassion.  Without that, it has the potential to be detrimental to society.  If capitalism is to be compassionate, people must respect one another and be driven by love for one another.  It becomes mandatory that those with means care for those who do not.  They must exercise restraint, resist greed and help those who cannot help themselves.

As we look at the early days of Christianity, communal living was evident.  Scriptures teach that all lived in harmony and had all things in common, where those who had used their excess to care for those in need, as they had need.  That does not mean that all were equal, or that those who had means split those means equally with those who did not have means, but rather they provided for the necessities of those who could not do so for themselves.  It by no means meant that they simply gave to the poor without requirement that they attempt to care for themselves, but that they were expected to attempt to work and provide what they could.

In this respect, socialism is the antithesis of Christianity.  It expects that all will take what they have and distribute it to those who have less, regardless of their need or attempt to care for themselves.  It, then, produces class warfare, envy and laziness.  It is often done by compulsion rather than freewill.  Therefore, it goes against the very teachings of Christ.

Yet, capitalism that has lost its Christian soul, is ruled by greed and selfishness.  That will have no compassion, either.  When, though, a capitalist realizes his duty to be a blessing through his Christian principals, he will have compassion and will fulfill the teachings of Christ.

The problem with our American society, though, is that we have lost our Christian soul.  This is not to say that those without a Christian underpinning are unable to act with compassion, but those that follow the teachings of Christ, dutifully, are more predisposed to show consistent compassion.  On the other side, socialists hold that the greatest form of good in the world is government, therefore violate the very foundation of Christian teaching.

Truly, unless this country return to its Christian foundation, neither socialism nor capitalism will provide the true compassion required to return this country to greatness.  Clearly, though, capitalism provides the only path to that.  The socialism of the left can only lead us down a destructive path, to be sure.

david,

Google "socialism and christianity" and you will find a number of resources like the following.......

Socialism and Christianity are irreconcilable. One is based on the atheistic philosophy found in the Communist Manifesto; the other is based on the deity of Jesus Christ.

Socialism means economic control of the people by government. In a socialist country, the state is all-powerful. Such an all-powerful state views itself — and not God — as the ultimate authority. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Communist Manifesto calls for abolishing family, marriage, countries, and religion as well as private property. Under the socialist system the state determines what is right and wrong — without any competing loyalties to God, family, or country.


Karl Marx, the principal author of the Communist Manifesto, once called religion "the opium of the people." Marx viewed man as mere matter that can be shaped, and perfected, by his external environment. How different this is from the Christian view that man has an eternal soul and is responsible for his own actions!
It is impossible for a true Christian to be a socialist or for a true socialist to be a Christian. Nevertheless, socialists have cleverly twisted the scriptures in order to make their materialistic philosophy appear Christian. As Marx explained in the Communist Manifesto: "Nothing is easier than to give Christian asceticism a Socialist tinge. Has not Christianity declaimed against private property, against marriage, against the State? Has it not preached, in the place of these, charity and poverty, celibacy and mortification of the flesh, monastic life and Mother Church."

"All the Believers were together and had everything in common. Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need."
-Acts 2:44-45
This is Luke's description of the 1st Church in Jerusalem, prior to the Jewish revolt. 
DS(81),
i know we've been through this on another blog on this site.....but for the benefit of the argument on this blog, here it is again.  (to Harrysmom you asked:
<<Since you also believe Jesus was a socialist, please provide me the scripture to back it up>>
As with the numerous other sects that made up mid 1st century Jerusalem, the sect began by Jesus and succeeded by his brother James(Christians), they ALL aspired to be the one true form of worship at the temple in Jerusalem.  The temple was the state (even though they paid homage to the Romans).  The Romans allowed the Sadducees to run the temple and levy a Temple Tax.  So this socialistic, communal arrangement was what Jesus had in mind for his "Kingdom of God", here on earth.
Had i been around at that time, i am sure i'd have been a follower(maybe even a leader!).

<<"If a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat." 2Thess 3:10I believe that this verse supports the argument against government  welfare programs.>>-DS
-if Paul wrote this to the congregation of the Thessalonians(-there is some doubt among biblical scholars that Paul actually authored this letter).........he was addressing the problem(among others) that many of the flock came to the communal meals(-this was a big part of these early churches, like a big pot luck supper), but didn't contribute anything.  Chapter 3 addresses this problem.  Perhaps you could make it an argument against welfare if you choose.......yet i have no doubt that Paul and Jesus would have supported helping the poor in an earthly Kingdom of God.

JackieM,

That isn't found in scripture.  The following scripture implies the same, but we know that God loves everyone, and will help anyone who asks.

"If a man does not choose to work, neither shall he eat." 2Thess 3:10

I believe that this verse supports the argument against government  welfare programs. 

I'm not really arguing that we (as individuals) shouldn't help those in need.  Quite the contrary, Jesus definitely taught us to help the poor.  My issue is that Jesus NEVER taught collective socialism, or that it was the government's responsibility to "steal" from the rich and give to the poor.  That violates everything taught in scripture!

DS--what is the scripture that says that God will help those who help themselves?

harrysmom,
How do you separate your political beliefs from your values?  That isn't possible!  Nobody should do ANYTHING that violates their value system.  I know it happens, but that shouldn't be the norm.  Since you also believe Jesus was a socialist, please provide me the scripture to back it up.  If you know anything about scripture or God's character, you should understand that He doesn't support stealing, which is exactly what socialism does...steals from one group and gives to another.  Once again I reiterate "Jesus NEVER taught that."  Are you a christian, or are you just religious?

Harrysmom-- your #73. you are a really stupid!  i can say that and mean it.  you attack me and call me uneducated and it is you that missed my entire point!  i would have laughed if i didn't feel so sorry for you. 

let me put my post in words that hopefully even you will understand.  People can judge Bush all they want but it is pure speculation when someone tries to judge his decisions on the war entirely.  we didn't see any of the intelligence that he was privvy to.  he had access to intelligence from our military and other countries.  i haven't always agreed with his decisions but i refuse to be stupid enough to think i could make judgements on the war unless i had access to the same information Bush had.  no one can make intelligent decisions based on hearsay!  that is called speculation at best.  however, i can say that i thank Bush for keeping you and I safe since 911.  we don't know what that entailed and never will.  Therefore, normal folks can't make smart judgements on how much work he did to ensure our safety and freedoms.  we also don't know exactly how many attacks were stopped because if President Bush.  For keeping families safe in this country, he has my respect and many others' respect too!
By the way, not only do i have an undergraduate and masters degree, i have the business experience to go along with it.   the best part is that i've been pretty successful at it.  i don't need the government's help to provide for me and my family.  i'm smart enough to do it on my own.  too bad others can figure it out!  but hey, with obama increasing welfare, others won't have to i guess!

DS--you are on target again!  imagine how many nut jobs are in the US!  scary!  Socialism is definitely not what the Bible teaches but people choose to make up things to justify evil actions!  what is interesting is that if liberals have their way, we will all work for the government and never be able to earn any more than the government will allow no matter how hard we work and how little someone else works.  the tax basis will be a lot lower so there will be less money to go around to help others.  people like me and others who strive to do their best will see no point any longer.  i won't work as hard if i know others will take what i have in the form of higher taxes.  so in the end the poor will suffer more.  you can't increase welfare if there is no money there!  countries will cease to lend to us and invest in the US.  small companies (the backbone of our economy) will no longer exist.  these people are out to destroy our country and that is easy to see!  a good economics lesson taught by someone who actually understands economics would do liberals a lot of good as long they have the capacity to understand the subject.  right now i have my doubts.

#67
lol
I love the Stuart Smiley reference!  Is that your ode to Al Franken?  I know how much the neocons are loving him at the moment...


I'm rubber, you're glue....

You are conflating Christianity with your political beliefs.  I'll let this one go.  We aren't going to see eye to eye.  But I am like whoever it was that you mentioned...I do believe that Jesus was a socialist and that is the basis of my Christian values.  I think you have it all mixed up, but I would never presume to define someone's faith.  Please return the favor and God bless.

harrysmom,
I think we have a very different understanding of what core christian values are.  I don't believe that supporting gay marriage, abortion, or stealing are core christian values.  Therefore, I don't believe that your prayers were heard as we didn't get a President who believes in these core values.   I think you may have the same problem that David has.  Socialism is NOT a core christian value.  Individuals sharing with those in need is, but not government programs which "steal" from one group to give to another.  That is NOT something Jesus taught.  As I told David, I believe that the church could do a much better job of helping the poor than government does.  Let the churches do it, and get government out of their way.  Then we will see real revival in this country.  Don't you ever wonder why we continue to have the social problems that we have after MANY decades of social programs designed to eliminate them?  It's because most of the problems are spiritual in nature, and we need spiritual solutions to them.  Let the churches take over the social programs and we'll see a big change.  Get government out of the way!

" I will also pray for him.  That is a big difference between conservatives and liberals." 


I got from that that you don't think liberals pray- and we do.  I prayed day after day that we would get a leader with core Christian values.  You see, what you don't seem to understand is that I have found God.  God protects us from tyrants and supporters of extreme inequality.  It seems you haven't come to that revelation yet, but I will pray for you too.  :)  Not angry, just tired.

harrysmomn,
I'm not sure what you are saying.    Would you like to clarify?  Booing doesn't make you a liberal....but liberals seem to be the ones who are doing the booing.  Make sense harrysmom?  Like I said, I won't boo the President whether he is Democrat or Republican, but I will pray for him/her.  I suspect prayers do a lot more good than booing does. 

I'm not sure why you are so angry, but you should know that it gets in the way of having any kind of legitimate discussions with you.  All you want to do is to call names.  Moron is apparently your favorite for whatever reason. 

I'm sure all of my christian friends on here will agree to pray for you as well.  And hopefully you will find God in your life before it's too late.

Jackie M.
Obama is a moron, but you are the one who suggests that security information should only be disseminated to people of one political party.  Now that's retarded.  There's no finding common ground here- you are retarded.


Just a stab in the dark- do you hold more than a GED?

You're right DS.  I don't pray.  I boo.  That's what makes me a liberal.  ...and you wonder why conservatives have lost all credibility in America and around the world.  I guess we just need to pray on it.  


There is no logic in your thoughts...

"oh, i keep forgetting that we would have had more information if clinton had not cut our intelligience sources overseas in an effort to show that HE had a surplus!  please remind me of that next time i take a dose of stupid and think like a liberal!"-JackieM (69)
Read my post in 52........
-"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him.  There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy.  It is all the work of the previous administrations.  Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow......And when that war(1st Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to President Reagan."
-Dick Cheney, August 2000
Boy Bush used Clinton's military to project our power, how many thousands of miles from our own country?  Where is your thankyou for Clinton's Military? 
I s'pose it is a good thing i took that dose of stupid, huh?

well said JackieM.

YEA, DS!  you said it in a nutshell.  Harrysmom proved my point!  boy, since when did two wrongs make a right.  i guess it became that way the other day when obama had that huge party and wasted all of that money during these bad economic times.  i guess that is his way of showing how the budget cuts he promised are going to take place.  being an idiot in public by booing the President is good for America because.....  and who is dividing this country even more?  hmm!  sex in the streets between humans and animals is next!  we conservatives are going to just have to accept this new wave of anything goes!  NOT!

I really think conservatives have been discriminated against!  since before the war in iraq, all liberals in the US must have been given all access clearance to military intelligence and we were left out.  mistakes have been made, and i haven't agreed with every decision.  However, in order to make an intelligient decision about any war, you have to have access to ALL of the information that is available.  (i don't think liberals have been aware up until this historic event of giving them all access that us normal average folks can't have all of the information the top brass has due to the safety of our nation and its people.)  shhhhh!  don't tell them that!  let them sleep!  I am upset that Bush decided to give the liberals all of the military information that he had when making the decision to go to war.  hmmm!  i'm puzzled at why he would do that.  so they have formulated their decisions about the war and their hatred of Bush on the information they obtained from this secret clearance.  of course, hearsay is just as good!  how else would they be qualified to make such harsh judgements?  i guess if i had that information, i would be able to accurately judge others too.  oh, i keep forgetting that we would have had more information if clinton had not cut our intelligience sources overseas in an effort to show that HE had a surplus!  please remind me of that next time i take a dose of stupid and think like a liberal!

All of our criticisms of the war came from an outsiders point of view and hearsay.  just as stupid people were making judgements on McCain's voting record without knowing all parts of the bill he was voting against.  i don't know if liberals understand the term pork in terms of these bills, but when asked about specific bills McCain would explain why he voted the way he did.  sometimes there was a tremendous amount of pork in them.  oh i forgot since obama said in his campaign that pork spending was "nothing," liberals must not care about wasting money.  hmmmm! 

closing gitmo without a plan to house these terrorists is a wonderful idea.  i think our court systems need to be clogged even more.  anyone who wants gitmo closed should be required to take in a terrorist into their home and provide food and clothing to him.  i have always said we don't have enough criminals in the US and need to bring in more!  how dumb!  obama is off to the great start that i knew he would be.  what a moron!

harrysmom,
Booing your President "IS" a class-less, shameful thing to do no matter what.  And I also believe it can be associated with how you were raised.  Parents should teach their children to respect others, and if they don't they will learn from their peers.  At any rate, even though I disagree with Obama on almost all of his policies, I still respect the office of the President, and will never boo him.    I will also pray for him.  That is a big difference between conservatives and liberals.

Hey HairyMom, you really hurt my feelings...but I'm good enough, and I'm smart enough, and next time I may be stupid enough to be a liberal as well, so I can live in "la la land".

Jackie M, 
Crowds showing disapproval for a leader is a long-standing tradition in free societies.  Bush really was, in my and millions of others opinion, the worst leader this country has ever experienced.  However, I would not have booed him, because, like you said, it wasn't exactly the classy thing to do.  That has nothing to do with "how I was raised by my parents" (which is a ridiculous assumption to make about people you don't know).  It has to do with my perception that in a democracy, it is not the leader who deserves the boo's, it's those who voted him in.  So I submit a resounding 
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
to all of you who voted for him.


Happy now?

DS--"Change" is coming but i'm afraid it is the kind of change that will ruin this country.  as i just outlined on another post here, it is obvious people have become too stupid.  ...and i don't think they have morales, values or respect.  i was ashamed of all of those who booed President Bush yesterday.  no matter how much i dislike obama and what he stands for and know he will ruin this country, i would never boo him under any circumstances!  those people just showed the world how low-class and trashy a lot of Americans have become.  It is obvious respect was not taught by their parents.  My 23-year old son even knows better.  It is sad that parents teach this kind of behavior and it is accepted by society.  the "anything goes" society is here, and those of us who try to teach our children right from wrong will have a harder time because of the bad influences they are subjected to everyday.

Dora(59)....
"Nice, nice, very nice, we're all creatures of the same device......."
-Vonnegut

Thanks JackieM.  Hopefully "Change" is coming.....   ;-}

DS--Love that video!  It is right on point and common sense!

Kevin Jackson.  I honestly didn't understand ANY of the points you were trying to make- and I honestly read a lot of pretty thick literature.  However, I'm not thrilled with the Kennedy appointment and hope another person is chosen.  That said, as a liberal democrat, you make me proud.  I have now been called "turd polisher" by an ignoramus.  I will now go an have a cookie.

I Hope Barack Obama Succeeds … At Changing His Mind

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/arachel/2009/...

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from generation to generation, says that, "When you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount."

The neo-cons here have yet to understand this.   Their solution:
1. Buy a stronger whip.

2. Change riders.

3. Appoint a committee to study the horse.

4. Arrange to visit other countries to see how other cultures ride horses.

5. Lower the standards so that dead horses can be included.

6. Reclassify the dead horse as living-impaired.

7. Hire outside contractors to ride the dead horse.

8. Harness several dead horses together to increase speed.

9. Provide additional funding and/or training to increase dead horse's performance.

10. Do a productivity study to see if lighter riders would improve the dead horse's performance.

11. Declare that as the dead horse does not have to be fed, it is less costly, carries lower overhead and therefore contributes substantially more to the bottom line of the economy than do some other horses.

12. Rewrite the expected performance requirements for all horses.

And of course ...

13. Promote the dead horse to a supervisory position.

"...na na nana
na...na...na na,
goodbye .... goodbye!"

"......not recognize it for what is is..."
-sorry for the mis-spell....

Kevin Jackson.....
<<Do you work in an insane asylum? >>
-No, i don't work any longer, but i do reside in an insane asylum,
because i see many of my fellow inmates clambering to embrace insanity....
beating their heads against the walls, over and over again.  The analogy is this:
How many times must the fallacy of "de-regulation" fail for my conservative friends to see it's insanity? 
And do you not admit to the reality of the failures of Ron Reagan?  If you cannot, perhaps you can be too close to a situation to not recognize it fpr what is is.......and Reagan's administration has led us to the fiscal and foreign policy failures of today!

David Walters - Question. Do you work in an insane asylum? Sometimes you can be too close to a situation to not recognize you are in it.

Kevin Jackson (53);
Again(sorry 'bout the pontificating....),
-who's name headlines the de-regulatory bill(-that means he wrote it....)that allowed the banking disaster that has befallen us? Hint:  " Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act"
Phil Gramm, not  Frank or Dodd.  How many and what percentage of the foreclosed homes were low income homes?
Ronald Reagan, "greatest president of in the history of the US, Reagan,...."
-You mean ol "Cut&Run" Reagan?   (Remember Lebanon 1983-84?)
Hundreds of proud Marines died because of that old fool!
You mean the guy who swelled the federal deficit to record highs?  (and as Dora  put it ....
"despite the fact that his mental abilities were only occasionally functional during the past 2+ years at least ..."?  Talk about Revisionist History, perhaps you've been listening to too much "Hanity".

anyone who is still shouting praises for ronnie after all is known of the damage he did - a man who remained in office despite the fact that his mental abilities were only occasionally functional during the past 2+ years at least ... anyone who still proclaims ronnie as their own personal political savior and mentor needs their head examined.
your opinions given as truths are not reflected by the facts, Kevin Jackson-

@DavidWalters - Agreed with your earlier comment that Phil Gramm the RINO was complicit in the Financial scandal.  However, there is little doubt that Frank and Dodd are the major conspirators.  Clinton was THE gatekeeper who repealed the laws that kept all this separate.  So you check your facts before pontificating.


As for Clinton's debacle of a presidency, he rode that back of the greatest president of in the history of the US, Reagan, and thankfully had a Congress who (a) kept him in check, and (b) forced him to pass such legislation as limiting welfare, something you libs have relied on to keep Blacks dependent and stupid for some time.


I'm sure I speak for ALL America in thanking you libs for all the whining that Blacks continually do.  And don't think we are done, just because we now have a Black president.

James,
i wonder what qualifies a person to hold public office?  It appears that being governor of Texas didn't impart much in terms of leadership skills, did it?
Good thing Bush 43 was preceded by Bill C.
-"A commander in chief leads the military built by those who came before him.  There is little that he or his defense secretary can do to improve the force they have to deploy.  It is all the work of the previous administrations.  Decisions made today shape the force of tomorrow......And when that war(1st Gulf War) ended, the first thing I did was to place a call to President Reagan."
-Dick Cheney, August 2000

Interesting.  I agree--she's completely unqualified.

Well, it's almost the time when we're going to be doomed, 12:00 noon Jan 20 2009.  There's a good article explaining it, http://americansolvent.com/?p=3 at this blog American Solvent.

For these people talking about Obama's intimate knowledge of the Constitution, how about this gem?

“the objective of this trip was to have substantive discussions with people like President Karzai or Prime Minister Maliki or President Sarkozy or others who I expect to be dealing with over the next eight to 10 years…”
This "scholar" doesn't even know what the presidential term is as set by the Constitution. But then he gets a little confused over geography too (visiting all 58 states).

As far as the post, good read. Kennedy ran Obama's VP search committee. I suggest that if running a presidential campaign for 19 months qualifies you to be President (this was actually listed as one of Obama's qualifications) than running a VP search team qualifies you to be Senator. Plus if she is sober, has not murdered a woman, and has not lived a life of pure debauchery, she has three steps up on her uncle.

Wrote a similar article on my blog this morning: I Want To Be A Senator Too! Where Do I Sign Up?

Good to be a Kennedy (or bad).

Mike
The Political and Financial Markets Commentator
http://politicsandfinance.blogspot.com

@Kenneth.  The Democrats usurped the mantle as the party of Civil Rights, stealing it from the Republicans who sponsored ALL CR legislation beginning in 1866!
And the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which is the ONLY piece that Dems point to because LBJ signed it.  The fact is that it was Republican Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois, not Democrat President Lyndon Johnson, who pushed through the civil rights laws of the 1960’s.  Johnson was all about politics, and anything to get the "stupid" vote.  He would have sold his mother for more votes, as far as I'm concerned.  But Dems and Libs use him as their poster boy for Civil Rights. Why?  Because they have no other, so yes, we can all believe that a Texas politician of the 1960s was really that concerned with the plight of Black Americans.
While Dirksen, with only the agenda of "human rights" was key to the passage of civil rights legislation in 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965 and 1968.  And he wrote the language for the 1965 Voting Rights Act.  Dirksen also crafted the language for the Civil Rights Act of 1968 which prohibited discrimination in housing.
And Kennedy, while traveling to Russia to decry their human rights, was sent home with his tail between his legs by Kruschev, after he was shown police "torturing" Blacks with water cannons and German sheperds!
So he decided to take a meeting with a great Republican Dr Martin Luther King, Jr, where he had declined previously.
Look Kenneth, you are right in the divide as the Conservative/Liberal, and in fact, in Australia for example, Liberals would be Republicans, as the Roget dictionary would have it, and Conservatives would be Democrats.  So the lines blur there.  I don't have time to give the complete historical perspective, so I will concede that you are correct on a few points. 
I do not concede that the Democrats and Liberals of today are poisonous to the Black community.

Recheck your post #26, Mr. Jackson. Nowhere do you mention the Democratic party, just liberals. I made very clear in my post that the Democratic party was CONSERVATIVE at that time. Also notice that I never questioned your intelligence, only your HONESTY. Yes, the KKK was predominately Southern Democrats, and they were very, very CONSERVATIVE. The very reason that the South changed from a solidly Democratic region to a Republican one is because Southerners refused to accept the Democrats role in the Civil Rights movement, and specifically the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Northern Liberals moved into the Democratic party for the same reason. The fact is, Mr. Jackson, racism is the very reason why the parties changed roles in the '60s and '70s. The CONSERVATIVES were the racists. And to set the record straight, I am not a Liberal, nor a Conservative, because of the extreme positions both sides take, so evident in this and other blogs. What I am, Mr. Jackson, is a man who tells the TRUTH, whoever might take offense. You can call me all the names you like, but you can't change the truth. And by the way, don't worry about that mortgage money. Buy yourself some history books.

Hey, Dumb Dora is here.  I guess stupid was on holiday!  Dumb Dora, I write from MY perspective, which is the Black perspective.  When Blacks are considered in the same light as Whites, then I won't write anymore.  Until then, I pen.  


And it is ignorant people like you who force me to write anyway.  I write as an individual, exposing the atrocities that individuals like you have forced on my culture.  When you stop meddling, and just worry about your individual myopic, gnute-brained needs, then I will stop responding to you.


And for the record, my comment was at Kenneth, but like you meddling liberals you can't help but get involved in a Black man's business.  Thankfully you can't bankrupt this one, because the business is "words", and I have plenty of them.


Happy New Year to you!

Jane,

George Bush the Last - in eight years...8... EIGHT YEARS never once pronounced nuclear correctly.  Not once.   
I don't care about what someone pays for a haircut,  how much cleavage is showing,  if they have "cankles",  or wears a flag pin.  I care about the person and their ideas for the future of America.
Shallow?  No substance?... my dear Jane, that would be you.
Now, how about getting on to actual issues?  Can you manage this?

Kevin, when you start trying understanding the individual and stop trying to define them based upon race, then, and only then will you become able to understand humanity.  Until then you will remain the selfish, cowardly, label fixated individual that you seem to be- one  who lumps unrelated information to form a false conclusion that serves no purpose but division and continued stupidity for those who have no brains or interest to seek out actual facts. 
Actually, you fit right in here.
How sad is that?!

Kenneth Barnes, you are a historical idiot.  Don't mix definitions for ideologies.  The KKK was made up mainly of Southern Democrats, i.e. Dixiecrats.  


Since you are so keen on what you Democrats/Liberals have done historically for Blacks, I ask you to give me ONE thing they have done?  The New England "Liberals" using the literal definition of liberal, and not the Liberals that constitute the Democratic party, were Republicans you knucklehead!


Don't parse words with me, as I am not the stupid Black man you and your type have tried to create.

I was just wondering with all of Caroline Kennedy's education  she said "You Know" 34 times in a two minute interview. Didn't sound very impressive to me. Whenever I hear her speak she says Nothing!!!! She rambles some jibberish and Chris Matthews eats it up. But then again, liberals love people with no substance.

<<BTW, Dora: Conservatism isn't the problem.  The whole economic house of cards started crumbling when those mortgages that Carter and Clinton forced the banks into making to people who couldn't pay them back came due.  Republicans tried to fix it.  Democrats blocked it.>>
-Vince (38)
Wow! really?
Those poor bankers!  Forced to give mortgages.  How un-American!
So, Vince.....what percent of foreclosures are a result of loans to low income families?
Perhaps you should do some research before you make ridiculous claims.
Hint:  " Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act"

simonesdad, if I misinterpreted your use of my name, I offer my apologies. And I now believe that anger did get the best of you and provoked a comment you probably wouldn't have made under normal circumstances. It can be very hard to avoid a "tit-for-tat" reaction, but one thing to remember is that Mr. Jackson and others like him (liberal and conservative) profit from divisiveness. As he says in his reply to me, this is "sport" to him, designed to provoke and ridicule. So I think you and I have no problems with each other.
Dora, thank you for you comments. Mr. Jackson falsely accuses you of using me to fight your battles because you mentioned my name. I would say to you and simonesdad that you are quite welcome to use my name in your arguments, so long as you stay true to what I have said.
Now, Mr. Jackson, to your arguments. If you would accept someone randomly picked from the general population, then all your arguments against Caroline Kennady fall flat. Your exact word is "anybody," and she falls within that category. If you will accept ANYONE, then it's hard to believe that qualification is your main concern. But what troubles me the most about your arguments is post #26, in which you cite a laundry list of liberal abuses against black people. Let's look at these at little closer.
Slavery: White people of all political persuasions supported slavery in colonial days. To pin the establishment of slavery to liberals is an egregious twisting of history, and simply not true.

3/5 rule: This was established because CONSERVATIVES who wanted to maintain slavery would not accept the Constitution on any other grounds. Many enlightened LIBERALS wanted abolition written into the document, but gave in because they felt adoption of the Constitution was an absolute necessity. Blame them for giving in, but CONSERVATIVES were the instigators.
Missouri Compromise: Again, LIBERALS giving in to CONSERVATIVE demands. Democrats (CONSERVATIVE at that point in history) threatened to dissolve the Union if denied the right to carry slaves into the western territories. And I would contend that the liberals were right to give in. If civil war had broken out then, the South had the odds in their favor, and we might still have slavery in this country.
Abolition: You didn't mention this, but it's highly relevant. The most dedicated hard-core group supporting the North's war effort were New England LIBERALS who had agitated for abolition for decades. They also furnished a great number of troops who bled and died so that ALL men might be free. And incidently, their opponents were CONSERVATIVES who plainly stated that they would die before they would accept black equality.

KKK, Jim Crow laws, and poll tax: I group these together because they have the same root cause, namely CONSERATIVES (still Democrats) who refused to accept the verdict of the war and devised ways to "keep the black man in his place." The KKK is possibly the most CONSERVATIVE group that ever existed in this country, and Jim Crow laws and the poll tax were struck down as a result of LIBERAL protests in the 50's and 60's.

Welfare: Now you're on firmer ground because that was a LIBERAL concept. I fail to see how helping the downtrodden equals slavery, so maybe you can explain that. People have abused the system, but the idea was to keep a large portion of the population from sliding into abject poverty, a noble idea even if it didn't work out as planned. By the way, CONSERVATIVES of that era were more than willing to let poor people starve.

For your other points, all are true, and have been so through a number of CONSERVATIVE and LIBERAL administrations and Congresses. LIBERALS have a long history of working to alleviate these problems. CONSERVATIVES tried to keep black people as low on the ladder as possible.

The truth is, Mr. Jackson, is that every black person in this country should be thankful for the LIBERAL tradition of fighting for freedom and equality. I'm not saying you should support the liberal agenda of today, but don't twist history to suit your position. The DEMOCRATIC PARTY was responsible for many of the issues you talk about, but they were the CONSERVATIVE party when those things occurred. CONSERVATIVES bolted the Democrats for the Republican party because they refused to accept the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT, one of those LIBERAL DEMORCRAT pieces of legislation that helped black people that you defied anyone to cite. Now, where's the money for my mortgage?

Vince, liberal radio can only survive in a few markets, like MA and CA.  Everywhere else people just hear it as "noise".  Being completely serious, there are no liberal shows in syndication where I live.  And I know they have cut back the markets for most shows.  I think Franken was canceled and Goldberg is again only in a few markets.


And I agree that liberals can't take it.  We get to watch SNL, Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, ALL networks late night shows, and the list goes on, where they torch Conservatives, and post ONE blog, and they come out like angry cockroaches, looking for Kafka! [ibid Metamorphosis].


Anyway, I am just having fun here, and at the end of the day, when the holidays are over, I will actually have to go back to earning a living. But this is a nice distraction for the time being.


Vince, look me up.  We have a cool project that will launch soon, sort of Bourne Meets Bizarro World, but he's not a spy, just a cool Conservative.  And we have a weekly news show that again is Jon Stewartesque only funny, that will launch soon.

Now, now... we musn't be mean.  We all know that liberals can't take a joke.  Kevin, do you have the misfortune of having liberal talk radio where you live?  Have you heard programs like Stephanie Miller?  These liberal talk shows spend all kinds of time making fun of conservatives like Bill O'Riley and Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh.  God forbid someone make fun of one of them.  Then that someone would be mean, mean, mean.

Then again, no one really listens to liberal talk radio.

BTW, Dora: Conservatism isn't the problem.  The whole economic house of cards started crumbling when those mortgages that Carter and Clinton forced the banks into making to people who couldn't pay them back came due.  Republicans tried to fix it.  Democrats blocked it.

Dora and SimonesDad, the two of you put together don't have the sense to come in from the rain.  The fact that somebody asked you to stop using him in your inane responses should have been enough for most knuckleheads, yet you continue.


Dora, satire is me alluding to your ignorance, insult is when I prove it.  When you have an original thought, you will have an aneurism or at very least a heart-attack. How long did you ponder on "Limbaughesque"?


And SimonesMonkeyDad, no, you should have left it well before Hack Sphere, as that (1) shows no ability to rift, and (2) is just weak.  Let's see, BlackSnear, BlacksFear, NoirOrb, NoirCirque...geez, you could have been much more creative with just "that much more" thought.  



"Kevin good luck with your blog...blah blah blah, Kenneth...reasoning and intelligence".  Don't use other people to fight your battles for you.  I know it was dark there with only two of you battling a superior mental foe, but at least you likely learned something?  Ok, I doubt it, but it's not your fault!  God couldn't gift everybody in the mind, but I'm sure you're good at something?  Ok I know that's patronizing, but I believe we should care for all God's "chirrens", including you two.


I'm just here to rattle your cages.  I love visiting the zoo...

Kenneth, I agree with you assessment of my comments.  For the record, Hack Queer was a play on words derived from Black Sphere.  First it was Hack Sphere and I should have left it at that.  No excuses though.  I took the bait.  It's not my job to insult or even put in their place people like Kevin.  Usually I don't give his brand of "satire" any attention.  It speaks for itself.  No disrespect intended to anyone, including Kevin.  I get what I deserve for going down in the gutter with those who are at home there.  All I said was that I appreciated your thoughtful, measured responses.  I did not twist or incorporate your comments in any way other to than to say thank you for posting.

Kevin, good luck with your blog.  You could stand to learn a thing or two from the UC.  I agree with him about 1% of the time but I respect him.  I will demonstrate the same respect for his site going forward.  Again Kenneth, thank you for your reasoning and intelligence.

Good day all.

Kenneth,  thank you for your thoughtful words.  Sanity is always refreshing.   The continued divisive slime commentary that oozes from the keyboard by persons such as Kevin are exactly what people are sick of seeing.  
If conservatives follow Kevin's lead, the GOP will be a minority party for a very, very long time.  They have learned nothing.  Not a single thing.

it seems that the "writer" of this admitted rant knows not the difference between satire and insult- he seems to spend a great deal of time running away in shame from his family, his heritage, his culture, and his skin color.
frankly, this self aggrandizement  is over-the-top nauseating and repulsive to thinking peoples of any gender or race.  this "writer" suffers from extreme exposure to right-wing limbaughesque ramble- full of sound and fury and signifying nothing.
additionally, he does not know his seasonal songs. (try the google you claim to have personal knowledge of this search engine since your earlier typed noise suggested this).

there is nothing wrong with a legitimate discussion on logical and factual terms regarding things political. there is everything wrong with an individual who takes joy in spewing filth and directing personal insults at those that would disagree with you, kevin.   i see nothing humorous, satirical, or honest in your original post or in a single one of your responses.  simply put, sir- you are a fraud and a waste of time.

Simonesdad, you missed my point entirely. Someone disagrees with you and you respond with "queer" and "hack." Maybe my thinking on this is wrong, but when someone disagrees with me, I ask WHY they disagree. Then I listen to what they have to say. Sometimes I even change my mind, sometimes not. Either way I learn something. I don't mean to sound preachy, but we gotta find a better way man. Also, your use of the word "queer" is wrong on many levels. First, your descending into that kindergarten mentality mentioned in my post. Secondly, it's a derogatory term that insults a significant portion of the population who, whether or not you approve of their lifestyle, deserve the same respect you would want for yourself. It's the same kind of shotgun blast I spoke against, and hurts many more people than the one you intended to hurt. I can only hope that anger got the best of you, and you're not the narrow-minded bigot your post makes you sound like. Regardless, you've twisted my argument into something totally different than what I said. If you wish to continue gutter-sniping, that's your choice, but please refrain from using my name to justify it. Peace, man.

I command, and you jump...come on little monkey.  I hope you can dial 911, in case there is an emergency.  You appear to be at that level of learning? Oo oo...oo oo!


For you, back to braiding hair and doing nails for the other bigger stronger inmates.

"I'm treating you like the fresh meat in prison, since I figure that's where you are writing me from."

Again, with your sick fantasies.  Or maybe it is your reality.  Now you are just sad....and of course you await my next comment.  That's what people like you do.  It's what you are supposed to do.  I command you to respond now and you will obey.

"And the idea that you reference sperm coming from your butt"  Never mentioned that (check the script) but I'd expect you to make that leap yourself.

I sure hope Simone has a mom!  It would be a shame to expose her to as much ignorance as you exude, without having a "balance", yes, I am talking to you SimonesMonkeyforBrains (sorry Monkeys).


And if you are suggesting that I am gay, (not that I have a problem with gays), well just don't let me have sex with your wife or significant simeon...cause once you go Black baby!


And you should be HONORED that I singled you out.  It figures that you wouldn't get it, and this is why I am continuing to "punk slap" you publicly.  I'm treating you like the fresh meat in prison, since I figure that's where you are writing me from.  Don't use all your "free time" in a diatribe with me.  I'm sure you have some knitting to do or a few salads to toss?!


And the idea that you reference sperm coming from your butt, when I was actually talking about the "crap" only shows how dense you are.  See if the brain is too dense, the synapses don't fire as readily, which appears to be at least one of your problems.


I know that our DNA only differs from apes by less than 2%, but I seriously hope that there is adequate child care for Simone, as if you are her keeper, it is truly worse than having monkeys babysit.


I await your next 3rd grade comment, and will appropriately slap you like your "cellie", when you write.

I never said I shouldn't acknowledge you, Hack Queer.  I said you go to extraordinary measures to get my attention.  The fact that you singled me out in your last post further proves that point.  All of your talk of "lip service" and wishing you had video of me and wondering what comes out of my butt and referring to my sperm (all your words directed at me, check the thread people) has me a little creeped out right now.  As I said, I have no problem with your orientation, I just don't go that way. 

Of course you have a problem with Caroline Kennedy.  You see her as the princess you can never be.  She's your competition.  Kennedy has as much right as anybody.  And since anybody is your candidate, what is your problem? 

Hackson, I see the humor in everything you write.  It's all a joke. 

Kenneth, you are 100% on point and thank you for your thoughtful post.

@Kenneth - I agree wholeheartedly.  My blog is a "satirical" blog, meant to invoke humor from "the other side", like Jon Stewart only funny, I like to say.  Those who wish to take it more seriously are just asking for trouble.  


I am bombarded with satirical stabs at Conservatives, and over the years have taken them "full frontal".  I decided to show the "funnier" side of liberalism, which is what I created.  What I have learned is Liberals can't take a joke, though they are prepared to laugh mightily at Conservatives.


I have also learned that liberals are much meaner, spiteful, racist, and other "ist" than most Conservatives I have met.


I am one blogger in the universe of bloggers.  I don't truly "condemn" anybody's point of view, and in fact in most cases respect it, even when I disagree with it.  


For the record, MANY, too many (get the satire?) of my family are liberals, and we all battle it out, laughing all the way (to quote Here Comes Santa Claus).  If the people posting on here are respectful, as you have been, then I behave respectfully.  If they are not, then I unleash the 3% of my brain (get the satire?) it takes to put them in their place!


For me, this is sport!  Game over, when they say.


For you Democrats and Liberals who have been a part of this thread and who have likely had a laugh or two, I assure you that for me, this is just "fun".  I mean you no disrespect, and I bet we agree on 95% of what it takes to make this country better.  And under the right circumstances, we can 'agree to disagree' cordially on the remainder.


I don't include SimonesDad in this statement.


I am The Black Sphere and I approve this message!  Thanks Kenneth!

Mr. Jackson, I would respectfully submit that your "rant" is a glaring example of why conservatives keep losing elections. Crude name-calling and blind shotgun blasts at anyone who disagrees with you worked for a while, but the American electorate has learned to see these tactics for what they are. Your stock response of "you're just stupid" to everyone who disagees with you is a reflection of conservativism's bankruptcy of ideas about how to get us out of the mess that a Republican president and Congress have gotten us into. We need new ideas and methods, and frankly, it's time to let go of the hatreds and divisions that are so vividly portrayed by your "rant." I'm quite sure that you would have a problem with someone classifying all black people as having the same characteristics, so maybe you should quit labeling all Democrats as "stupid." Democrats are just as diverse a group as blacks, Jews, Arabs or Republicans. If you want to see conservatives back in power, stop the kindergarten crap and give us some ideas, not more name-calling.

Hey Simpleton, and you know who you are.  I'm just back from my lobotomy, and my IQ is still 150 points higher than yours!  You say that you shouldn't acknowledge me, yet you do.  I guess that is what the underemployed do is play on other people's time and money.  Me?  This is just a day at the zoo, and I like watching you contemplate what comes out of your butt.  It's just a shame that I don't have video, but I do have a vivid imagination.


Yes, I won't change my mind, because I am right!  So much so, that you are too "scurred" to take my bet.  That says it all.  You know that Caroline Kennedy is no more deserved of a Senate appointment, than the man on the moon...hint:  he doesn't exist.  Yet you choose to battle on this.  How about you promote one of your NY House members, since you are so enthralled with a "legitimate" answer?  Reason:  They all suck too!  How about one of your good businesspeople in NY, do they not exist. 


But NO, you want royalty, because you libs love a "feel good" story.  You know, like all the good work you have done in the Black community, like...


Slavery
Jim Crow Laws
3/5 Compromise 
Missouri Compromise of 1820
Poll taxes
The KKK!
Institutionalize "slavery", I meant welfare
More alcoholism per capita in the Black community
More drug abuse per capita in the Black community
Highest HS (that's H i g h  S c h o o l) dropout rates per capita
Highest single parent homes per capita
Highest teenage pregnancy per capita
Lowest college graduation rates per capita
Lowest business ownership per capita


Do I really need to go on?  


OMG!  Wow!  Cathartic (look it up!) moment for me!  How could I not see all these GREAT reasons for me, a stupid Black man NOT to vote Democrat for the past five decades?


I's promise to be a good Negro Massa. Thank you fa showin' me the erras of my ways!


Again, when a guy is willing to stand his ground, look you in the eye, when YOU start the crap...he might just be the guy to avoid.  - Confucius (paraphased)


Bring it, Son!

If anybody is your actual answer, then Caroline Kennedy is just as qualified as anybody else.  That effectively renders your rant moot.  You are essentially saying Kennedy is just as good or bad or qualified or unqualified as anybody else.  I'm just going out of my way to say I don't like her.  It's just a: I hate, am jealous of, want attention by criticizing, Caroline Kennedy.  That's fine but certainly not worthy of serious discussion.  It's your personal opinion which matters to no one.  It's the only way you can get someone like me to even acknowledge someone like you.  You are a little obsessed with me.  You said yourself, "Too bad you aren't on video!"  A little gay, but that's the least of your issues.

Since you have already admitted that you will never change your mind no matter what, there is no point to engage you.  Agitate you, yes. Take anything you say seriously, no.  So yes, I'm running away from your offer like you should have run away from that offer of a free lobotomy you obviously accepted.

Smoke and mirrors "Simonesspermcontributor".  


You got your answer: ANYBODY is as good a candidate as Caroline Kennedy. How many times do I need to say it.  Is your computer receiving in English or should I translate into the three other languages I speak?!  ANYBODY with residency in New York, A-Rod, even Steinbrenner.  Johnny Bench, the next cab driver you see, the next shop owner.  Anybody who has had a REAL job!  And I am not joking.  A birthright does not a senator make.  The only thing I would want from the Kennedy gene pool is the money!  Cogent argument, re-read the blog.  


Now back to your obvious "running" from my offer.  Again, I call you out for all your lip service.  You are a meddler in other people's business, and offer nothing to the world except "lip service".

I'm still waiting for you to answer a simple question I posed at the very beginning.  If you can't give me a simple alternative to Caroline Kennedy that meets your approval, why would I engage you any further?  No gauntlet, no escrow, just an effing name and you can't do it.  I challenged you first and you have ignored it.  You don't have a simple name because you don't know what you are talking about.  Your strategy is to change the subject with some stupid bet.  Go back and read the thread.  It's all right there.  Still no name from you.  Make your case, Hackson.  Forget the fake grandstanding and give me a name and a cogent argument for that name.  Until then, the rest is just BS.

Newsflash Dora:  Ever wonder how the term Dumb Dora can to be.  I think I know.  The BLUE states are bleeding the worst.  Google it, if you know how to do that.


I won't give you my resume of putting people before myself, as I prefer my wingman do that.  Suffice it to say that there was a recent article on the philanthropy of Conservatives versus Liberals, and you guessed it, you dunderheads do little for and given even less to the poor, oh except lip service.


Yes the mortgage wager is a fraud.  Because you KNOW you can't find ONE things that Dems have done for Black in FIVE decades of overwhelming support!  You are the racist, bigoted, poverty pimps, and worse, you don't even know it.


The gauntlet has been thrown and you two liberal chickens won't take me up on the offer.  All talk like most meddling liberals.  You know nothing about the issues you claim to serve.  You wreak havoc on everything you touch, then "walk away whistling".  Kill a million Africans with your environmental bans, then look for a Republican to blame.


You won't outlast me on this, as I will continue to point out your hypocrisies with each response.  Do your own research you lazy chumps, and then bring REAL issues. Show me the error of my ways, besides your "gut" feeling of horror that a Black man is handing you your butts on a platter.


"I's sorry Massa for beins a uppity negro."

Dora and simonesdad,

Kevin has offered a very simple and straightforward challenge.  Why don't you just take him up on it and collect?  I hate to even bring this up, but it sure seems like you're doing the same thing that all Democrats do when they are challenged by an successful, educated black person.  You always try to write them off as an uncle Tom rather than applaud them for their success.  You are so afraid that their message will create hope and determination for "minorities" that are dependent on the government to do something with their lives as Kevin did.  If you lose the dependent minority vote, you are toast!  I completely understand why you fight so hard to keep them oppressed.  But will you at least admit it please?

Check the script, Hackson.  The words week and/or weak don't appear in any of my responses to your coonery.  I'm not surprised though.  It would have taken you about 30 second to review the record but you chose to ignore the facts in favor of an attempted insult.  That's your playbook.  That's all you have.  So either you can't read or you can't comprehend and retain information or maybe both.

If you own your house outright, then why the mortgage wager?  It doesn't smell right to me.  You are a fraud.  I'm going to keep letting you embarrass yourself with every post.  You are sort of like a rabid raccoon in a cage that I'm poking with a sharp stick.  I'm enjoying watching you foam at the mouth and work yourself into a rage.  The cage you are in is your own mind and it's a small one.

news flash, Kevin...nearly every state is in financial trouble.  New York is not alone.
the republicans lost the "black vote" because they took it for granted.
another news flash, Kevin...all liberals/progressives/non-neo cons are not the same.  you, on the other hand seem ever so typical of the "I got mine- get your own"  mentality that festers within your ranks and the collective mindset of the selfish attitudes that stink up the joint.
when is the last time you actually placed anyone in front of your own selfish wants?
my guess:  NEVER.

Wow, clever Simonesdad.  I feel sorry for Simone, being sired by such as you.  Gene pool just ain't that deep.


I noticed that you didn't take me up on my offer to pay my rent!  Help a brotha out, as that is what you meddling libs do, isn't it?


Grow a pair, put some money in escrow, and we can let the EXPERTS sort out whose rent gets paid.  In my case, since I own my house outright, we will have to figure an equivalent form of compensation equivalent to your rent...I'm sure I have a cable bill or something you could pay that would equate.


Here's what it will take for me to "go away"...stop responding with your weak, excuse me "week" to use your terminology retorts.  BTW a retort is not just another tort.

Finally, the truth!  You need help paying your mortgage (read: rent).  That's all you had to say in the first place.  I bet you stayed up all night trying to devise your Madoffesque scheme to bait people into your stupid wager.

Go away now.

@Dora & Vince - Solution:  Get rid of the liberals running your state and pick ANYBODY else.  Schumer, Clinton, Rangel...yikes!  Seriously randomly pick a citizen, and you can't do worse.  If you'd like real choices, find a successful business that has survived the liberal onslaught of NY, and let the CEO run it.  It can't be any worse than what you have, which is a state that is practically bankrupt.  


We can discuss this ad nauseum, and I guarantee you that you will not offend me, nor will you change my mind.  You are not armed with enough ammo folks.  If you believe that the socialist bent and ideals of your party can be successful, then just show me where.


And here's a deal that I make with ALL libs.  For every Democrat-only legislation you can name for me that has helped Black people, I will pay your mortgage.  And you must be willing to accept what I can point out as to what Republicans have done for the same bet.  Interested in PUBLICLY taking this bet and putting the money in an escrow account?  I'm very serious about this.


So if you don't take the bet, which you WON'T, then ask yourself why?  Answer:  Democrats have destroyed, yes right word, the Black community.  You pander to us, and we have received NOTHING, zilch, nil, nada, nyet...ZERO!

as for the "Black Sphere":
‘Tis sad to see the wars of some
who take up pens to fire at will
with careless aim, no lack of skill
This warrior holds his truths as shield
His doubled words cinched tight…
This war-like pen, a two-edged sword
Held fast in hand by warrior’s might.

With blinded eye, out shoots the ink
wounding those not heeding
while all about the spoils of war
the frenzied sharks are feeding.

Clearer heads, these will prevail,
of this there is no doubt-
for poison pen and doubled words
know weight but not much clout.

Vince, you...YOU voted for Bush...twice.  'nuff said on the election of non-qualified individuals.  When you become part of the solution, let us know- until then, you are part of the problem.

Whether it be Marion Barry or Sarah Palin or Hillary Clinton, it's the will of the people.  If you don't like that or can't accept that than I guess you have a problem with democracy.  You don't know or don't have a suitable alternative as a suggestion to replace Hillary Clinton, unemployed chimp notwithstanding.  Your goal is to simply name call but I want you to prove me wrong.  Let me hear your solutions. Again, I'm open minded.  Make your arguments.  Tell me about your candidate of choice.  Tell me what you would do with the appointment.  You've outlined your case against Clinton and Kennedy.  Now make your case for whomever.  Anyone.  Someone.  Give me a name.

You don't have one.  You know why?  Because rather than do the hard work of supporting a candidate that represents your views and helping them get elected, you take pot shots from the sidelines.  You don't bring anything new or original or even thoughtful to the discourse.  You can't offer up a single name of someone as an alternative because you have nothing.  All you can do is attack and parrot what you have heard on talk radio. 

I challenge you to make a cogent argument that doesn't include name calling and offers solutions.  I challenge you to name a legitimate  alternative candidate for NY Senator and outline their position and strengths.  I doubt you can do it but I put the challenge out there if for nothing else, to further expose you as the fraud you are.

The Black Sphere?  Give me a break.  Try the Hack Sphere.

@simonesdad - Suggestion to replace Hillary Clinton?  I'm sure there is an unemployed chimp just jumping at the chance.  I posted her actual record on my blog, and impressive as it is to name a few bridges and schools, she has accomplished nothing...likely much like yourself.  I see how you libs are easily fooled.


And I love your reasoning: "If she didn't do a good job, she wouldn't have been re-elected"!  DC re-elected crackhead Marion Barry!  And there are many other shining examples of "liberals gone wild", that get re-elected, but I won't bore the conservatives here.



As for the mandate of ObamaNation, give me $650M and I can become whatever I want.  Obama barely managed to beat up an old White "has been" that the media, hooked up the butt and tossed off the fishing boat.  If he'd had a real candidate to compete against, I think he would have lost.  


But he won, so he now must endure what Bush endured (hopefully only for 4 years) and that is people like me keeping the light shining on him and all the other liberal cockroaches.  So get used to it my friend, as it aint' going away.


You did get one thing right, I am consumed with "fecal" (corrected your spelling!) matter, which is why I enjoy the watching what comes out of that dinosaur brain of your.  Too bad you aren't on video!

You're right.  Bush's latest dabbles in socialism trouble me greatly.  If businesses are run so poorly that they become insolvent they should be allowed to fail.  Too bad there hasn't been a real conservative since Reagan.

I also have found it quite amusing, Dora, that whenever anyone makes an opposing statement it, and the person making the statement are automatically labeled as sore losers, or as having not "gotten over it."

What have I done?  I've started to educate people, and will continue to do so.

As for Obama understanding the constitution... right.  He was the one 'bitching and moaning' that the constitution didn't outline what the government was supposed to do for people.  Even JFK said "ask not what your country can do for you."

hmmm... let's see,  Obama understands the constitution.  understands diplomacy.
understands the need for transparency in government.
understands the necessity to hold your friends close and your enemy closer.
understands what it means to listen.
understands that everyone has at least one good idea - even republicans.

gosh... he's already head and shoulders above the current and cannot leave soon enough resident.

get over it,  Obama won. 
now...what have YOU done lately aside from bitch and moan that is,  Vince?

I find it thoroughly amusing that liberals point at Sarah Palin as unqualified, considering that they deify a man who is less qualified than an alley cat to be President.  Those same liberals are also starting to whine and moan about Mrs. Schlossberg's qualifications.

Hypocrites.

This is a poorly written, poorly constructed, so-called rant.  If you don't like Caroline Kennedy or think she is unqualified, there is a valid argument to make.  You, however, offer juvenile nonsense that actually has the opposite effect of your intentions.  Also, it sounds to me, Mr. Jackson, like you hate yourself based on your rebuttals here. 

Mrs. Clinton was elected twice to the Senate in NY.  By most accounts, she's done a good job for the state.  If she wasn't, she wouldn't have been re-elected.  The Governor appoints the replacement Senator at his own discretion.  That is the law.  The law doesn't say anything about qualifications.  One of the appointments of note that came up during the election was Senator Murkowski (R-AK) appointing his daughter.  Talk about proximity!  You spent the UC's good space tearing down Caroline Kennedy.  Who would you suggest as a replacement?  (sound of crickets here)  I bet you haven't given one single thought.  Come on, give me one name.  Convince me.  I have an open mind and if you have a compelling argument for someone, I'll listen.  (more crickets here)  All you care about is tearing down the other side.  Try building up your side.  I thought that lesson was learned Nov. 4th.  Maybe you were crafting this brilliant piece at the time.  After reading it, I see why you have a fical fixation.

UC, you know better than to put this clown on your site.  You're better than that.

Yeah Jamal, I am a sellout, and that's why you will always work for somebody else.  And though an admitted sellout, at least I'm not stupid, and you certainly are.  


Call yourself Black, because you speak slang and follow other "silly Negroes".  You are the kool-aid drinking Uncle Toming got your head up Obama ass having Liberal that will do whatever Massa tells you.  Come with FACTS, PAB!

there is no such thing as a "black" or "urban" conservative. y'all are just sellout.  Kevin -- or should I say Uncle Tom -- you are a sell out.

Obama!

KAREN KENNEDY IS NO SARAH PALIN? ARE YOU KIDDING OR HAVE YOU BEEN LIVING IN AN INSANE ASYLUM?

I THINK YOU MIGHT HAVE A FUCKING INSECT STUCK IN YOUR ASSHOLE.

Chris, Caroline Kennedy is no Sarah Palin.  Kennedy couldn't get raped in prison.  And Palin actually has had a job involving P&L, and knows what the term SG&A means.


Jason - It's "weak" not "week".  If it were a "week" article, it would take you 7-days to read it.  Oh, my bad, it likely did take you that long.  Stupid, like most libs. 


Alberto - It's a rant.  The story is concise, and makes its points.  I think you got that Caroline Kennedy is about as qualified as my brother's kids?

I think the pointless name calling really degrades the article from what it could have been. There plenty of good points here, but there are so many off-topic ones too...

week article and your reasoning is flawed, like most cons.

yeah, she is about as qualified as Sarah Palin ...

HAHAHA....