January 30, 2007 6:55 AM
Tancredo: no third-party bid
Rep. Tom Tancredo and Pat Buchanan may have a lot in common on issues, especially immigration, but the Colorado Congressman says he won't break from the Republican party to launch a third-party presidential bid, reports M.E. Sprengelmeyer.
"From the beginning, we've had no intention to run as a third-party candidate, ever, and we'll never consider that because he's a Republican, period," said T.Q. Houlton, spokesman for the newly formed Tancredo for a Secure America Exploratory Committee.
Tancredo, R-Littleton, filed paperwork creating the committee last week so he can raise money and decide whether to follow through with a long-shot run for the Republican presidential nomination in 2008.
Some eyebrows were raised when Tancredo chose Kenneth McAlpin, an official from the now-defunct Virginia Freedom Party, as treasurer of his committee.
McAlpin, also known as "K.C.," is prominent in the immigration-reform movement that has made Tancredo famous. He has served as a deputy director for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, and is executive director of the group ProEnglish, which advocates making English the official language of the U.S.McAlpin is not the only Reform Party veteran on "Team Tancredo." Shelly Uscinski, who will lead Tancredo's exploratory bid in the early primary state of New Hampshire, helped lead Pat Buchanan's Reform Party presidential bid in the state in 2000.
January 30, 2007
8:01 AM
David Hakala writes:
I love it! If Tancredo formed a third party he would split the GOP voting bloc. If he remains within the GOP he drives more members out of it.
Some things just can't go wrong! :-)
January 30, 2007
8:05 AM
Michael writes:
Regardless of how badly Tancredo has been treated by the Whitehouse and the current GOP powerbrokers, he is smart to stay within the confines of the party to get attention focused on this issue. It has only been 15 and 11 years respectively since we saw what Perot did to Bush41 in 92 and Dole in 96. As Clinton won both times without a majority of the vote, only a plurality. Tancredo would also syphon votes from the GOP in 2008. Better he plays his hand within the GOP and then back someone with his delegates at the convention who offers to do the most about the issue of illegals in America.
January 30, 2007
8:10 AM
Ben writes:
Excellent. Tom is bringing the heat, and will be holding feet to the fire. Most politicians have cruised on illegal immigration forever,-- before, during and after Reagan signed the Immigration Reform Act of 1986. The "never again" amnesty.
I also believe it a good move at this time to stay within the Republican Party.
January 30, 2007
8:27 AM
jay writes:
There's no voting bloc to split.... With 1% of the vote it's not like he's really going to be taking votes away from anyone else. Good for Tom for raising the radar signature on illegal immigration, even if the majority of Americans don't agree with his solutions.
It really doesn't matter which party he runs in....he'll get the same results regardless.
It's nice to see another political topic after a few days of fluff...but did we really have to go back to the old stand by?
January 30, 2007
8:38 AM
ralph writes:
Great job Tom. I wonder how many Dems jump over since Tancredo is actually looking out for the Dems favorite poster boy, the "working man".
Of course, illegals would never drive down wages, become entitled to scarce (yet free) entitlements such as health care, etc.. ha!
Tancredo can stay or go with Republicans, I don't care. He makes Dems look worse.
Some things just can't go wrong!
January 30, 2007
8:46 AM
Michael writes:
Ralph - Good points. Do you ever wonder why the left, and particularly Hispanics on the left - have abandoned Cesar Chavez and his policy position on "illegals"? He knew that illegals drove down the wages of his legal union workers. He had a grasp of basic economics - something the modern left so lacks today.
What cracks me up about the left is on one hand they scream for a higher minimum wage for low skilled and entry level workers, yet they also lobby for open borders and an unlimited flow of illegals to fill those jobs. Those 2 positions are 180 degrees apart!!! The more of ANYTHING anyone has drives the relative value and market price paid for it DOWN. Including labor.
January 30, 2007
8:47 AM
Anonymous writes:
The Chicano Nation grows from within. Immigration has nothing on Chicanos. We'll breed away, and fill the streets til racists just disappear!!!
January 30, 2007
8:53 AM
Redneck Billy writes:
it be all them damn mexicans fault
January 30, 2007
8:58 AM
JW writes:
"What cracks me up about the left is on one hand they scream for a higher minimum wage for low skilled and entry level workers, yet they also lobby for open borders and an unlimited flow of illegals to fill those jobs. "
Please post a link to someone from "The Left" pushing this position.
January 30, 2007
8:59 AM
Another Chickenhawk writes:
Tancredo doesn't have plans to defend our boarders. He has plans to expand our boarders world wide. " American leadership is good both for America and for the world; and that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle. "
http://www.newamericancentury.org/
January 30, 2007
9:16 AM
David Hakala writes:
"Tom is bringing the heat, and will be holding feet to the fire."
By "feet", Ben means GOP voter registrations. :-)
January 30, 2007
9:32 AM
Ben writes:
Anytime that things such as "guest worker program" or any other "break" is created for feel-good legislation toward illegal aliens and illegal immigration, in addition to lack of the enforcement of immigration law, is in my opinion, a covert step toward open borders.
home.att.net/~bob.wallace/openborders.html
P.S. Don't disregard Bluetick Democrats who have stated they would not vote for "GWP"-Amnesty ie. Heath Shuler comes to mind.. Also The Teamsters Union (1.5 million) is on record against creation of new "GWP's". That's a lot of added bipartisans seeing the light.
January 30, 2007
9:38 AM
Anonymous writes:
so what ben is saying is that only in his mind are the left advocating open borders
thought so
January 30, 2007
9:43 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hey Hakala, shouldnt you get off your fat lazy ass and get a real job so your kid can get some health insurance? Maybe attend a real school? Deadbeat
January 30, 2007
9:47 AM
history buff writes:
Tom has a good hand to play. He can't win a statewide election in Colorado, but maybe he can become a national name. Like Paul Newman, he could market a line of healthy Italian foods like olive oil, Italian dressing, pasta sauce, olives, pasta, expresso, brochette, gnoche, risotto, pizza, and other all American items. Tancredo's, American as fast cars, guitars and hillbilly music.
January 30, 2007
9:48 AM
Anonymous writes:
I see our friend Harry Palm is back, and making his usual brilliant points. Nice to see he can still stay on point.
January 30, 2007
9:56 AM
Political King writes:
Dont worry political fans, there will be a third party candidate for president. The Libertarian party will announce their candidate at the National Convention, held here in Denver!!
January 30, 2007
10:03 AM
jay writes:
PK,
Since you're a learned Libertarian...I'll ask you the same question I do all of your party. With about 7K party members in Colorado (representative of the country), how do you intend to be competitive in a national race? What plans does your party have to break the headlock the two major parties hold on funding for political races? Is there legislative action you are championing to make the political playing field more level to your cause?
January 30, 2007
10:10 AM
JW writes:
Tom doesn't have a chance in hell, and its a good thing.
No matter what you think about his stance on illegals, his stance on LEGAL immigration is nothing short of idiotic. Cutting the numbers of Legal immigrants would be foolish beyond belief.
January 30, 2007
10:31 AM
Ben writes:
One thing at a time. Lets concentrate on our porous and unsecure borders/ ports combined with the millions of illegal aliens here now and still coming by the thousands daily and millions anually.
January 30, 2007
10:39 AM
odie writes:
Oh, and let me be the latest to thank the Libertarians for putting Bush in office. Yes, if that self-inflated egotist Nader hadn't insisted on siphoning off votes in 2000, Bush would have lost Florida decisively.
On the Tancredo argument, I say let him run as a Republican. He'll filter off most of the wacky vote, and the rest of Republicans can go back to electing moderates, and not these tax and spend phonies (like W) who call themselves Republicans, nor the "why should we have separation of church and state" meatheads like Buchanan. You don't get a "godly nation" when you allow religion into your government. What you get is the Middle East.
January 30, 2007
10:40 AM
Poltical KING writes:
Jay,
It’s a good question that you ask because I know it appears as a major hurdle for minor parties wishing to increase their political clout.
First, your number of registered Libertarians is fairly accurate, but your assumption of their proportional strength nationwide is a little under developed. In many areas of the country, particularly at the local levels, Libertarians are already reaching double digit registration. Meaning that, the party is approaching a state of critical mass, which will propel it to a point that it will have the foundation to dislodge the funding log jam that currently exists within the two-party system.
As it is the vote of people that maintains the current system, so it is people that can redefine the political landscape. Yet, in order for that to happen, people need to start believing in, and owing the voting process. If everyone who said: I would vote for the 3rd party candidate if only….” actually did, then we would see a dramatic shift in the political process. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. Thus, education of voters is a major goal of the Libertarian party.
I believe that the Libertarian party is the solution to much of our political corruption, but we must be in power to do so. Thus, more people must be educated to our message. With education, people are provided an opportunity that formerly has scarcely existed in the American political landscape, choice. I believe that getting voters to exercise this choice then naturally follows.
BTW, legislative action might be conflict with the principles of the party.
January 30, 2007
10:45 AM
Anonymous writes:
odie,
Nadar was part of the Green party, not the Libertarians. But, the fact that the two major parties lose because of a third party in the race is a testiment to the fact that the two major parties don't accually represent their memebership that well; otherwise, why would the success of a third party candidate jepordize another candidate. Perhaps the base is just not that strong for those big parties huh?
January 30, 2007
10:54 AM
Anonymous writes:
I see the partisian hacks are back at it in steady force. Jay and JW, why dont you just open a store and call it ALL THINGS LIBERAL. Where if it isnt liberal, ITS CRAP
January 30, 2007
10:57 AM
jay writes:
PK,
Yeah I understand that educating the masses on your party's stances is a key to larger voter turnout. Major parties do that by spending tens of millions on media saturation.
My question was how do you compete with that? You mentioned that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. What is the Libertarian party going to do differently to achieve better results?
10:54,
Would you like to add to the discussion or are you just here to attack folks with which you don't agree?
January 30, 2007
11:01 AM
gr8fuldude writes:
jay - 10:54 is pretty clearly harry, operating under whatever personality his meds are giving him today...
btw, you were talking movies last week...we saw "babel" over the weekend, and really liked it. Well worth seeing.
January 30, 2007
11:06 AM
Michael writes:
Odie -
'nor the "why should we have separation of church and state" meatheads like Buchanan'
My offer still stands to religio-phobes like you.....find for me the phrase "separation of church and state" ANYWHERE in the US Constitution and I will pay you $1000.00. And don't feed me the crap about it being "implied". The Founding Fathers were very expressive and explicit in their use of words. They intended and wrote that we have a freedom OF religion...NOT a freedom FROM it. It was meant to keep govt out of religion, not God and religion out of govt.
January 30, 2007
11:17 AM
Ben writes:
Michael -
Nice untwisting of the liberal spinning and seemingly blatant misinterpetations. You may have to do it regularly.
January 30, 2007
11:18 AM
JW writes:
"Jay and JW, why dont you just open a store and call it ALL THINGS LIBERAL. Where if it isnt liberal, ITS CRAP"
Tell me why its a good idea to cut legal immigration quotas down to 10-30k a year.
"It was meant to keep govt out of religion, not God and religion out of govt."
Mikey, this is pretty simple. It IS in the constitution that the government shall not make laws promoting one religion over another. Using Christian religious philosophies as the basis for law is doing EXACTLY that. In addition, if Chirsitan religious philosophy is made law, it DIRECTLY subjugates other religions, including those of us who's religion is "No Religion".
In short, your belief that your Christian views should be made law, if enacted, will hinder my freedom of religion, because I don't subscribe to the same things you do. If your beliefs are law, I will be prohibited from practicing my beliefs BY LAW. Freedom of religion necessitates freedom from religion simply because there are so many different religions in this country. Make one law, and you subjugate the freedom to practice the others.
January 30, 2007
11:18 AM
Obvious writes:
"Major parties do that by spending tens of millions on media saturation."
And they continue to dupe the morons who continue to vote Rep/Dem. In America its all about the advertising.
January 30, 2007
11:19 AM
jay writes:
gr8tfuldude,
I hear it's good...need to make some time for it. We saw The Departed last night...I loved it. I won't spoil anything for those that haven't seen it, but the plot is excellent and it might have the best cast of the year. Jack is still the man.
Michael,
What do you think about the whole separation of church and state. Would you like to see more gov't funding for religious institutions and initiatives?
January 30, 2007
11:23 AM
jay writes:
Couldn't agree with you more Obvious...which gets back to my original question about the Libertarian Party. What steps can they take to level the playing field? Their current methods are obviously not getting it done...what's next on the whiteboard?
January 30, 2007
11:27 AM
Michael writes:
JW -
I NEVER once used the term "Christian". Yet you have quite a few times. Seems you are the one who is paranoid about it. And also, name ONE, please just ONE law that has ever been passed or even submitted by the current admin or anyother than promoted Christianity, or any religion, ahead of another?????
January 30, 2007
11:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
how about the veto of stem cell bill
how about the new practice of funding "faith-based" initiatives
how about not funding orgs like planned parenthood
how about the schiavo fiasco
how about abstinence-only sex education
i can go on all day long mikey
January 30, 2007
11:39 AM
JS writes:
Pleeeaaase, we certainly don't want this biggoted bastard to run for anything! No body can win the presidency without the "brown" vote. That leaves this biggot OUT.
January 30, 2007
11:46 AM
Michael writes:
Jay -
1. I do not believe in any "separation of church and state". It is a fiction foisted upon us by the secular left and ACLU. The only time that phrase was ever used was in a private letter written by T Jefferson. It does not exist in the US Constitution.
2. As for govt $$$ for religous activities and orgs...I am generally NOT in favor of it, but I am not set against it. Giving $$$ to a relgious org is NOT passing a law favoring any particular one.
January 30, 2007
11:52 AM
Ben writes:
Js, Please explain how Tancredo is biggoted. He exposes racial hypocrisy and reverse discriminatory practices and he is bigoted? I think not. I call it fairness. I find him a viable candidate. I bet Tom would get a surprising share of the brown and black vote that is educated. My take- nobody can win the presidency without the white vote.
January 30, 2007
11:55 AM
Michael writes:
how about the veto of stem cell bill.......NOT a law passed favoring any religion. In fact, MOST relgions of the workd are against harvesting unborn babies for spare partes and research, so this is mainstreat across ALL faiths.
how about the new practice of funding "faith-based" initiatives..............again, NOT any one faith was chosen over another. This is equal in all faiths and approaches. No one is favored over another.
how about not funding orgs like planned parenthood.........It is within ANY administrations perogative to fund or NOT fund whatever they want. PP is NOT a religious org so there is NO relgious preference being shown here. Again, a red herring
how about the schiavo fiasco
??????????? No law passed here. Just bluster and talk.
how about abstinence-only sex education........AGAIN.......not religion or faith oriented. MOST if not ALL faiths are against premarital sex. Christians, Jews, Muslims. No one is favored and NO law passed favoring anyone.
i can go on all day long mikey........I am sure you can with all your bullshit analogies and refernces BUT they all are not at all relevant.
January 30, 2007
11:55 AM
jay writes:
You know Mike....you'd fit right in with the folks in the Middle East that don't like any separation between the Church and the Government either. Why do you feel the Church should have influence in public policy? How does such influence not alienate and discriminate against those that don't share your beliefs?
January 30, 2007
11:56 AM
Anonymous writes:
ben - I have to agree with your last point. I think hillary will do well with white women who have been cheated on. Obama will do well with white women with supressed jungle fever who want to giggle over their applebee's chicken salad with their friends, but McCain will walk away with hte white house in 2008.
January 30, 2007
12:09 PM
Michael writes:
"How does such influence not alienate and discriminate against those that don't share your beliefs?" - Jay
I don't care if you feel alienated. I really do not. There is NO law or right in this country for anyone to NOT feel alienated. You are NOT being discriminated against in anyway. Just because you and those like you do not get your way 100% of the time is NOT grounds for claiming discrimination. How do you think I feel when I am subjected to all the secular crap that a "free" country like ours allows in all our media, schools, public arenas, etc??? same story. Your claim of a "no religion" is a religious belief unto itself. The church of secularism and atheism. I say, bring it on. As 85% of this country claims a Christian affinity, I'll bet I will not lose too often. You will just have to deal with it.
January 30, 2007
12:12 PM
history buff writes:
Mike,
You should read the amendment instead repeating the propoganda you have heard. Separation of church and state is a shorthand description of the amendment, which contains two clauses concerning religion. They are the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. But the freedom from religion issue, another shorthand description, is a real issue. I saw a discussion on CSPAN between Bryer and Scalia, part of it about the meaning of separation of church and state. There are good arguments on both sides of the issue.
Personally, I don't want to attend a graduation and have some flaky high school senior tell me how Jesus is the reason they are delivering the speech. PLUESE. I've attended church all my life and anybody who touts their relationship with Jesus as a reason why they are better than other people is a philistine, who Jesus says don't have the right attitude about their relationship with the divine. And I don't need some right wing literalist to take over a public ceremony so they can present their sectarian views about the bible. Most of those people are seeking attention and they appear to have learned not to much about the teachings of JC. Just my opinion. Also protected from government interference by the first amendment on this blog which is protected by the freedom of the press, also in first amendment.
January 30, 2007
12:16 PM
Political King writes:
Jay,
What is the Libertarian party doing to counter act the millions spent by the major parties to retain membership?
Well, indeed it is tough, if not impossible to counter the millions spent, but with all that money spent, it doesn’t stop the bleed of supporters away from the major parties. People are signing up in droves for the Libertarian party, but as you point out, this is not enough to offset the power of the major parties at the time being. So what specifically is the party doing. Well, to start with, it is offering up more, high quality candidates, than ever before. In the past, many considered the Libertarian party to be fringe because of the caliber of candidates that were presented, but now, people are realizing that the Libertarian party is no longer a joke, and that the party to is be taken seriously because more, high caliber personalities are presented on our behalf. Secondly, the party is engaging in fundraising on a scale that was not previously capable. Third, the media groups are finally starting to open up to the notion that people WANT to hear about 3rd parties. For not covering all the candidates makes a newsgroup seem uninformed and exclusionary. Bottom line, it takes years and years to build a party of influence which will endure. To build a party too quickly, is to go the way of the Reform party after Perot, or the Green party after Nadar. The Libertarian party is growing and growing correctly, and it will only be a short time before our larger goals are realized.
January 30, 2007
12:27 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Why do you feel the Church should have influence in public policy? How does such influence not alienate and discriminate against those that don't share your beliefs?
Posted by jay on January 30, 2007 11:55 AM
Jay,
Churches don't vote. Church members have the same rights as anyone else, no more no less. The 1st amendment makes it clear that ALL people have the same rights to express their opinions and to vote to influence THEIR government to implement policies in line with their opinions. Only those on the FAR RIGHT and the FAR LEFT want to remove or restrict peoples rights to express their opinions and to vote for the implementation of those opinions. In our country, all opinions are and should be welcome, but only those ideas with sufficient backing will actually influence the laws and policy of the country.
January 30, 2007
12:28 PM
common sense writes:
Tom please leave the GOP, which is no longer the U.S. Citizens party but the party that believes it should be the rulers of the world, and help every other country but the U.S. I will vote for Tom, but I hope he brings the Republikans back to the citizens of this country not every other country that has no clue how to govern themselves.
January 30, 2007
12:31 PM
Michael writes:
".......freedom from religion issue, another shorthand description, is a real issue."
It may be an issue to some, BUT it ain't no law or a right set down in the US Constitution. There is a way to fix that my easily offended by Jesus friend, amend the US Constitution. It is a living document in that regard, as I agree with Justice Scalia on that point. You want a new right or a new amendment???? The process is quite clear and defined. I wish you well.
January 30, 2007
12:32 PM
Ben writes:
Michael 12:09 I got your point. Well blogged. Though not overly religious I can emphathize. There is a balance to be maintained, and the cult of the secular "progressives" is out of equilibrium.
History Buff- No tolerance for the Christian at the Grad ceremony? I don't think the girl gave a sermon, just thanked her respective messiah. So what. This country was founded on Christian beliefs and doctrines. Maybe she felt she needed to express her religion for some reason. I 've seen Christians discriminated plenty in recent times.
January 30, 2007
12:37 PM
JW writes:
"Your claim of a "no religion" is a religious belief unto itself. The church of secularism and atheism. I say, bring it on. As 85% of this country claims a Christian affinity, I'll bet I will not lose too often. You will just have to deal with it."
And there you have it mikey, in your own words. Your 85% will restrict our "Church of secularism and atheism's" right to freedom of religion, and will just have to deal with it.
Not gonna happen. Thankfully, the constitution guarentees our right to freedom of religion just like it does yours. This is why they put it in the constitution, so a majority like yours doesnt subjugate a minority like mine.
You will just have to deal with it.
January 30, 2007
12:42 PM
Michael writes:
Ben -
Thank you. As a matter of fact, I am not overtly religious either. I am just SO tired of the secular far left and far right wanting to remove all vestiges of our Judeo-Christian heritage and past from the public arena. That is NOT what our Founding Fathers had in mind. If there was to be no vestige of Christian faith displayed in the workings of the US Govt, I wonder why one of the first acts of the new US Congress was to appoint a chaplain for the US Army. A Christian chaplain by the way.
January 30, 2007
12:49 PM
David (R) writes:
As most of you already know, I am not a Christian - in fact, I'm Jewish - but, as long as this thread has evolved into a discussion that includes the topic of 'church and state' and arguments about what that means, I have a quick bit of input, and then a question:
I've heard it argued over the years that the Founding Fathers were obviously Christian. Further, many assert that America is a Christian nation (and being Jewish it would be difficult for me to argue with that view). I've read much of the Federalist Papers a number of times (what truly smart men they were), and I literally have felt they were trying to make the point that G-d should always guide the policies of the government. They also argue vehemently against ordaining a specific religion as the formal national religion (an outstanding move on their parts, imho). It seems to me that what they wanted was for "G-dly" people to lead the nation, but not for them to force their views on anyone.
That said, with the worldwide growth of forced conversion to Islam that has been heavily in the media over the past 5 or so years (Africa, Europe, and Asia, mainly), what effects do people see in a potential "clash"? Other thoughts on the issue?
January 30, 2007
12:50 PM
JW writes:
"how about the veto of stem cell bill.......NOT a law passed favoring any religion. In fact, MOST relgions of the workd are against harvesting unborn babies for spare partes and research, so this is mainstreat across ALL faiths."
Accept the "Church of secularism and Atheism."
"how about the new practice of funding "faith-based" initiatives..............again, NOT any one faith was chosen over another. This is equal in all faiths and approaches. No one is favored over another."
As long as government also funds my "Church of secularism and Atheism." initiatives, Im fine with this also. Equally funds, I should say.
"how about not funding orgs like planned parenthood.........It is within ANY administrations perogative to fund or NOT fund whatever they want. PP is NOT a religious org so there is NO relgious preference being shown here. Again, a red herring"
This is a gray area. I'm ok with not funding it, even if your reasons are faith based. Realistically, you could not fund it for other reasons as well. I think its stupid not to fund it as it provides a needed service, but that is just my opinion.
"how about the schiavo fiasco
??????????? No law passed here. Just bluster and talk. "
There were laws passed. Jeb Bush passed several. It forced that poor guy to fight an eight year long court battle. Then idiots in the federal govt tried to pass more laws. Thankfully, it didnt happen, or he would have been forced to take it to the supremes before he could let her go.
"how about abstinence-only sex education........AGAIN.......not religion or faith oriented. MOST if not ALL faiths are against premarital sex. Christians, Jews, Muslims. No one is favored and NO law passed favoring anyone."
Lol. Did you read this before you hit "post"? How the hell can you say "not faith based" and then say "Most if not ALL faiths are against..."
And again, those policies do not include MY faith. Therefore, they do favor certain religions over others.
Oh yea, and they are proven not to work, and therefore a waste of money.
January 30, 2007
1:01 PM
Anonymous writes:
Just kill a few liberals in gods name and they will give you whatever you want. They will start to say "we have ignored and minimalized christians to long" they are chicken hawk people with big mouths and small ideas that dont go past their own personal interests. Please, Kill a liberal today
January 30, 2007
1:03 PM
history buff writes:
Just as the so called personal relationship with God or with Jesus grows from the secular cult of personality, Ben and Mike, or should I call you Moses I and II, I believe your personal interpretation of the establishment clause has its genesis in the same cult. I wish you would expand upon your view instead of making categorical statements like, it is not the law.
I think the separation of church and state was written into the constitution because of the history of religion in England. The English civil war was brutal. Both sides tried to impose their religious views on society. I grew up in a community where the protestant / catholic divide was also very real. As much as the relionists tried to keep the young from marrying someone from the other side, they couldn't do it. Becasue of that, religion played a part in our community, but there was a tacit law that you don't do anything to offend someone from another donomination. That's why when someone talks about their "personal" relationship with God or with Jesus at a public forum, I want to yell out, you are talking to your ego. Don't you go to church?
January 30, 2007
1:10 PM
JW writes:
"That said, with the worldwide growth of forced conversion to Islam that has been heavily in the media over the past 5 or so years (Africa, Europe, and Asia, mainly), what effects do people see in a potential "clash"? Other thoughts on the issue?"
I think its more a clash of old world views being threatened by the process of globalization. Many people view this as "Americanization" which it is patently NOT. The fact that we had the system in place, and there is now no alternative if you want better economic conditions for your group is not something Osama can even comprehend. He just sees his old world views being threatened, and reacts.
"Finally, there are the Super-Empowered Angry Men who don't just use E-Mail. They sense that there is a world-ruling system that they are not, and never will be, part of. In their view, the United States, IBM, The New York Times, Wall Street and the global economy are all part of one power edifice that needs to be brought down. These violent Super-Empowered Angry Men include the Aum Shinrikyo sect in Japan, The Osama Bin Laden gang in Afghanistan, the Unabomber and the Ramzi Yousef group in New York."
"What is interesting about Ramzi Yousef and the other Super-Empowered Angry Men coming out of the Arab Islamic world today, notes Middle East expert Stephen P. Cohen, is that "They used to believe that they had to overthrow their own governments and get control of their own states before they could take on America. Now they just do it directly on their own as individuals." Globalization not only makes it possible for them to attack the Undited States as individuals, it not only gives them the motivation to do it, it also gives them the logic. The logic is that their own states don't represent the real power structure anymore. The relevant power structure is global. It is in the hands of the American super-power and the Supermarkets and they are the ones who tell all other governments what to do. Therefore, if you want to bring down the real power structure you have to go after the superpower and the Supermarkets and not bother with the governmnet of Pakistan or Egypt.
What bothers these Super-Empowered Angry Men is not only the notion that the United States is so technologically superior but that it makes a claim that its values are superior as well, when, in the view of the terrorists, these American valuse are nothing more than soulless consumerism and midless technology worship."
Its not going to end. They simply CANNOT find a place in which they belong, and globalization, and all that comes with it, does not creep in, through the telephone, or the tv, or commerse, the internet, or satelites, or music...
January 30, 2007
1:20 PM
Anonymous writes:
So JW is saying it is best to nuke the entire region, cause NOTHING will change them
January 30, 2007
1:26 PM
Anonymous writes:
Interesting JW
January 30, 2007
1:30 PM
jay writes:
You Christian Crazies kill me. First you deny that there's any influence of Christianity in public policy...then when proved wrong say "deal with it". Gotcha...your way or the highway. I guess I was just hoping for a something with a little more substance.
January 30, 2007
1:33 PM
JW writes:
1:26
You don't even have the tools to understand what was said. Get an education.
"So JW is saying it is best to nuke the entire region, cause NOTHING will change them."
Please. Thats just blanket stupidity. They may be crazy, and there may be nothing that will change them, but they still represent a vast minority. You don't kill every American just because we had the Unabomber, or those idiots that did Oklahoma.
January 30, 2007
1:47 PM
David (R) writes:
JW -
Interesting points. Globalization has caused alienation among those who are threatened by not understanding it, or realizing how it can benefit them and/or their people. In that view, you are right in saying they "cannot find a place in which they belong", because it has vanished from the planet.
January 30, 2007
1:57 PM
Ben writes:
I haven't found any Christian crazies on this blog. Nor denials of Christian influences. I have found some who are tiring of the leftist secularism which is thinly veiled Marxism though.
January 30, 2007
2:00 PM
jay writes:
LOL...you guys are too funny with the communist inuendos.
It is always sad to see people of faith try to hide their beliefs.
What are you ashamed of?
January 30, 2007
2:34 PM
David (R) writes:
No wonder I've been a Pink Floyd fan since the early years - great lyrics.
January 30, 2007
2:56 PM
Ben writes:
"cannot find a place in which they belong", because it has vanished from the planet."
But, it is okay to let them"belong" here in the USA illegally? Nah, we need to practice exclusivity and not inclusivity in regards to legal immigration. Illegal immigration is just that... ILLEGAL. This is what makes Tom Tancredo a contemporary and viable presidential candidate. Globalism to our national detriment is not progressive, it is regressive.
January 30, 2007
3:03 PM
Anonymous writes:
how about a post on the subversion of global warming data and opinion by the white house?
how about the republicans dragging their feet on miminum wage?
possible vetoes of the new legislation?
katrina oversight being squashed?
darfur?
depleted state of the national guard to deal with domestic crisises?
how about gop senators telling bush he is not the decider?
or we could always go back to illegal immigraton and gay marriage:)
January 30, 2007
3:06 PM
David (R) writes:
Hi Ben -
The Muslims that I know who have legally moved to, and become citizens of the US, have very modern views of the world. If we contrast that with what I think JW was making the point on, it would be the radical, militant Muslims who seem to want to keep the world "as it was.", perhaps because they are lost or dysfunctional in the world that now is. In my experience, the non-militant portion are pretty even-keeled, level-headed, educated, and they love America.
January 30, 2007
3:08 PM
Not a jay writes:
Ben, to jay and his ilk any Christian is 'crazy'. They don't understand it so they attack religion. They put up a facade of intelligence but wiser ones can see right thru their insecurities.
January 30, 2007
3:10 PM
Anonymous writes:
anonymous 3:30 .... what about this crap going on? it would make a good thread too. Just plain wrong. Mark?!?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070130/ap_on_re_us/cervical_cancer;_ylt=Akfnp4jLFcrgD.mZOW6E.APMWM0F;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MjBwMWtkBHNlYwM3MTg-
January 30, 2007
3:14 PM
Anonymous writes:
Another day of Jay and JW discussing how bad their vaginas hurt. Yet they think actually think blogging here all day long makes them an intellilect.....pathetic
January 30, 2007
3:15 PM
Not a JW writes:
JW, I know your are slow but are you stupid too? A discussion of Tancredo and the Presidency will involve his views on illegal immigration. THAT, is his platform.
You always insult people but you are the dumbass in this site. You. Could you go back to Daily Kos with your other morons.
January 30, 2007
3:26 PM
jay writes:
I'm very flattered that I am under your skin enough to be included in your moniker 3:08.
I don't think all Christians are morons or crazy or whatever. I just like poking the beehive with a stick someimes when I'm bored with a topic. Don't pout because you're backed into a corner on the issue of religion in government. At least don't deny that it happens. I would still like to hear a reasonable explanation from the religious right on how they justify Christianity playing such a large role in public policy. If nothing else, I'd like to hear how it is not discrminatory against other belief systems to blatantly cater to a particular religious cult, sect, group, etc.
For the record, I think religion provides a necessary framework for life that a lot of people require. There's nothing wrong with that. But don't think that everyone needs that kind of "help", okay?
January 30, 2007
3:39 PM
history buff writes:
Sundance Film Festival’s grand-jury prize for best U.S. drama went to “Padre Nuestro,” an immigrant saga about a Mexican teen’s heartbreaking search for his father in America.
Writer-director Christopher Zalla’s debut film “Padre Nuestro” is the story of a Mexican youth (Jorge Adrian Espindola) who sneaks into the United States to find the father (Jesus Ochoa) he never met, only to have his identity usurped by a conniving fellow illegal immigrant (Armando Hernandez) he meets along the way.
“Padre Nuestro” followed last year’s “Quinceanera” as the second-straight Mexican-immigrant tale to win top dramatic honors at Sundance.
January 30, 2007
3:39 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
That said, with the worldwide growth of forced conversion to Islam that has been heavily in the media over the past 5 or so years (Africa, Europe, and Asia, mainly), what effects do people see in a potential "clash"? Other thoughts on the issue?
Posted by David (R) on January 30, 2007 12:49 PM
David,
Although most of the early settlers to this country were Christians, I believe that many of the most influential leaders were Deists rather than Christian. The 1st amendment was largely a reaction to the forced national Christian denominations of Europe, but they certainly never meant for a public square sanitized of all religious expression which is the goal of humanists.
The main problem we have today is that we have a constitution which gives all kinds of freedoms, and a largely secular court system which systematically restrains those freedoms without legislative action.
With regard to your question, I believe that the present growth (as in cancerous growth) of radical Islamo Fascists will eventually lead to a worldwide struggle for civilization. I hope that I am wrong, but the naieve view that we can all get along if we just talk is going to allow them to grow (like cancer) to a possible point of not being treatable. When you have cancer, you must treat it agressively ASAP, or resign yourself to the consequences. My father elected not to treat his cancer and died as a result. It was predictable and inevitable. I hope the world gets serious about treating radical behavior before it is too late.
January 30, 2007
3:47 PM
JW writes:
"I hope the world gets serious about treating radical behavior before it is too late."
Seems to me people are already serious about it. They just disagree about the methods we should use.
January 30, 2007
4:11 PM
jay writes:
I agree Hogar....religious fundamentalism in any form is bad for society....whether it be Dobson or Osama.
January 30, 2007
5:07 PM
Ben writes:
History Buff 3:39 I am not surprised that the Sundance Film Festival Awards has given for two straight years awards and time to 2 films of illegal alien Mexicans in the USA. It is definitley in their agenda. Rich lefty gringos eat it up, so as to feel good about their "humanity". But, they refused an award winning documentary by Mercedes Maharis titled "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border" because it was too.... now get this.... controversial ! ( I guess child rape isn't though) . Here is a review quote " A powerful and persuasive film documenting the destructive effects upon one community in Arizona by the assault of the illegal alien invasion swamping America's southwestern frontier.
Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border is a labor of love. Director and local resident Mercedes Maharis obviously feels passionate about this compelling and contentious subject, and it comes across in her nonetheless objective camera's eye upon our broken border. From property damage to medical issues to border patrols to deportation, Maharis touches upon one critical issue after another, leaving no
affected area unexamined. At just over an hour, Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border is a feisty film that shows with graphic and gritty focus how an American community is being literally destroyed by the harsh realities of uncontrolled illegal immigration.“(Reviewed by Popsyndicate.com)
“The issue of illegal migrants and all the societal disordering that accompanies their unlawful entry into the U.S. is a huge problem facing the nation today. Richocheting around Congress right now are various bills with vastly different ideas on how to deal with the problem.
January 30, 2007
5:16 PM
Anonymous writes:
the next time you cut and paste a post from someeone else and claim it as your own ben, at least don't steal it from freakishly far right wing websites
http://www.pauac.com/viewtopic.php?p=14737&sid=f0f149d0dff0bd8f179e23635841aa8f
January 31, 2007
3:06 AM
Anonymous writes:
The "radical behavior" that REALLY needs to be addressed:
US borders overrun with UNLAWFUL ENTRY by illegal aliens. Period.
Tom Tancredo is taking a beating from the very people who will thank him in the future! Just watch.
January 31, 2007
8:29 AM
Anonymous writes:
Why is the other side (legal American's) of the immigration "issue" being ignored? Where can we see the film "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border?" And why do we have books for two years running that are Hispanic-oriented on Denver's "all-city must-read" book list? Methinks there's more than a little undue influence being promoted--we don't need the Hispanic culture shoved down our throats by Hickenlooper's "brain trust" (including wifey.)
Plenty of us are quite comfortable with it already, thank you very much.
What we AREN'T comfortable with is the blind eye turned toward illegal immigration, and making Tom Tancredo and those who support his willingness to take on the issue "whipping posts."
January 31, 2007
8:48 AM
Ben writes:
8:29
Mercedes Maharis's "Cochise County, USA: Cries From the Border" DVD can be ordered from amazon.com. Other local DVD outlets may also carry it.
I would suggest you get your local library to order it.
January 31, 2007
9:18 AM
Anonymous writes:
is that your own opinion ben or are you just cut and pasting from websites that support racism again
January 31, 2007
12:05 PM
history buff writes:
Ben
I think you could use a course, or twenty, in film appreciation. If you are saying a film that supports your political ideology is automatically better than a human drama that involves a group of people you dislike, then I say you are using the same sort of standards that Nazi and Communist governments use. The early Soviet filmmakers were censured and censored if their films did not conform to socialist realism. The same happened in Nazi Germany if the film did not express Arian superiority. To make everything political about film is extremist.
Be that as it may, I have added both Quinceanera and Cochise County USA to my NetFlix queue. I would also note that NetFlix viewers rate Quinceanera nearly full four stars and rate Cochise County USA at three full stars.
There is more to a film than a political position. How the film tells its stories and how it uses images, editing, music, etc. are all part of what makes a film excellent or mediocre or bad. Film is powerful because it can make you see things differently than your own perceptions. But then, some people have no appreciation of anything beyond their self centered view of the world.
January 31, 2007
12:25 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
I agree Hogar....religious fundamentalism in any form is bad for society....whether it be Dobson or Osama.
Posted by jay on January 30, 2007 04:11 PM
Jay,
Fervous belief operating within the boundaries set by the greatest legal system on earth is so far different from one who operates outside all legal arenas and enables the murder of thousands of innocent people I almost hesitate to respond to your analogy.
January 31, 2007
12:28 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Please read fervent below.
January 31, 2007
12:33 PM
jay writes:
I'm confused Hogar....are you trying to rationalize the harm that Christian Fundamentalism has done over the years?
January 31, 2007
12:42 PM
Ben writes:
history buff@ 12:05
Your first paragraph is way off base in relation to my postings. Don't misinterpet my sense of basic fairness and respect for people and fair laws, and the simple expectation that respect will be reciprocated, as a dislike for a group of people. I do dislike being disrespected in my own nation by individuals that have no legal foundation to be in my country. Nor should they be allowed to skirt immigration laws or given "breaks" because some deem it politically correct. It is poor governing, and I like America too much to sit quiet.
No need for the film 101 sermon. That wasn't the point, but I gather that's how you wanted it.
Lastly, congrats that you have queued up Mercedes Maharis "Cries From The Border"
January 31, 2007
1:14 PM
Critic writes:
Quinceanara was good if you're mexican or gay. For normal people, not so much.
January 31, 2007
1:15 PM
Redneck Billy writes:
that be right
if it ain't got guns, god or gears it just ain't a good movie
January 31, 2007
1:36 PM
J Bird Street writes:
Jay,
The spatial displacement of your genitalia is undoubtedly insufficient to bolster your general feeling of inadequacy. There fore you compensate by harboring extremist liberal dogma that negates any chance of you being taken seriously by an adult. In other words: STFU you liberal loudmouth needle dik.
Have a nice day.
January 31, 2007
1:47 PM
Dr. Phil writes:
J-Bird - You make some good points, but jay's true foundations of his inferiority complex stem from his father's rejection of him. That's where his codependency, alcoholism and attempts to assimilate are rooted. He's always known that all the other little boys and girls in class are better than him, which is why he tries so hard to appear superior. Sad really.
January 31, 2007
1:57 PM
jay writes:
I absolutely love the fact that I get under your skin. I think it stems from the fact that you can't keep up intellectually so you have to revert to name calling and personal attacks. I could be wrong...but that's my call.
January 31, 2007
2:18 PM
history buff writes:
LOL Ben. I think your idea of a good film would be the swiftboat commie attack ad against Kerry.
I knew that my post about the Sundance awards, cast like a stone fly on the Arkansas River in late spring, would surely get a rise from a fish in the stream.
What I interpret is that you look for the lowest common denominator, hence your characterization of the Sundance people, or people who enjoy film. Drama may take place in a political arena, but the themes are usually more universal, like jealousy destroys love (Othello), truth triumphs over abuse of power (All the President's Men), etc.
January 31, 2007
2:24 PM
Rhett Butler writes:
Frankly HB, I don't give a damn.
January 31, 2007
2:26 PM
am 760 writes:
Jay, isn't it funny yet sad that Harry Palm aka, dr.phil, j.street, never has anything of intelligence to say. It's all just 3rd grade name calling. When you have no knowledge of anything and have only been taught to hate anything from the left I guess you end up w/ the Harry Palms of the world or that 25-30% base of authoritarian conservatives who stil can't think for themselves and need a father figure to tell them everthing.
I don't know what you did to him, I'm assuming nothing other than displaying your intelligence over him, but he sure is pathetic. It's getting to the point though where it's kinda funny to see what he will come up w/ next. Did you see his post about killing a liberal today? Wow, what I guy, you repubs should be glad to have him on your side.
January 31, 2007
2:35 PM
history buff writes:
760 -- the point about the kill a liberal post in the context of the thread was that the poster has the right to worship satan under the first amendment.
January 31, 2007
2:36 PM
Ed Shultz writes:
760 am- how is that Al Franken doing? Did he find a job yet? *howls with laughter*
January 31, 2007
2:43 PM
Ben writes:
history buff, 2:18
Sundance marginalizes it's potential by being slanted left. They are unfair and unbalanced because of obsolete, irrational misplaced oppression via liberal political correctness, thus less respectable. If they were really cutting edge with films they would allow competition from such documentaries such as "Cries From The Border". When you watch it I believe you'll find it fits right in the Documentary category at Sundance, if it was not black listed by the Sundance Film Festival.
January 31, 2007
2:46 PM
Mayor Hick writes:
With the snow getting heavier, I need all of my footsoldiers assembled down at the Cricket for practice of this storm's talking points.
The excuses for the roads following this storm will be:
The roads are clogged with snow becuase it is cold.
The roads are clogged with snow becuase frozen precipitation fell from the sky.
The roads are clogged with snow because of George Bush.
January 31, 2007
2:48 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
I'm confused Hogar....are you trying to rationalize the harm that Christian Fundamentalism has done over the years?
Posted by jay on January 31, 2007 12:33 PM
Jay,
What harm are you talking about, and how are you defining Christian Fundamentalism?
January 31, 2007
2:56 PM
jay writes:
Maybe I had you wrong Hogar. When you said "Fervous belief operating within the boundaries set by the greatest legal system on earth " I assumed you were talking about Christian Fundamentalists operating in the United States.
Was I wrong? Were you referring to someone else?
January 31, 2007
3:00 PM
history buff writes:
LOL Ben. You crack me up. After all, drama is part of the liberal arts. But I don't think it means the same thing in that context as it does to the swiftboat commies. But, did Cochise County USA apply to Sundance? And what about Jesus Camp? It wasn't selected either. And what qualifies you to offer an opinion other than your personal opinion? I know a local fimmaker who had her film rejected at Sundance, but it was shown at other festivals, and she got a distribution deal. She didn't scowl about being rejected, although she has made comments about Hollywood being Jewish so that her Christian themed film didn't stand a chance at being distributed by a major.
January 31, 2007
4:14 PM
critic writes:
HB - Actually Jesus Camp wasn't selected because it was a POS by any standards.
I lost all respect for Sundance after they rejected "Girls Gone Wild" in its debut year...:)
January 31, 2007
4:55 PM
am 760 writes:
2:36 Al Franklen is moving on so he can run for senate. Also Air America was just bought by someone else so its future looks strong as ever. You might want to tune in to Al's replacement, Thom Hartmann, who has to be one of the most knowledgable people on talk radio currently. am 760 from 10am to 1pm
January 31, 2007
5:23 PM
Ben writes:
history bluff@ 3:00
You disappoint.
January 31, 2007
5:23 PM
history buff writes:
I've added Cochise County USA to my NetFlix list, but the description makes it sound like a talking heads documentary -- (yawn). We shall see.
January 31, 2007
6:24 PM
JW writes:
Jay,
You might as well discuss the harm done by Islamic fundamentals with Osama. He believes God's got his back, and therefore has no chance of ever admitting hes wrong. And no doubt, he'd have just as much bs to support him via Islam as Hogar does via Christianity.
Hogar don't like it. Hogar can't buy it. But its still true; Once "God says so" enters the argument, it doesn't matter if you are arguing with Hogar or Osama, neither one is going to budge.
He can't even look at that though, because if he really does use the exact same reasoning behind his beliefs as Osama does, well, Osama is a nutjob who needs to die and is OBVIOUSLY wrong...Leads to the possibility that Hogar could be wrong too, and that is something he just can't deal with.
The difference is that Osama needs to meet a bullet, Hogar needs to be checked by a rational man with a vote.
February 1, 2007
8:44 AM
Anonymous writes:
Tom Tancredo for President!
February 1, 2007
9:10 AM
Not a jay writes:
am 760, you kill me! Al Frankenfluff got run. He would have stayed there milking his overpaid salary forever if they didn't go bankrupt. and the future of Air Scarmierica "as strong as ever".... That is even funnier. Have they paid back the Boys Club in NY that they stole money from yet?
Just another reason why liberal doesn't mean smart.
February 1, 2007
9:25 AM
jay writes:
not a jay....I'm flattered that I got under your skin enough to be immortalized in your screen name. Thanks for thinking of me.
As far as liberals not being smart...that might be...but studies have proven time and time again that the more education you have the less conserviative you vote....if liberals aren't "smart"...what does that make right wingers?
February 1, 2007
9:40 AM
jay writes:
JW,
Couldn't agree more. Religious fundamentalism is religious fundamentalism...regardless of which form it takes. To insinuate that somehow Christian Fundamentalism over the centuries has been less harmful than Islamic Fundamentalism is laughable at best and dishonest at worst.
February 1, 2007
9:56 AM
JW writes:
My dad and I were having this discussion after the State of the Union Address, and I brought up how pissed I was at Bush for pushing this BS about Iran being evil.
As we were talking, he brought up a point;
"Look, them having a nuke is not a good thing. First off, maybe they arent evil, and just want it as a deterrant, maybe NOT. And the scary part is that you can't talk them out of it. Once "God" becomes part of the equasion, there is nothing left to talk about. These are people that might nuke someone believing that "God" told them to do it. It doenst matter how NUTS that is!"
I said, "Yea, I know all about that. This guy on a blog I frequent told me he would pay me money if God doesn't fix global warming."
Stunned him speechless.
February 1, 2007
10:00 AM
Not a jay writes:
Jay, you keep telling yourself- I am smart, I am smart, I am smart....over and over again until you convince yourself. Those studies you cite about libs and intelligence, they were done by libs. That isn't a question, that is a statement. I've seen the anal ysis that they used.
February 1, 2007
10:07 AM
Not a jay writes:
jay and JW- could you pull yourself out of the dark ages about religious fundamentalism into the 21st century?
Compare and contrast Islamic 'extremism' with Christian 'estremists' like Jerry Falwell or James Dobson. Do you see any difference in say, cutting someones head off or Dobson asking people to pray for the likes of you? Surprise me with your critical thinking skills. Or do you just like to bash Christians?
February 1, 2007
10:10 AM
jay and jw fear what they do not understand writes:
To answer your question, they just like to bash Christians.
February 1, 2007
10:17 AM
jay writes:
not a thinker,
there you go again...atttacking science (as in scientific studies)...data is bipartisan pal...don't pout because some information is politically inconvenient for you.
BTW...Who says the history of Christian Fundamentalism begins and ends at freaks like Dobson? You're not much of a history buff I take it.
February 1, 2007
10:18 AM
JW writes:
"Compare and contrast Islamic 'extremism' with Christian 'estremists' like Jerry Falwell or James Dobson."
Osama wants to kill people in the name of Islam.
Falwell and Dobson want to kill women in the name of "Saving Babies".
February 1, 2007
10:21 AM
Anonymous writes:
JW says: Falwell and Dobson want to kill women in the name of "Saving Babies".
Please post a link where either or both are quoted as stating this.
Thanks.
February 1, 2007
10:25 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Jay,
It is obvious that you dislike Dobson. The question I have for you is what laws has he broken, and whose rights has he unilateraly taken away?
I do not disagree that there have been people in all religious persuasions, including atheists who have done bad things, but that does not make Christianity bad. Christianity does not promote bad behavior.
Indeed Christianity promotes good behavior and the vast majority of Christians are a credit to this world, unlike Osama and his ilk.
February 1, 2007
10:26 AM
Anonymous writes:
Actions speak louder than words big guy.
What do you think a ban on abortions would do?
Less unwanted pregnancies with more access to birth control and better sex ed.
I'm surprised you don't understand that.
February 1, 2007
10:27 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Dear Abby:
My husband is a liar and a cheat. He has cheated on
me from the beginning, and, when I confront him, he
denies everything. What's worse, everyone knows
that he cheats on me. It is so humiliating. Also,
since he lost his job five years ago, he hasn't even
looked for a new one. All he does all day is smoke
cigars , cruise around and bullshit with his buddies
while I have to work to pay the bills. Since our
daughter went away to college he doesn't even
pretend to like me. He even hints that I may be a
lesbian. What should I do?
Signed, Clueless
Dear Clueless:
Grow up and dump him. Good grief, woman. You don't
need him anymore. You're a United States Senator
from New York. Act like one .
February 1, 2007
10:28 AM
JW writes:
"Please post a link where either or both are quoted as stating this. "
They don't say it directly. The just push for an abortion ban. They loby for an abortion ban. They get their flock to vote for an abortion ban.
Abortion bans kill women. Not only that, but they don't save any babies.
So...calling for an abortion ban in the name of "Saving Babies" becaue God says so is the same thing as saying Kill the Americans because they are Godless heathens and God says so.
Both are lies, and both result in killing people.
"Indeed Christianity promotes good behavior and the vast majority of Christians are a credit to this world, unlike Osama and his ilk."
Ugh. Shut up Hogar. Vast majority of Christians, vs the vast minority of Muslims makes this statement USELESS. Which is pretty much par for the course with you.
February 1, 2007
10:28 AM
Ben writes:
www.teamtancredo.com
CNN- Lou Dobbs @ 4:00-
After Lou change the channel, and not to MTV.
February 1, 2007
10:29 AM
Anonymous writes:
JW says: They don't say it directly.
So all in a day's work. JW posting more unfounded crap. Nice to see things never change around here.
February 1, 2007
10:35 AM
history buff writes:
Dear clueless, dear clueless
You have no complaint
You are what you are and
You ain't what you ain't
So listen up sister and
Listen up good
Stop wishing for bad luck and
Knocking on wood
Signed, Dear Abby.
February 1, 2007
10:41 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hogar,
I thought we were talking about religious fundamentalism...not your average santa claus/easter bunny church goers. I've always said that religion provides a tidy framework for life that many people need. My problem arises when folks like Dobson presume to know what the country as a whole needs in terms of rights for women and gay people. The same could be said for the folks who fervently believed that allowing women and black people the right to vote or marry and attempted to instill their ridiculous beliefs on the country. While Dobsons actions aren't "illegal"....they don't have to be to qualify as deplorable.
February 1, 2007
10:42 AM
JW writes:
10:29
Its founded. There is proof that abortion bans result in a rise in the death of women. Just because you are too stupid to connect the dots doesnt change it.
February 1, 2007
10:43 AM
jay writes:
Sorry H, hadn't signed in after rebooting...that was me.
February 1, 2007
10:44 AM
Anonymous writes:
JW: There is proof that abortion bans result in a rise in the death of women
Then kindly post proof of this. Without namecalling please, it only detracts from your argument.
February 1, 2007
10:49 AM
jay writes:
sorry H, that line should read "The same could be said for the folks who fervently believed that allowing women and black people the right to vote or marry would tear a whole in the universe..."
Hey, head in sand gal...are you actually trying to say that you don't believe that banning abortion wouldn't result in greater deaths of pregnant women???
wow
February 1, 2007
10:50 AM
JW writes:
"Then kindly post proof of this. Without namecalling please, it only detracts from your argument."
I've posted it before. Fundies dont change their beliefs based on proof, because proof does not trump God.
February 1, 2007
10:55 AM
Anonymous writes:
Actually I asked JW to show proof that Dobson and Falwell want to kill women in the name of saving babies. As usual, he could not.
SSDD.
February 1, 2007
11:01 AM
jay writes:
And you obviously don't get the connect between actions and results.
Ban on abortion=killing mothers.
What about that don't you understand?
February 1, 2007
11:09 AM
Anonymous writes:
Ok jay, since you want to wade in, can you please post a link where Dobson or the like state that they want to kill women?
Thanks for playing.
February 1, 2007
11:17 AM
JW writes:
"Ok jay, since you want to wade in, can you please post a link where Dobson or the like state that they want to kill women? "
Jay, just call this idiot an idiot and have done.
February 1, 2007
11:27 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Jay and JW,
Under your standards of logic and proof, resisting Hitler and Tojo = 62 million dead, therefore resisting them was bad.
Testifying against murders can result in them killing witnesses, therefore we should not arrest or try murderers.
So under your system of justice it is never right to resist wrong, because there might be more wrong done in the process of resisting the wrong.
Resisting evil has always resulting in bad things happening, and that is the fault of those who commit the evil, not those who seek to restrain evil.
February 1, 2007
11:31 AM
Anonymous writes:
Hogar - Great argument, but save your keystrokes...These two clowns are the best thing to support the religious right ever. Between the profanity, name calling and lack of proof for ANYTHING they say, they show themselves to be the mindless footsoldiers they are.
Do some research on athiests and you will find most to be corrupt individuals who lack social connections, self-esteem or emotional stability. Sad indeed.
February 1, 2007
11:47 AM
Not a jay writes:
jay- abortion=killing babies.
What about that don't you
understand?
"Ban on abortion=killing mothers".
You have no data for that. Nothing but your own bias. If the mothers 'choose' to have a coathanger stuck up their privates, that, is their 'choice'.
February 1, 2007
11:50 AM
Anonymous writes:
Not a jay, save your energy. Jay and his mini-me JW can't or won't comprehend logic.
February 1, 2007
12:12 PM
jay writes:
"jay- abortion=killing babies."
and there you have it.
that's why you have no credibility on the matter.
February 1, 2007
12:20 PM
JW writes:
Hogar,
Your arguement sounds reasonable, but its not.
Your hitler analogy is slightly off. It should go like this...
There were two ways to resist Hitler. One would result in 62 million dead, the other only 15. We chose the 62 million dead method because God told us to. (for all you dipshits, no, I am not saying there actually were two different ways to resist Hitler and we chose the one that would kill the most. This is an ANALOGY).
Resisting evil is good. Resisting evil with more evil because youre to stupid to see the less evil alternatives is horrible evil.
But again, you believe God sanctions your beliefs. I have no idea why you participate in these discussions. It does not matter what proofs are offered, what options are on the table, you are STUCK with your belief that you know what God wants. There simply are NO alternatives for you.
February 1, 2007
12:27 PM
JW writes:
You know, I have to point something out.
Were I a "Pro-Life" "Culture of Life" kind of guy, even the suggestion that an abortion ban does not protect life, and actually results in more deaths would lead me to do MY OWN RESEARCH.
Imagine pushing this abortion ban untill you get it, and then being SMACKED upside the head with data telling you the policy you pushed has resulted in more death. Seems to me that would be a scary enough proposition you could go to google and spend some few minuets reading current data about it.
Do we really need to institute your policy, and have you witness the death it will cause before you will look at it rationally?
February 1, 2007
12:30 PM
Ben writes:
Another one of those silly missives that captures the heart of liberalism so well.
Still having a hard time believing any person who has attained any level of intelligence and logic can sit 'on that side of the aisle'.
**How To Be a Good Liberal...
**
***You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on ** **demand.**
***You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments **
**create prosperity.**
***You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding Americans **
**are more of a threat than U.S. nuclear weapons technology in the hands **
**of Chinese and North Korean Communists.**
***You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.**
***You have to believe that global temperatures are less affected by cyclical**
**documented changes in the earth's climate and more affected by soccer **
**moms driving SUV's.**
***You have to believe that defined gender roles are artificial but being **
**homosexual is natural.**
***You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal **
**funding.**
***You have to believe that the same teacher who can't teach 4th graders **
**how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.**
***You have to believe that hunters don't care about nature, but loony **
**activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.**
***You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually **
**doing something to earn it.**
***You have to believe the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts **
**of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain **
**parts of the Constitution.**
***You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.**
***You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Gen. Robert E. **
**Lee, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.**
***You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas **
**and set-asides are not.**
***You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and that she is a very **
**nice person.**
***You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn't worked any-**
**where it's been tried is because the right people haven't been in charge.**
***You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, **
**but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.**
***You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag queens, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and **
**Christian manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.**
***You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the **
**Chinese government is somehow in the best interest to the United **
**States.**
***You have to believe that it's okay to give federal workers Christmas **
**Day off but it's not okay to say "Merry Christmas."**
***You have to believe that this message is a part of a vast right wing **
**conspiracy. **
**Needless to say, I a liberal.**
February 1, 2007
12:35 PM
Ben writes:
Make that "I'm definitely not a liberal" on that last line of my last post.
February 1, 2007
12:36 PM
history buff writes:
Just a follow up on yesterday's discussion about Cochise County USA. The poster Benn and several others critcized the Sundance Film Festival for not including it as a selection. What a false claim. According to the articles on line, the film premiered last summer. Anymore, if you want your film to appear at Sundance, it has to premier at Sundance. Cochise County wasn't eligible.
Ben, you fanticize.
February 1, 2007
1:02 PM
Ben writes:
History bluff,
Reread my previous posts on this subject. Nothing has changed but your squirming and spinning about Mercedes Maharis's "Cries from the Border" and your attempts to discredit it repeatedly, without any facts. Watch it or don't watch it. Sundance is marginalized because they blacklisted it - liberal oppression.
Try this book. "In Mortal Danger" by Tom Tancredo.
February 1, 2007
1:41 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
Posted by Ben on February 1, 2007 12:30 PM
Great post.
February 1, 2007
1:44 PM
Not a jay writes:
Jay- Credibility? Why would I care whether you think I need creditbility to make that statement. You are obtuse. Or just a moron.
If I believe that an abortion is killing a baby, that is my belief. You believe that women will impale themselves on coat hangers in record numbers if abortion is reinstated as illegal. You have to be the biggest braindead buffoon on the net, ever.
February 1, 2007
2:00 PM
am 760 writes:
Ben you are a brainwashed, traitor to this country. Did you get those from Rush limpbaughs web site, or was it the hate monger Sean Hannity or Michael Weiner (Savage).]
See thats the difference between those of us on the left and you idiot red necks on the right. We have went to college, got an education and now can think for ourselves. We don't have to have authoritarian figures tell us how and what to think.
People on your side won't be happy until all our freedom is gone and the government tells you when and what to do.
What a clueless ass you are, I pity you.
February 1, 2007
2:04 PM
Anonymous writes:
AM760 - "We have went to college"...
Is that anything like "having gone to college" or maybe "having attended college".
You don't sound as though you'll be on "Jeopardy!" anytime soon...
February 1, 2007
2:14 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am760
You are certainly a great example of what the educational system can produce. I am still thankful that I only attended high school part time and university hardly at all. I do not require the likes of Ward Churchill to place their imprimatur on me before I can think for myself.
Larry Summers was run out of Harvard on a rail for thinking for himself.
http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/daily/2006/02/21-summers.html
February 1, 2007
2:17 PM
JW writes:
"I do not require the likes of Ward Churchill to place their imprimatur on me before I can think for myself."
But Hogar, you don't think for yourself. The bible and the Republican party do your thinking for you.
February 1, 2007
2:20 PM
am 760 writes:
Yea, if wasn't for us damn liberals, We would have no social security of medicare for the elderly.
We would have no clean air or water since no one would regulate how much corporations can pollute the enviroment.
We would have no equal rights, i.e. civil rights, womans rights, labor rights, religious rights, etc...
We would have no teachers or doctors, artists or musicians.
We would have no fair labor practices.
Automatic weapons and bombs would be just fine in the hands of the public.
You know repubs don't want to regulate anything, it might hurt big business profits, waaaah. Exxon just posted record profits again, but they shouldn't have to be regulated as far as how much they pollute the planet and make us all sick and diseased now should they.
I could go on and on, but you just don't get it.
And sorry about the grammer mistake, Im actually at a job where my time is limited so in my hurry I sometimes make mistakes. Remeber though Bush has never made a mistake.
February 1, 2007
2:26 PM
history buff writes:
Ben, Sundance didn't blacklist Cochise County. If you don't premier at Sundance, you don't dance at Sundance. And it is next on my list at NetFlix, and I have researched it on line. The filmmaker said she decided not to submit it for an Academy Award because the Academy would be against her. What a bunch of rubbish. This is her first serious film and she expects to win an Academy Award. LOL. I'm hoping I will enjoy it, because I like many different kinds of film, but the descriptions make it sound like a talking heads piece, which is not very cinematic. We shall see. I will be sure to give it a review. If you have seen it, why don't you present your review?
February 1, 2007
2:30 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
The bible defines the moral boundaries of my behavior. It does not inform my choices on a day to day basis.
1. It tells me that there is a God who has given that is, and that I owe Him my worship.
2. It tells me that there is nothing I can build that will properly represent Him.
3. It tells me that I should not talk about Him in a way that diminishes who He really is.
4. It tells me that working without taking time to rest will not result to my benefit.
5. It tells me that my parents are worthy of honor and that by honoring them, I will increase my lifespan.
6. It tells me the murdering people is not the method I should employ to get my way.
7. It tells me that God created me to have an intimate relationship with my wife and that I cannot be intimate in that way with others without injuring myself and others.
8. It tells me that taking what others have created is not the way to get ahead.
9. It tells me that I must speak the truth in a way to does the least damage to others.
10. It tells me that I should be content with what I have.
February 1, 2007
2:31 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
HB -
If you're into a little alternative history and insight into some race issues that persist to this day, check out "Confederate States of America"...a look at what may have happened had the south won the civil war. The ending definitely made me think.
February 1, 2007
2:37 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Hogar - Good list - one question though: How would number 5 reconcile to a parent(s) who are abusive? I seem to remember scripture that says to the effect "Parents, do not torment your children" (or something like that)
What do you interpret as the threshold for honoring parents? My old man was an absolute jerk to all of us, and I would think that honoring that sort of behaviours make them seem acceptable on some level. What say?
February 1, 2007
2:43 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8
There is certainly a spectrum of behavior in any relationship. Almost all people carry scars of one sort or another. We are sinners, who were raised by sinners. I think it is always possible to honor your parents if for nothing more than for giving you life. Bad behavior should never be honored, but it does not mean that we have to behave badly in return. If a parent commits a crime against their child, that child should certainly seek the protection of government, but they do not have to hate that parent, even if that parent commits a crime which results in their execution by the government.
February 1, 2007
2:45 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8,
Here is the verse you alluded to.
Ephesians 6
Children and Parents
1Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. 2"Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— 3"that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth." 4Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord.
February 1, 2007
2:52 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
Hogar - I figured you would know the verse...the reason I asked is that several years ago, I did some volunteer work in a drug and alcohol treatment facility in Connecticut. A VERY recurring theme that I noted in substance abusers was poor parenting. Incest, abuse of all natures, and the like. Although I know that as adults, we are all accountable for our choices and decisions, I have to wonder (rhetorically) just how many lives have been touched for the worse by bad parenting. That's one of the reasons I've never wanted to take on that role myself.
February 1, 2007
3:06 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8,
I think your fears regarding parenting are unfounded. The fact that you recognize the dangers involved in bad parenting, puts you solidly in the camp of good parents. You are certainly not doomed to repeat the mistakes of your father. I have many of my fathers tendencies, but it has helped me to make better choices. Still far from where I would like to be, but my kids such a source of joy (and heartache) that I would never want to not have them.
Here are a couple of verses that deal with the relationship between who we are and who are parents are.
Ezekiel 18:19-21 (New American Standard Bible)
19"Yet you say, 'Why should the son not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity?' When the son has practiced justice and righteousness and has observed all My statutes and done them, he shall surely live.
20"The person who sins will die The son will not bear the punishment for the father's iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son's iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself.
21"But if the wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed and observes all My statutes and practices justice and righteousness, he shall surely live; he shall not die.
February 1, 2007
3:13 PM
history buff writes:
8-
Checked out your recommendation. Spike Lee was a producer of CSA. My favorite alternative history show is probably the original Star Trek episode where Bones goes mad, jumps in the transporter to a time in the 1930s and changes history. So, Kirk and Spock must go back to the time just before Bones is transported into the past to stop him from changing history. Bones saves a woman, Edith Keeler?, who instead of dying, rises to lead a pacifist movement that keeps the US out of the World War II, allowing Hitler to develop an atomic bomb and to conquer the world. While preparing to prevent Bones from saving the woman's life, Kirk fall in love with her and has to let her be killed in a car accident for the good of humanity. Actually, one of my favorite Star Trek episodes.
February 1, 2007
3:20 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
HB - Interesting premise on the Star Trek episode...If Netflix has it, check out "Miracle Mile"...similarly eerie.
As to CSA, I think Spike Lee was more used in name only, though I can see him supporting the message of the movie, as it speaks to prejudice in all forms. Kind of hits everywhere in the same manner as "Crash".
February 1, 2007
3:26 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8,
Here is a question to ponder?
Would you rather not have been born than to experience the less than perfect upbringing of your father?
February 1, 2007
3:42 PM
gr8fuldude writes:
ooooh...spontaneous headache!
While my own situation was less than great, I wonder far more about some of the kids I worked with back east who honestly would have answered that question by not wanting to have ever been born. I worked with teens who had unspeakable things done to them, and as a result, saw their lives and bodies as completely expendible. Sad really. (If anyone's curious, the facility was Silver Hills in New Canaan, CT)
I certainly think life is better than nonexistance. I shudder though when I think of the kids who have unspeakable evil visited upon them at the hands of a parent. The local woman and boyfirend who last year were tried and sentenced for her permitting him to repeatedly rape her two kids comes to mind. I think as a race, we have found a multitude of ways to harm each other. Very sad indeed.
February 1, 2007
3:59 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
gr8,
Certainly we need to create an environment where the weakest members have the necessary protection to grow up with as little damage as possible.
Thank you also for your time given to them to help them heal. The human spirit, soul and body is capable of incredible healing given the right environment.
My kids have been involved in a local outreach called Sox Place which seeks to help some of the young downtrodden gang an foothold and get back on their feet.
Better to light a candle than curse the darkness.
http://www.soxplace.com/index-home.shtml
February 1, 2007
4:01 PM
am 760 writes:
Hogar, your religion tells you to vote for any politician that is "Right to Life", against gays, etc... and to vote against anyone who thinks differently.
And what a hypocrite you are: now you want govenrment to intervene on the behalf of an abused kid. I thought you repubs just told everyone to pull themselves up by your bootstraps, pray and quit whinning because it creates the nanny state. Which is it Hogar, do you want government to help people(like the dems do) or do you want the gov. to stay out of our lifes( like repubs do). You can't have it both ways.
Oh and by the way, what a loving Christian you are by bashing me and my education. As I said before you ilk is what Jesus talked about when he talked about the Phariasees. Your a bunch of hypocrites who think you know everything because you can quote the Bible, but your daily actions go completely against what Jesus taught.
February 1, 2007
4:18 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am760
I am pro life. I think that is in line with what Jesus taught.
I am not in favor of giving tax breaks to someone just because they want to engage in sexual behavior that is consistently condemned in the Bible. I don't hate gays, but neither will I vote to give them special status.
I don't want government to intervene on behalf of an abused kid, I want government to protect all people from physical harm unlawfully inflicted on them by others. That is the Biblical and civil responsibility of legitimate government.
I was not bashing you about your education, I was agreeing with you that higher education has made you the person that you are. My attack was upon the higher education system.
I am not a hypocrite, I actually believe everything I say, unless I am being sarcastic or trying to be funny. I even try to warn you if I am going to make a statment in one of those genres, as I don't want you to misunderstand me.
So I have never attacked you personally. Can you say the same about me?
Thanks again for helping your patients, I truly have a very high regard for nurses.
February 1, 2007
4:27 PM
JW writes:
"I am pro life. I think that is in line with what Jesus taught."
Thats probably true.
The problem is that Jesus never told you you had to be stupid, and support "Pro-Life" policies that are actually "Pro-Death".
February 1, 2007
4:39 PM
am 760 writes:
Hogar, gays don't want special status, They want equal rights, just like everyone else. What is wrong with that?
Im on the side of Jesus by trying to protect everyones rights, not just those who right wing christians say.
Im not gay and think its an evolutionary dead end, thus not natural, but, these people still deserve the same rights as everyone, i.e. visitation and finacial rights regarding the passing of there partner, etc...
Would Jesus discriminate against these people? Did he not sit down and have supper w/ the tax collectors and say he was here to help the sinners, which the pharaisees could not understand. Is this not how you and evangelicals think? You don't want anything to do w/ the poor or downtrodden, the gays, the pro-choice, the prostitutes, the sick or those who just can't help themselves. Its there problem and damnit my taxes aren't going to help this people, right.
PS. I'm not a nurse, I work in rehab. If I have attacked you, I apologize, I think I was only attacking your close-mindedness on so many issues not you personally.
February 1, 2007
5:05 PM
am 760 writes:
Hogar, Jay, JW, please see my post on cervial cancer blog, thanks, im out for now.
February 1, 2007
5:20 PM
Ben writes:
am 760-response to 2:00 posting.
That was a narrow-minded bigoted- racially insensitive post. I would trust that you could do some critical thinking. I am glad I struck a nerve. Leftist ideology is moribund, and from your blog, you exemplified why.
May I suggest diversify your media. You seem brainwashed.
Hogar:
Glad you liked the "How to Be a Good Liberal".
History Bluff-
Just watch the movie already. I believe you will like it. Enjoy with open mind.
February 2, 2007
10:48 AM
am 760 writes:
Ben, Im glad I struck a nerve. Your blog was the hateful one. Im on the left and none of those things apply to me, just right wing talking points that have no basis in reality. Its funny you talk about being open minded, I see little of that in you.
Did you know the definition of liberal, includes being open minded, where as the definition of conservative means being skeptical to change. If you consider yourself open mined, your a liberal Ben.
February 2, 2007
11:30 AM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am 760
Thanks for your work in rehab. You make a real contribution to the quality of life for all your patients.
With regard to equal rights, I am all in favor of equal rights. But the gay marriage amendments do not apply to all and therefore are special rights. Hetero marriage conveys special rights as well, but that is a product of majority opinion expressed through election.
Jesus told people repeatedly to stop sinning. I do not hate sinners, I am a sinner, but I want to help people to stop sinning, not enable them to continue sinning.
With regard to the term liberal, I am a classic liberal for the most part, but not in its modern incarnation.
Below is an excerpt from Wiki which describes the contrast. The main difference is that modern liberals want to take money away from those who have earned it and provide things for those who have not earned it. That should happen on a voluntary basis, not with the force of government.
"Broadly speaking, liberalism emphasizes individual rights. It seeks a society characterized by freedom of thought for individuals, limitations on power (especially of government and religion), the rule of law, the free exchange of ideas, a market economy that supports free private enterprise, and a transparent system of government in which the rights of all citizens are protected.[2] In modern society, liberals favor a liberal democracy with open and fair elections, where all citizens have equal rights by law and an equal opportunity to succeed.[3]
Many new liberals advocate a greater degree of government interference in the free market, often in the form of anti-discrimination laws, universal education, and progressive taxation. This philosophy frequently extends to a belief that the government should provide for a degree of general welfare, including benefits for the unemployed, housing for the homeless, and medical care for the sick. Such publicly-funded initiatives and interferences in the market are rejected by modern advocates of classical liberalism, which emphasizes free private enterprise, individual property rights and freedom of contract; classical liberals hold that economic inequality, as arising naturally from competition in the free market, does not justify the violation of private property rights."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal
February 2, 2007
2:09 PM
am 760 writes:
Thanks Hogar, I still prefer liberalism to conservativism. With your intelligence its hard to believe you support the repub party. I have to go have a good weekend.
February 2, 2007
6:19 PM
Ben writes:
am 760: When you hurl racial epithets in this day and age, guess what... you are a bigot and a narrow minded hater, irregardless of your ideology. (See your posts below) You will not get a pass, even if your victims are white or not to your ideological liking. Welcome to the 21st century.
February 5, 2007
4:36 PM
Hogar De Vuelta (العودة) writes:
am760,
Most of the time when I walk into a voting booth, I am not happy about the choice that I am given. As I look at the difference between Republicans and Democrats, I find that Republicans most often have a head, but are often missing a heart. Democrats on the other hand usually have a heart, but are often missing their head. These are generalizations, but they point out that we usually have a choice between a rational solution or an emotional solution. Both come up short, but I am more concerned with the emotional solution in a world filled with terrorists.