You mean this moderator?
.
By The Associated Press
Details of Monday's debate among Republican presidential candidates:
Who: Gary Bauer, Texas Gov. George W. Bush, Steve Forbes, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, Alan Keyes and Sen. John McCain of Arizona.
Where: Civic Center of Greater Des Moines, Des Moines, Iowa.
When: 8 p.m.-9:30 p.m. EST.
Television: Locally by WHO-TV, and nationally by MSNBC.
Sponsors: WHO-TV and MSNBC.
Moderators: NBC's Tom Brokaw and WHO-TV anchor John Bachman.
10027. JJBiener - 12/12/1999 11:54:30 PM
Isn't it possible that Al Gore, rather than lying, simply assumed incorrectly that the characters in Love Story were based, to a greater
extent than they actually were, on himself and Tipper?
Interesting thought. That leaves us with a choice. Either Gore is a liar or an idiot. Neither one is a qualification for office.
10028. CalGal - 12/13/1999 12:00:12 AM
Jay,
I expect they'll be pleased to see movement away from regulation toward court awards based on torts incurred by the manufacturers of dangerous products that injury the liberty interests of citizens affected by those products.
You'd think so. But I've noticed that many libertarians have a strong case of the "shoulds". And I don't think they'd like the way the court cases are going.
I sure as hell don't, quite frankly. It alarms me, how cheerfully juries are willing to find ways to blame people who can pony up cash.
10029. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 12:09:09 AM
CalGal- rest easy, the majority of the wild verdicts you hear of are never paid. They are settled for far less, or reduced by the judge or on appeal. The insurance industry loves to parade a series of horrible cases before the public, and pretend that they have to pay those verdicts, so they can leech even more premiums out of the suckers.
Two favorite cases- One is a multi-million verdict against a Baby Bell for a guy hit by a drunk driver in a phone booth. Sounds horrible, why should a phone company be responsible for a drunk driver? What they left out of the facts was that the booth was placed too close to the street, that it had be hit before, and that the door had jammed in the past trapping customers in it. The victim saw the drunk driver, tried to get out of the booth and was trapped by a malfunctioning door. He had to watch the bastard hit him. The jury found that both the driver and the phone company were at fault, and the driver didn't have crap for assets or insurance. Get your hankies out for the phone company.
Another was a 12 milllion dollar verdict for a psychic who lost her abilities after a CAT scan. The company never paid a dime. The judge threw out the verdict, after realizing he'd found 12 suckers who call into the late night informercials for a jury. Boo Hoo...
10030. CalGal - 12/13/1999 12:14:37 AM
I was thinking more of the gun manufacturing cases and the tobacco company suits. If I understood Jay, he was asking if libertarians were happy with the recent trend of governments to take companies to court, rather than to change the laws. Juries being so much more manipulable than legislators. Who'da thunk it?
10031. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 12:25:28 AM
CalGal- I don't think that on average, juries are more easy to manipulate than juries, I think that the means of manipulation are different. Since local governments rarely have the ready capital for lobbying at the same rate as industry groups, and they usually have a law department already up and running, they can get more bang for their buck in a court. Bottom line, its cheaper to manipulate a jury than a legislature. Finally, if there is any justice to the claim, the cost is usually even less for the city and more for the company.
10032. CalGal - 12/13/1999 12:36:19 AM
Bottom line, its cheaper to manipulate a jury than a legislature.
That pretty much seems to contradict the rest of your post.
Cost is a component of ease.
The point is that governments are doing their damnedest to get money out of corporations to pay for expenses that they don't think they should have to cover. They are doing this because, as you say, it's cheaper to get a jury system to agree with them and bilk corporations, rather than try to get the laws changed so that they wouldn't have the expenses in the first place.
It's a fairly loathsome practice, IMO. But then, I'm a process freak. Right now, it's only being exploited by the left side of the spectrum. It will be interesting to see what happens when conservatives start to use it. I hope it's fairly soon, since that might mark the end of the trend.
10033. robertjayb - 12/13/1999 12:41:51 AM
.
ESSAY / By WILLIAM SAFIRE
The Curse of Bigness
10034. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:22:44 AM
What they left out of the facts was that the booth was placed too close to the street,
Irrelevant and silly. Typical bullshit. "Now your Field manual states you should place a phone booth twelve feet from this sort of thoroughfare, and yet you only placed it TEN feet away..."
that it had be hit before, and that the door had jammed in the past trapping customers in it.
This is the nonsense pretext upon which the verdict hangs. Trial lawyers know juries just want to give big payouts from big companies; they just have to conceive of a far-fetched, implausible, but legally ACCEPTABLE pretext upon which the jury can hang their billion-dollar verdict.
The jury doesn't believe the bullshit about the door being stuck; they don't believe the victim actually "watched the car coming"; they don't believe the victim could have gotten out of the path of a quickly moving car but for a "stuck door." They PRETEND to believe it to do what they're emotionally predisposed to doing: Handing out a big judgement.
And lawyers know all they have to do is come up with such an implausible, but legally permissible, theory of liability on the part of a big corporation in order to give their clients a yank on the arm of the Bullshit Million Dollar Verdict Slot Machine.
10035. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:35:38 AM
And that I know from experience. I worked for a law firm where we defended McDonalds from a lawsuit brought on behalf of three career criminals and drug dealers who had been shot in the parking lot in a drive-by shooting.
The pretext the three shot punks used to sue McDonald's? That the lights in the parking lot weren't quite bright enough, thus inviting such motorized assassination attempts; and that McDonald's really ought to have had patroling guards in the parking lot as well and a security checkpoint/turnstile.
Let me add, somewhat irrelevantly, that the three punks claimed to have permanent injuries which prevented them from working, but we had private detectives who videotaped them dancing vigorously just after the accident, celebrating.
10036. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:37:43 AM
Oh-- and of course the punks didn't just sue the individual McDonald's franchise, which was independently owned. No, they saw fit to sue the McDonald's Corporation itself, claiming that they really ought require security checkpoints and guards for all of its franchisees.
And ultrabright halogen spotlamps in its parking lot, of course.
10037. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:39:00 AM
It is on such phantasmal pretexts that charlatans invent a bullshit duty of care on the part of a deep-pocketed (but absurdly remote) defendant.
10038. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 1:46:11 AM
Well? Don't keep us in suspense, Ace -- what was the outcome? Did the punks win? Or did the judge tell 'em to piss up a rope? Or was it a deposition, where it's just a bunch of lawyers?
10039. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:46:41 AM
I don't think Jones is lying, by the way. I think he really believes the bullshit he's spewing.
But he's in that business-- on that side of the business. He has a vested interest in seeing what he does not as venal, parasitic, and dishonest, but as noble and heroic.
And thus he DOES believe that-- because deep inside he needs to believe that.
Pimps think they provide a valuable, indispensible service to society too. Just ask them. They'll tell you all about it.
10040. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 1:49:41 AM
Cart:
I dunno. I only worked on one aspect-- I was trying to get the lawsuit tossed out as to the McDonald's Corporation. We won on that count, but the lawsuit proceeded against the franchisee.
I don't know what happened there, because I didn't work on that part, and I had other work. Then the firm merged with another and one third of us (and two thirds of my class) were booted out.
10041. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 1:58:12 AM
But why on earth would "libertarian types" have a problem with that? After all, we all know that "libertarian types" equate majority-might with right.
10042. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 1:59:18 AM
Downsizing -- the sport of the '90s.
While there's plenty of scam artists out there looking to push a deep-pocket corporation into a settlement or a bloated judgement, there's also plenty of companies that cut corners and endanger people with unsafe products and services. So while Jones may defend some weasels, we also need people like him there to at least help keep corporations somewhat in check.
That said, I also find it disgusting that individuals are being allowed to receive enourmous sums from tobacco companies or gun manufacturers. Very dangerous precedents being set there. Someone needs to set those folks straight on the concept of personal responsibility.
10043. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 2:00:23 AM
Then again, "libertarian types" do believe that pimps provide a valuable, indispensable service to society.
10044. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 2:02:41 AM
The "that" in #10041 referred, of course, to #10037 and previous.
10045. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 2:09:37 AM
Cart:
Of course there are perfectly legitimate lawsuits. But in my McDonald's case, I came across million dollar awards for a woman who had been raped while working at a Kentucky Fried Chicken and other such nonsense (the pretext for the KFC judgement? That the lights in the restaurant's rear (where she was ambushed while taking out garbage, then dragged inside to be raped) should have been brighter. Lighting seems to be the pretext of last resort in a lot of these cases).
There is a BIG difference between suing a company whose product is defective (though a lot of those are bullshit, too) and suing a company because some thug raped or shot you on their premises.
10046. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 2:15:50 AM
Ace:
I could sorta understand the KFC judgement if something similar had happened there before, and the store just refused to take some safety precautions. And let's be honest, lighting is a factor to a criminal.
But yeah, lots of juries simply like to play Santa Claus with other people's money. Plus there's this weird mentality that whenever something bad happens to someone, reparations must be made. And if the perp is broke, then whoever isn't broke will suffice.
10047. Stumbo - 12/13/1999 2:23:40 AM
Ace:
"Lighting seems to be the pretext of last resort in a lot of these cases."
I'd rather guess that it's a crucial part of the emotional appeal. "Had Evil Corporation XYZ installed 85-watt lightbulbs instead of 80-watt ones, my client wouldn't have been raped." 5 watts vs. a rape, just like $5 (or whatever) vs. a few deaths, in the GM case. The less significant the alleged failing on the part of the accused, the higher the jury impact: "... and it would've only cost them this much to avoid the problem, but they didn't do it!"
10048. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 2:24:14 AM
I could sorta understand the KFC judgement if something similar had happened there before, and the store just refused to take some safety precautions.
Nothing like that had happened before. Though I'm sure evidence was presented about burglaries which occurred ten years ago or minor vandalism which occurred three years ago.
And let's be honest, lighting is a factor to a criminal.
Don't be silly. There are shadows EVERYWHERE. And lighting cannot frighten a criminal off, anyway.
What drew the criminal to the crime scene was that it was after midnight (the woman was a manager shutting down) and that she popped out of the store's rear at that time, a desolate area.
Perhaps KFC ought to have known better than to operate until 11:30 pm. Or they should have known better not to have a rear to their restaurant-- perhaps by some feat of non-Euclidean geometretical architecture they could have designed a building that faced the front on all sides. Or perhaps they should have known better to operate an area in which the concepts of "midnight" or "sleeping hours for neighbors" exits. Or perhaps they should have known better to put trash in the REAR.
Buildings have rears. Buildings exist during the nighttime hours. Trash is usually put in the rear. Businesses sometimes operate until midnight. Criminals often strike at late hours, when people are sleeping and no one will hear.
KFC was found liable due to their blithe disregard of these facts-- as if they could have altered the universe to change them.
10049. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 2:28:20 AM
...besides, it's all an accident of happenstance. The pretext of "bad lighting" presumes it wouldn't have happened but for the alleged "bad lighting."
And yet, of course, the woman most likely would have been ambushed anyway had she been walking to her car five minutes later.
10050. ButterfieldSwire - 12/13/1999 8:44:11 AM
Clinton says `don't ask, don't tell' policy not working. "Somebody should fix that," complains Commander in Chief.
10051. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 9:36:25 AM
Somebody should lift the ban. But it won't be Dubya or Al.
Too bad elections are banned in this country.
10052. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 10:55:49 AM
Is stealing government property still a crime?
We'll find out soon enough after Hillary Clinton moves to "her house" in Westchester, New York.
10053. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 10:59:13 AM
"Trial lawyers know juries just want to give big payouts from big companies; they just have to conceive of a far-fetched, implausible, but legally ACCEPTABLE pretext upon which the jury can hang their billion-dollar verdict."
Change the word "know" to "fear" and you've identified the basis for the modern extortion system of civil litigation.
Big companies do not always lose jury trials, but the fear of losing is always there. It's pretty much malpractice not to consider settlement, especially when there's a lot of money at risk. The Home Depot class action a couple of years ago settled on the eve of trial not because there was any merit to the case, but because the downside to losing was so big -- potentially in the billions -- that even though we felt there was an extremely high probability of a defense verdict the client decided not to roll the dice.
The "soak the rich" approach to litigation doesn't translate well in the majority of my cases, however, where both parties are big companies. You might be surprised how often corporations sue each other.
10054. Ronski - 12/13/1999 11:40:04 AM
The litigation mania, whether against big corporations or gun manufacturers or what-have-you, is a natural consequence of a society hell-bent on evading any measure of personal responsibility and at the same time desperately seeking the free lunch. Eventually, people may begin to appreciate this reality, but I will not hold my breath.
10055. Dusty - 12/13/1999 12:08:05 PM
TrialShark
You might be surprised how often corporations sue each other.
I'm not. I've got to testify in Jnauary in a corporation vs. corporation suit. I still shake my head in amazement every time the lawyer calls to tell me that it hasn't yet settled.
10056. Dusty - 12/13/1999 12:11:53 PM
Jnauary?
Must be Y2K bug
10057. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 12:42:19 PM
As long as the corporations keep getting those free lunches, Ronski, there'll be "greedy" and "envious" people out there demanding they pick up the tab.
10058. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 12:50:03 PM
Dusty --
If you're being deposed, I'm not surprised the case hasn't settled yet. If you're testifying at trial, I'd love to know why the parties haven't settled.
10059. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:17:22 PM
10060. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:17:23 PM
10061. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:18:03 PM
Sorry about the double post.
10062. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 1:20:42 PM
That sounds like a place the ATF plans to attack: Bush/Ridge.
10063. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 1:27:21 PM
I actually dislike Ridge for several reasons:
1. The centerpiece of his legislation proposals was a school choice plan that was state-wide, rather than addressing the schools that needed it. As such, it was basically a give-away to the suburban voters who already send their kids to private schools. He has (so far) been unable to convince the Republican-controlled legislature to approve it.
2. In his first year as governor, he torpedoed a plan to sell the (closed) Philadelphia Naval Shipyard to a Norwegian company, because he rejected the $50 million in state aid the company wanted as too much. Three years later (just in time for reelction), he approved $100 million in state aid to sell it to a German company, who promised to create fewer jobs.
3. His fund-raising practices, which are every bit as sleazy as anyone in Washington.
10064. Ronski - 12/13/1999 1:34:45 PM
Ridge hates queers almost as much as Bush does, so that would be a good fit, but I still think it will be Bush-Engler, to avoid the abortion problem.
Incidentally, PA has a large number of politicians who are liberal on economic issues, conservative on social ones, like Rep. Klink who's being enticed to run against Santorum: all the wrong positions on both sides of the economic/social divide.
10065. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 1:39:40 PM
I wondered where Rosetta got the idea that someone running for the Senate would boldly steal from the White House; just checked out Drudge and it's the lead exercise in tackiness there.
10066. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 2:16:52 PM
Clean up your act here, gang.
Detective Mu!e, the snitch of TableTalk, is cut/pasting and preposting some of your material from mote to try to convince TTers that you are jerks.
Of course, some of you liberals do fit the profile.
10067. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 2:18:13 PM
reposting, strike the p
10068. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 2:24:19 PM
Who is Det. Mu!e and how can he PREpost things from here? Is he Claire Voyant?
10069. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 2:40:34 PM
Go to TT, Politics, "Why the Left is So Filled with Hate", #206.
Detective Mu!e, who has our password, is slandering Spud, Ace, (I think) TS, and other valued motiers.
It makes you want to SCREAM!!!
10070. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 2:53:50 PM
Rosie --
Thanks for the heads-up. I checked out the message you cited, but none of my posts are excerpted there.
Still, it's nice that you're looking out for me.
10071. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:03:06 PM
Are you sure, TS? It sure looks like your stuff (g).
10072. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 3:06:52 PM
I don't care whose stuff it is; it's not a very good advertisement for this site. Just goes to show, you can never tell where your words will end up or how stupid some things look out of context. Or even IN it.
10073. PelleNilsson - 12/13/1999 3:10:35 PM
I have a reasonable memory. Surely some of these "quotes" are made up?
10074. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 3:15:24 PM
I've read what Muel has posted. Pretty funny.
Lighten up guys.
10075. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 3:16:34 PM
Pelle:
So, do you think he made them up? Is he so peeved at Rosie that he would do that to discredit a place Rosie was promoting? (Pro-mote-ing!)
I've been away for the weekend and didn't read back over the posts from then...I must admit, though, I've read stuff like that here but it was mostly insult back-and-forths, not your usual discussion in Politics.
10076. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:28:24 PM
Much of the copy comes from the night that Spudsboy freaked out (third or fourth time actually).
Detective Mu!e is a problem and is now insulting YOU in another thread in TT's politics--"Why the RIGHT is filled with hate."
If this rumble turns into the Sparks vs the Jets in WEST SIDE STORY, I get to play Marie.
10077. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:29:27 PM
Maria, isn't it.
10078. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 3:30:33 PM
Sharks, in honor of TS
10079. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 3:39:15 PM
Bring on those goose-stepping pate-mincing commies from Salon! We'll kick their asses so bad they'll be pissing pink!
10080. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 3:40:51 PM
I'll wrap bandages and serve croissant & espresso in the canteen!
10081. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 3:43:29 PM
Hold on a minute...
Umph...ugh...dig...dig
Alright! Who took my frackin sackin field marshall's yoon-ee-form?
10082. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:00:36 PM
Rosetta:
You claim to bring more posters here than anyone but it would seem those guys on TT are a tad hateful to you for "advertising" the mote over there...why not drop it? I don't think they would be such a great addition, anyhow. They sound like pre-teens agruing over the rights to Pokémon cards.
10083. vonKreedon - 12/13/1999 4:17:35 PM
Is it worth our while for me to post, over to TT, a couple of the well written and civil interchanges from this thread? It's not that I want/expect to change the minds of Meul or DH100, but I like getting some cross-pollination between the forums. I'm thinking of copying TS,Ronski, & Cellar, posts 10053-54 & 57, and Dan & Ronski, posts 10063 & 64.
10084. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:19:30 PM
vK,
I just posted something to the effect that the post was Simon on a rant. I would rather we not post exchanges over there, but that's entirely up to you--I wouldn't stop you.
10085. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:20:23 PM
Von:
No, it's not worth your time. No one has so much as commented on Muel's post.
10086. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:21:17 PM
I just posted something to the effect that the post was Simon on a rant
Incorrect. SOme of it is a Simon rant; some of it is a Spudboy rant; and of course my "threat" was made only in response to a similar one by Spudboy.
10087. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:23:14 PM
Yes, they have...in "Hate Filled RIGHT"; in fact, he posted it both places and is trashing us and Rosetta quite a bit.
It will probably keep those out who are determined to be negative about us anyhow so maybe, to quote Martha Stewart, "it's a good thing".
10088. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:25:09 PM
Judith:
How about I meet you in a new thread, "Both My Boots in Your Ass"?
I'll check out the "Hate filled Right" thread. Might as well. Seems tailor made for me.
10089. Dusty - 12/13/1999 4:26:44 PM
TrialShark
If you're being deposed, I'm not surprised the case hasn't settled yet. If you're testifying at trial, I'd love to know why the parties haven't settled.
I was deposed a few months ago, which is several years after the incident. (I not suggesting this is surprising, although it does take a bit of a toll on reconstructing what happened.)
In my immodest way (I trust you can believe that), I thought that once my deposition was read, the suit would go away. But it hasn't yet. They are asking me to testify at trial.
Which reminds me, I should talk to JJ, as the trial will be in St. Louis.
Although I still think that someone will wake up one day.
10090. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:26:56 PM
Ace,
I wasn't blaming you--if you read what I wrote, I just said that it was excerpted from a rant and that, quite frankly, we liked it that way. No big.
10091. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:28:00 PM
Judith,
Oh, I just checked out the Hate Filled Left. Thanks for the info.
10092. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:28:17 PM
Cal:
I know.
It really was a bad exchange, however. I feel bad about it.
10093. CalGal - 12/13/1999 4:31:23 PM
Actually, I remember you asking Arky to delete it. It was fairly ugly, but it happens. God knows that no one at TableTalk has any right to get righteous about it.
10094. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:33:35 PM
Over on Hate Filled Right, some one said they could select quotes from Salon and post them that would sound just as bad...so maybe this Mule or Muel character isn't as powerful as he thinks. But it still stinks that he would do that.
10095. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 4:39:02 PM
They sound like pre-teens agruing over the rights to Pokémon cards.
This is an insult. . . . to the preteen Pokemon traders. Those kids are much more reasonable and polite.
10096. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 4:40:39 PM
Dusty - Which reminds me, I should talk to JJ, as the trial will be in St. Louis.
You have my email address. Let me know when you will be in town and how much free time you will have.
10097. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:41:19 PM
so maybe this Mule or Muel character isn't as powerful as he thinks
Powerful? I don't understand the use of this adjective.
He's just someone who kisses the Moderator's ass constantly. I suppose she's inclined favorably towards him for his constant bun-bussing, but he has no power.
10098. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:43:12 PM
I meant, in his own mind he thinks he's powerful enough to dissuade others from trying the Mote merely because HE says so...
10099. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 4:44:23 PM
JJ:
You're right...I meant no disrespect to the Pokémon crowd.
10100. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 4:47:12 PM
"He's just someone who kisses the Moderator's ass constantly."
You mean this moderator?
10101. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 4:49:31 PM
I will let TeenSpirit know you meant no ill will. He is a serious Pokemonist, and doesn't take such comments lightly.
(g)
10102. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 4:52:10 PM
Indy:
I dunno. Is that her picture?
10103. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 4:55:27 PM
It's supposed to be. She thinks she looks like Molly Ringwald.
10104. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 4:56:10 PM
Is that the infamous Lady MacBeth of TableTalk? Where did you find that picutre?
10105. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 4:57:38 PM
ID: Tell you you're not Bart. Please?!
10106. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 4:59:33 PM
RS, I am not Bart. Her picture is available under her personal profile. It's been linked on my home page as a fond remembrance ever since I was shown the door.
10107. Goddard - 12/13/1999 5:12:26 PM
>Bring on those goose-stepping pate-mincing commies from Salon! We'll kick their asses so bad they'll be pissing pink!
OK lets go girls.
10108. Dusty - 12/13/1999 5:14:31 PM
Goddard
Are you newly from Salon?
If so welcome!!!
10109. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 5:16:07 PM
Welcome goddard. Hope your presence here takes flight, and provides us all a lift (off).
Well, someone had to say it
10110. EricCartman - 12/13/1999 5:17:37 PM
Hey, is that Doug McKenzie? How's it goin' eh?
10111. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:20:31 PM
Dan - No one needed to say it
10112. JudithAtHome - 12/13/1999 5:23:42 PM
IndianaJ:
Watch out, Mr. Muel is aware that you have posted a photo and it is an infringement of copyright law! He is not amused. Of course, he should have denied it was who it is but I think he's funny that way...acts first and thinks later, maybe.
I think he'd like it here if he'd give it a chance.....yeah, right. Sorry you can't see me chuckle.
10113. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:24:31 PM
Anybody remember the title of Goddard's autobiography?
I Aimed for the Stars...
(...but sometimes I missed and hit London)
10114. Goddard - 12/13/1999 5:28:49 PM
Sorry folks have to run be back to embarrass you with logic later.
10115. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 5:30:04 PM
Well might that mewling jackass holler, Judith, but all I have posted here is an HTML reference. The photo remains as snug as it ever was on its original server. My link is but a conduit from the original server to the end user's browser. If pathfinder doesn't want the Muel's browser loading the picture off their server, they should move it. If Muel is afraid he's violating copyright by loading the image off pathfinder, he should turn off images in his browser.
10116. Indiana Jones - 12/13/1999 5:32:11 PM
> OK lets go girls.
Damn, I missed Shania Twain.
10117. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 5:36:11 PM
Goddard - be back to embarrass you with logic later
There is no one here who would be embarrassed by logic. Confused, confounded, mystified, etc? Sure. Embarrassed? Never.
10118. Dantheman - 12/13/1999 5:47:29 PM
Ace #10113,
That was Werner von Braun, not Goddard.
10119. Ronski - 12/13/1999 5:49:18 PM
London was just practice.
10120. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 5:49:31 PM
Dusty --
If discovery is closed (and this close to trial, I'm assuming it is), both parties have a pretty good idea of what evidence is available and the relative strengths and weaknesses of each side. Unless the court has some dispositive motions pending (or evidentiary motions so significant that they will change the likely outcome of the case), what you're about to be a witness to is most likely one of two things:
a) a high-stakes game of chicken; or
b) a case where waaaaay too much ego is on the line.
There is always the possibility that both parties are committed to defending a principle that just can't be measured in dollars, but there are darned few of those.
You're probably right and the case will probably settle before you testify. If not, though, have fun in St. Louis.
10121. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:53:21 PM
Susan Estrich.
Susan Estrich.
What are we to make of this foul Hellbeast, this annoying partisan hack?
What are we to make of her when she actually reports the truth about the thugs in the White House?
From USA Today:
White House Pops Susan Estrich for USA Today Op-Ed on Drudge
By Susan Estrich
Matt Drudge keeps claiming that he's being sued by the White House and much to my dismay, I've got proof that he's right. It might even take care of his lawsuit for awhile.
Drudge is the Internet boy-wonder who is being sued for libel by White House adviser Sidney Blumenthal based on an item, retracted a day later, reporting on GOP-spread rumors that Blumenthal was a wife beater. Blumenthal hired a lawyer and brought suit, supposedly as a private citizen. But Drudge has argued that it is the White House that is against him; "It's the White House against Matt Drudge," he announced at a forum at USC Annenberg last month, his first public appearance since the suit was filed.
I wrote a column after that appearance, initially published last Wednesday in USA Today, focused on the first amendment concerns raised by a top White House official pursuing a private libel suit while dealing with the press, and issues of concern to the media, on behalf of the President. On Monday morning, I was informed that the Deputy Press Secretary to the President had telephoned the Editorial Page Editor of USA Today to complain about my column. Not Blumenthal's private lawyer, mind you, but the President's Deputy Press Secretary.
10122. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:53:52 PM
What troubled me initially in researching Matt Drudge was how the mainstream media portrayed him as if he bore no relation to them, when the reporting of rumors as news has passed as conventional journalism for at least a decade. What made this particularly ironic was that Drudge was "drudged" by his critics; with the exception of a piece by Todd Purdhum in the New York Times, virtually every other report would lead you to believe that Drudge had reported that Blumenthal beat his wife. What Drudge actually reported was that Republicans were spreading that rumor to retaliate for similar accusations against a top GOP consultant; Drudge also included in his initial report a total White House denial of the rumor, a point the responsible media almost uniformly neglected to mention in its coverage of Drudge.
That doesn't mean that spousal abuse rumors should be lightly repeated; I don't think they should be, but no one attacked columnist Lars Erik Nelson when he reported on a rumor operation run out of Newt Gingrich's office aimed at tagging incoming Speaker Tom Foley as a homosexual. Quite the contrary, most news organizations used Nelson's column as a basis to report the rumor themselves, in many cases ignoring entirely Nelson's original focus on its source. Why wasn't anyone making that comparison?
Some of Drudge's fellow conservatives would claim that it's because the press is liberal, but I don't buy that. They may vote liberal, but they also relish eating them for lunch. It's much more about power, and those who wield it, and in Washington, power is measured very simply by proximity to the President.
10123. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 5:55:47 PM
When I saw Sid Blumenthal last month in Washington, he was eager to learn of my relationship to America On-Line...
If Mr. Blumenthal's lawyer had called, I might have pointed out, as I did to Sidney himself, ...that if the subject is conflicts of interest, it is the White House which will be making decisions worth billions to America On-Line. But this wasn't a private lawyer calling. It was the Deputy Press Secretary to the President.
What does the White House care about my relationship to America On-Line?
If this is a private lawsuit pursued in a private capacity, why is the White House calling to complain, much less taking a position about anyone's contractual relationship (or lack thereof) with America On-Line?
10124. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 5:58:14 PM
"... no one attacked columnist Lars Erik Nelson when he reported on a rumor operation run out of Newt Gingrich's office aimed at tagging incoming Speaker Tom Foley as a homosexual."
Good ol' Newt.
10125. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:00:48 PM
Laugh.
I never defended Drudge against the libel charges, because I didn't know the facts. But hacks like Jade assured me Drudge had reported Sid Blumenthal beat his wife.
He reported no such thing. He reported Republicans were spreading that RUMOR as a payback for Democrats spreading rumors about a Republican. And he printed the WH's absolute denial. (Funny, but these people never seem to deny things themselves; it's always a WH spokesman doing the denying.)
10126. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:06:15 PM
Good ol' Newt.
I'm ever so glad Trialshark is above taking unsubstantiated rumors to be actual facts.
At least when it serves his ludicrously partisan interests, of course.
Lars Erik Nelson. Gold standard, there.
10127. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:23:35 PM
Ace --
"I'm ever so glad Trialshark is above taking unsubstantiated rumors to be actual facts."
Funny ... I thought you said "a rumor operation run out of Newt Gingrich's office," not a "rumored operation."
In any event, I never took the unsubstantiated rumors about Speaker Foley's sexual orientation to be actual facts. Neither did you, I hope.
10128. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:42:00 PM
Trial:
Larsy's "reportage" of a rumor operation was ITSELF a rumor.
Unless you believe that Newt's office contacted one of the most notoriously leftist columnists in America to peddle the charge.
Nope. Just like Elizabeth Drew's unsubstantiated RUMORS about a whispering campaign of RUMORS about McCain's rumored temper.
10129. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 6:52:12 PM
Ace --
So you're saying there was no truth to Nelson's reporting?
10130. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:53:27 PM
So you're saying there was no truth to Nelson's reporting?
Yes. Or rather, I'm saying he reported a rumor, the truth of which has not, and probably cannot, ever be established.
10131. JJBiener - 12/13/1999 6:56:17 PM
Ace - You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican is proven fact. Hard evidence about a Democrat is a vicious lie.
10132. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 6:59:57 PM
JJ:
Duh. Super-duh.
It's SOP. They all do it. I don't understand what's wrong with their brains, actually, to claim Rule X for person Y and Rule Not-X for person Z.
Mature intellects abandon these sort of childish inconsistencies by age thirteen or so.
10133. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:02:35 PM
JJ --
"You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican is proven fact."
Nonsense. I've written several posts disputing rumors that Senator McCain is unstable.
10134. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:02:46 PM
And JJ:
I know you don't read Table Talk, but you really ought to see the nonsense Ohio is spouting over in the White House thread "Al Gore: The Second Round."
It's so blatantly dishonest and dopey. I don't think he'd ever try that crap here.
10135. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:04:58 PM
"It's SOP. They all do it ... Mature intellects abandon these sort of childish inconsistencies by age thirteen or so."
And sweeping generalizations, as well. Or so rumor has it.
10136. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:16:06 PM
Sweeping generalization? Hardly. You all DO do it.
You want a list of who "you all" are?
Every one of "you all" shrieks "You can't believe the word of a Republican making unsubstantiated accusations against a Democrat" but then just-plum forget about this rule's converse when it a Democrat makes an unsubstantiated charge against a Republican.
Witness DramaQueen shrieking that we MUST believe Democrat Ben Barnes' charge against Gov. Bush, no matter how absurd the circumstances he describes, because-- get this-- Barnes made his charge in a deposition!!!!
Ha, ha. I'd have loved to have known that "It's true if it's said in a deposition" rule when we were discussing Monica. Or Bill Clinton's alleged coke use. Or Chinagate. Or etc.
10137. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:20:53 PM
Sweeping generalization? Hardly. You all DO do it.
Oh, come now. You are parodying a generalizationalist. Fess up.
10138. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:21:56 PM
Ace --
"You all DO do it."
Thanks for illustrating my point, sport.
BTW, I noticed that you sidestepped the fact that JJ's charge -- which you supported with your original sweeping generalization -- is false. Wise move.
10139. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:22:43 PM
There is a specific list of the "you all," Cal. It's not a generalization. It's a shorthand for the same Dirty Dozen we all know and love.
You know who they are. So does TrialShark (he's one of them).
10140. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:24:37 PM
Note to VonKreedon:
NO, you're not one of "you all"!
10141. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:30:08 PM
About TrialShark:
While TrialShark is an offender, he's actually one of the best of that dreadful lot. He is generally cautious never to make affirmative statments, and spends most of his time anklebiting other people's statements. His technique is occasionally effective, as we've seen recently.
Plus, he generally confines himself to the one-sentence ankle-bite: "Good ole Newt," etc. It's hard to get called on having your facts wrong when you never really say much of anything.
10142. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:30:19 PM
Ace,
I know, but I really refuse to allow you to do that unchallenged. As you've said before--Mote liberals are "good" liberals.
10143. CalGal - 12/13/1999 7:31:23 PM
My God, TS, I think you've almost received a compliment.
10144. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:34:10 PM
Ace --
"It's hard to get called on having your facts wrong when you never really say much of anything."
I'm much more impressed by your approach -- backing JJ's claim and then retreating silently when I pointed out his error.
10145. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:34:44 PM
Cal --
Wonders must be ceasing.
10146. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:35:25 PM
BTW, bonus points for identifying the movie I stole the line "wonders must be ceasing" from.
10147. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:40:59 PM
Cal:
Several of the Mote's liberals are hardly better than TT's MikeB 98.
While MOST of our liberals are SOMEWHAT reasonable, they are frequently guilty of the same nonsense.
You want an example?
Let's take Rask. A good guy, generally reasonable. But when we were discussing Al Gore's war record-- and the statement from eight men from Al Gore's unit who said he was NEVER "in the middle of a battle" or in "actual combat"-- Rask tried to parse "battle" and "combat," claiming that, while perhaps Gore was never in "battle" or "combat," perhaps he was invovled in mere FIREFIGHTS, as he stated to Vanity Fair. He claimed a difference between "combat," "battle," and "being shot at," a difference neither the dictionary nor common sense supports.
(For good measure, he then accused ME of parsing the statements in question.)
Now, Rask is certainly reasonable. I like him a lot and respect him. But I respectfully submit that his argument was a Pythonesque riff, wholly ludicrous. He never, NEVER, would accept this kind of absurd parsing were I to offer it to defend a Republican. And he'd be right to dismiss it as nonsense, were I to offer it up. He'd laugh at me. And I'd be a bit ashamed.
No offense, Rask. I like you. Now go get your fucking shinebox.
Now Rask is one of the BEST liberals. But even he is prey to this sort of nonsense when he forgets himself.
And what is an aberration for Rask is de rigeur for the Dirty Dozen. No, MOST of them don't spin the goofy Skull and Bones/New World Order conspiracy theories we see at TT; but I humbly suggest that Ohio, for example, is quite their equal in terms of dishonesty and inconsistent standards.
10148. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:42:56 PM
I'm much more impressed by your approach -- backing JJ's claim and then retreating silently when I pointed out his error.
Huh? I honestly don't know what you're talking about. Please explain to me what you mean, and if you're right, I will award you a Cookie.
10149. dusty - 12/13/1999 7:44:25 PM
AceofSpades
Perhaps, but Ohio supports Uconn, and that earns a few free passes.
10150. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:46:55 PM
If you mean this...
I've written several posts disputing rumors that Senator McCain is unstable.
...pray don't be absurd. Senator McCain is treated as an honorary Democrat by liberals. He gets the same benefit of your inconsistent standards.
The Republican/Democrat distinction is just shorthand for the longer locution: "Political allies/political foes." David Schippers, lead investigator for the Republican HJC, was a DEMOCRAT, but of course he's treated as a political foe because he threatened a much more important Democrat, Prince Billy.
John McCain, nominally a Republican, is treated as a political ally for several reasons: 1) the misperception that he is more liberal that Bush; 2) Because any damage McCain can do to Bush will ultimately harm Bush in the general election; and 3) the mistaken belief that banning soft-money will help Democrats, and that Democrats are actually in favor of such a measure.
So please.
10151. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:49:58 PM
That would be like me claiming: "Hey, I'm not biased against leftists! I support CHRISTOPHER HITCHENS!!!"
So knock it off with the silliness. We all know damn well why I support Christopher Hitchens, and it has precious little to do with his socialist political agenda.
10152. Cellar Door - 12/13/1999 7:52:25 PM
Yeah. You're just trying to get Hitchens to pass you his flask.
10153. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:54:00 PM
...I'm sure TrialShark has spoken well of Chris Shays as well-- because, of course, Chris Shays had the "courage" to vote against impeachment.
I've spoken favorably of Virgil Goode because he voted FOR impeachment. And yet I would never claim that my support of Goode disproves my militantly anti-Democratic stance.
At least not with a straight face.
But in TrialShark's world, his support of liberal-friendly John McCain disproves he applies absurdly divergent standards to Republicans and Democrats.
If you say so, dude.
10154. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:55:13 PM
Cellar:
And why shouldn't I? Are you against alcohol suddenly?
10155. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:56:13 PM
Ace --
I laughed.
It's not enough that you can't stand by your own statements: now you're deconstructing JJ's, too. "What JJ really meant was 'You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican (except for those Ace has deemed to be an honorary Democrats) is proven fact.'"
Too bad he didn't actually say that. Please, keep the cookie. I'd hate to see your blood sugar level drop any lower than it already is.
"Honorary Democrat." Please.
10156. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:57:44 PM
"I'm sure TrialShark has spoken well of Chris Shays as well-- because, of course, Chris Shays had the "courage" to vote against impeachment."
Sure. Q.E.D. But wait -- Senator McCain voted to convict.
Oh, well. It was a nice theory, for the five minutes it lasted.
10157. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 7:59:03 PM
Three minutes and forty-four seconds, actually.
Really, Ace, you've got to come up with explanations that take longer to debunk.
10158. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 7:59:07 PM
Right, Trial. Let me chastise JJ and myself:
JJ (and myself):
Please stop LYING when you say TrialShark and others apply absurdly divergent standards to Republicans and Democrats.
What you (and I) really mean is that they apply absurdly divergent standards to people, whatever their nominal party affiliation, who can help the Democrats versus people, whatever their nominal party affiliation, who can HURT the Democrats.
If you (and I) don't state it just like so every time, you're lying. And so am I.
I am dreadfully, dreadfully ashamed.
10159. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:03:34 PM
Sure. Q.E.D. But wait -- Senator McCain voted to convict
Anklebiting. I really don't know why you even bother with this silliness.
I didn't say you supported McCain because he voted against impeachment. I stated you supported someone ELSE because he supported impeachment.
Do you know who that person is, Baby-Doll? I just mentioned him three minutes ago.
I gave THREE reasons why you supported McCain. None of them mentioned impeachment. Do you remember that list, Sugar-Ass?
What an asshole.
"I'm going to PRETEND Ace said Trialshark only supports Republicans who supported Impeachment, and then I'm going to DEMOLISH that argument I made up!"
Well, you demolished that argument, asshole. What's the next imaginary argument of mine you'll blow out of the water?
10160. spudboy - 12/13/1999 8:04:50 PM
Woddamoron. I didn't say Barnes' word was absolutely to be believed. I simply used his deposition to point out that there was at least some substance --contrary to your claims that it was "groundless" -- to the accusation that Bush had gotten help to get his position in the Air National Guard. I offered no judgment on the ultimate truthfulness of his deposition. However, the word of a retired speaker of the Texas House probably should carry more weight than that of a campaign flack.
As for rumors: You seem to have difficulty distinguishing between stories about the existence of rumors and questions about whether the rumors themselves are well-grounded. I can tell you that I never believe a rumor as truth (e.g., the recent Bush cocaine rumors), but I'm willing to look into its truthfulness. A rule of thumb that most reputable journalists use is to refuse to report on a rumor until it has been substantiated independently. However, the mere existence of the rumors often takes on a life of its own, and can become a story in itself. As in the case of the recent McCain rumors.
You, on the other hand, reflexively report any nasty rumors about Democrats as though they were factual. And then, without a hint of irony, accuse liberals of mirror behavior, covering your own hypocrisy with a trumpet of flatulent bluster. Quite a performance, really.
10161. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 8:06:29 PM
Ace --
"I am dreadfully, dreadfully ashamed."
And rightly so.
BTW, I think Senator McCain would be a much stronger candidate in November, and so as a Democrat, I have some qualms about defending him. But I also think he'd make an excellent President, and if you clowns in the GOP insist on running a candidate, I'd rather you ran one who can handle the job.
Plus the "he-was-a-POW-so-he's-unstable" crap just pissed me off.
10162. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:07:30 PM
Which rumors, Spudboy? Do tell.
The only rumor I can remember offering was the Clinton Love-Baby. And I specifically said: "I doubt very much this is true. It's just too perfect. But here's hoping, anyway."
I said that (or something similar) any time we discussed it. I did not urge anyone else to believe it. I expressed my deep desire that it WAS true, while simultaneously staing it was most likely false.
So... you tell me the rumors I've pedalled and insisted were true.
Go.
tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock, tick, tock...
10163. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:11:53 PM
TrialShark:
Indeed, I have similar feelings about Bradley. I'd much prefer him to Al "Rambo" Gore, but I also fear that he might be a more attractive candidate than Gore.
That hardly changes the main point. If you want me to concede you have defended two Republicans, and that you apply the same rules to them as you do to liberals, counting them as "Honarary Democrats," consider your point conceded: It is not true that you apply wildly divergent standards to ALL Republicans. You apply wildly divergent standards to 99.9% of Republicans, McCain and Shays being the exceptions.
You have proven your point. Go with God.
10164. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:15:54 PM
Plus the "he-was-a-POW-so-he's-unstable" crap just pissed me off
There is a healthy skepticism in the press that such a connection was ever made. Only Elizabeth Drew has reported this "whispering campaign." (Other have "reported it," but only by referring to Drew's allegations second or third or fourth hand.)
EVERY SINGLE REPORTER who's spoken about this has said "I personally have never heard such a connection made by any Republicans or any Democrats, at any time."
So it's odd that there was a "whispering campaign" that only a single reporter ever got a wiff of.
10165. spudboy - 12/13/1999 8:17:58 PM
Well, perhaps we can go back to Wen Ho Lee and the accusations that Clinton had allowed the Chinese to invade our technology as a payback for those campaign contributions. Or the Arlington Cemetery rumors. Or the Hillary's-going-to-be-indicted rumors. Or the Hillary-wants-a-divorce rumors. Or any of the Drudge sludge you've trotted out here and in the Fray.
I'm still waiting for you to start trotting out the Panama Canal stuff. I figure it's just a matter of time. You're a sucker for anything you can sling at your hated liberals.
10166. spudboy - 12/13/1999 8:19:26 PM
Incidentally, Chris Mathews was just on "Hardball" talking about the Bush-McCain rumors, indicating he'd heard them himself. As did Michael Isikoff.
10167. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 8:21:04 PM
Ace --
"If you want me to concede you have defended two Republicans, and that you apply the same rules to them as you do to liberals, counting them as "Honarary Democrats," consider your point conceded ..."
Well, that's as close to an admission of error as you're likely capable of producing, so I'll accept it.
The term "Honorary Democrat," however, remains yours. It is, I think, wholly inapposite when applied to Senator McCain. Not only do I consider him a true-blue conservative, I also regard him as the most dangerous conservative politician (for Democrats) since Ronald Reagan: McCain not only espouses conservative principles, he appears sincere in doing so. I think he can persuade a good many uncommitted to espouse them as well.
Despite the danger he poses to my party, I think McCain would be an excellent President. I voted for him when he represented my district in Congress, I voted for him for the Senate, and I expect to vote for him in California.
10168. AceofSpades - 12/13/1999 8:24:53 PM
ha, hah. More bullshit from Spuddy-Boy.
Well, perhaps we can go back to Wen Ho Lee and the accusations that Clinton had allowed the Chinese to invade our technology as a payback for those campaign contributions.
Never my thesis. My theory was that Clinton had quashed the investigation to keep it from becoming public and an embarrassing juncture--during Fred Thompson's campaign finance hearings.
Further, that's a theory, not a "rumor."
Everything I said factually about Mr. Lee was true. Did you hear he was just indicted on 59 counts and held without bail? Or did that escape your attention?
Or the Arlington Cemetery rumors.
Huh? Barely remember the issue. Don't know what on earth I could have said which was a "rumor" rather than established fact.
Or the Hillary's-going-to-be-indicted rumors.
This is true, but I didn't claim this was true. I said, "Here's the rumor from Drudge." I didn't defend the rumor, as I had no way in hell of knowing if it was true or not. As a matter of fact, I think I stated it was probably wishful thinking.
If you want to count that as "rumor peddling," I plead guilty to that one. But it's plainly speculative. By its very nature it speaks to future events which may or may not come to pass.
10169. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/13/1999 11:15:34 PM
Did anyone see/hear the Republican Presidential debate in Iowa tonight?
Not me, unfortunately. Homework with the kids and monitoring TT.
But something happened BIG because a female TTer has just started a thread that's burning up their political folder. Entitled "Bush Dares to Mention Jesus This Christmas Season," she says that George Bush actually used the words "Jesus Christ" on NBC--and nobody fainted.
10170. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:19:44 PM
Rosetta- Unless he said, "Jesus Christ that's a stupid question" what would you expect?
10171. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:21:54 PM
PS- Rosetta, ever watch a locker room inteview on NBC? Christ is an avid sports fan, with all those guys thanking him for their success.
10172. TrialShark - 12/13/1999 11:24:31 PM
Is that what those signs mean?
10173. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:33:48 PM
Trial- you're confusing the lord and savior signs of pointing to the heavens, kneeling and making the sign of the cross, with Vice Lords, signs, or the Precious Blood with Bloods, or healing the crippled with Crips.
10174. Al D - 12/13/1999 11:39:31 PM
Maybe it would be acceptable to the liberals if Bush walked around with a Bible as Rev. William J. Clinton is wont to do. Let's face reality, pols will utter any words that will get them votes. Bush did a pretty good job in the debate. Keys gets all the applause but not many of the votes.
By the way, this post is from the "ancient inbecile."
10175. jonesatlaw - 12/13/1999 11:40:25 PM
Nice to see you Al.
10176. CalGal - 12/13/1999 11:42:42 PM
Let me guess--you forgot your password!
While I agree that politicians will say anything to get them votes (and that's always how it has been), I don't think Bush did all that well in the debate.
10177. TheWizardofWhimsy - 12/14/1999 12:07:08 AM
Maybe not, but he was always at his best dancing on Texas bars... 
10178. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/14/1999 12:16:48 AM
AlDavis is back. Great. Just in time for Y2K. Did you ever get in touch with Jexster?
10179. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:34:15 AM
TS - You defended McCain against the rumors that he was unstable? BFD. The rumor was that there was a whispering campaign by the Republican leadership. By defending McCain, you are assuming the rumor was true. The fact is that Drew was the only reporter to originally report the rumor and she could only quote anonymous sources. Yet you are hook, line & sinkered and insist it's true. By doing so, you prove my point.
10180. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:39:28 AM
Spuds - Incidentally, Chris Mathews was just on "Hardball" talking about the Bush-McCain rumors, indicating he'd heard them himself. As did Michael Isikoff.
At this point, we have all heard them. Who did he hear them from? Is that source any more reliable than Drew's? How do we know the rumor is any more reliable than the rumor that Clinton ran drugs out of Mena when he was Governor? Why should we accept one rumor and not another?
10181. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:41:37 AM
JJ --
You said "You know TS's MO. Every rumor about a Republican is proven fact."
Senator McCain is a Republican. I disputed the rumors that he is unstable. Therefore, your contention that I treat "every" rumor about a Republican as a proven fact is incorrect.
10182. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:00:14 AM
TS - There were no rumors, or at least there is no evidence of rumors, about McCain's stability. All we have is a couple of anonymous sources claiming that the GOP leadership was spreading these rumors. By you statement you weren't defending McCain, you were attacking the GOP leadership by implicitly claiming that the rumors of the whispering campaign were true. You can't claim to have defended McCain against a rumor that didn't exist.
An example: I read a Drudge report where Gephart, Bonior and Kennedy were spreading rumors about Bradley having a mental breakdown. Drudge said he got the story from a couple of Senate staffers who overheard the conversation. I personally don't believe Bradley ever had a breakdown.
Would that really qualify as defending Bradley against a rumor? I don't think so.
10183. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:18:01 AM
JJ --
"There were no rumors, or at least there is no evidence of rumors, about McCain's stability. All we have is a couple of anonymous sources claiming that the GOP leadership was spreading these rumors."
So let me get this straight: you're saying there were no rumors about Senator McCain?
We're not talking about the source of the rumors here: representatives of the Bauer and Hatch campaigns both blamed the Bush camp, but I don't know. Unlike you, I don't think it's impossible, but I don't know.
But are you seriously saying that no one was spreading rumors about John McCain's stability?
10184. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:21:26 AM
Trialshark:
I am saying that there were no such rumors. I didn't see the Hardball you were talking about, but I've heard Matthews talk about it before, and he's made it clear he has no first or even second hand information about the rumors. He's basing it all on the Drew article.
If there were any such rumors, SOME reporter somewhere would have stated Yes, I have had this peddled to me. No one has. No one.
You can't have a whispering campaign without whispers.
10185. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:22:54 AM
Ace --
"I didn't see the Hardball you were talking about..."
???
10186. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:24:06 AM
Trial:
Either you or Spudboy. Someone said, "I was just watching Hardball and Chris Matthews was talking about the whispering campaign..."
He's been talking about the whispers for a month. But he has no information about them beyond what he read in the Elizabeth Drew piece.
10187. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:29:13 AM
The term "Honorary Democrat," however, remains yours. It is, I think, wholly inapposite when applied to Senator McCain. Not only do I consider him a true-blue conservative, I also regard him as the most dangerous conservative politician (for Democrats) since Ronald Reagan: McCain not only espouses conservative principles, he appears sincere in doing so. I think he can persuade a good many uncommitted to espouse them as well.
"Honorary Democrat" in the sense that liberals swoon over him.
Fine-- You apply the generous side of your double-standard to Democrats, liberal anti-impeachment Republicans like Chris Shays, AND John McCain, who is a true-blue conservative, but for some reason you like him.
I like the guy myself. In my heart of hearts I think I'd prefer him as a President over GWB, but I'll still support GWB as a CANDIDATE, because I still believe he has a better shot. When the polls change on this point, so will my opinion.
But I don't understand why your liberals swoon over him. I wish I knew-- I wish the Republican party knew-- but who knows. You are in love for some reason. You swoon in l'amor over any elderly fire-brand Republican with lots of conviction and a pleasant smile.
10188. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:29:51 AM
TS - But are you seriously saying that no one was spreading rumors about John McCain's stability?
I am saying there is no reliable evidence of rumors. Do you have a source other than the Drew article, or do you believe the Drew article is sufficient? Ace has a good point. If the GOP leadership was trying to destroy McCain's reputation, who were they whispering to, and why has no one come forward to claim they were whispered to?
The better question is why do you believe it when it is just an unsubstantiated rumor?
10189. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:30:04 AM
It's the Avuncularity, Stupid.
10190. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:31:04 AM
My last post is re: a possible explanation of the Reagan/McCain appeal.
He reminds liberals of their nice conservative law & order pro-military uncles.
10191. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:32:25 AM
Ace - TS will support any Republican candidate who supports knee-capping the GOP's fundraising efforts.
10192. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 1:32:44 AM
Or the Arizona-ness?
10193. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:34:11 AM
Rosetta, ever watch a locker room inteview on NBC? Christ is an avid sports fan, with all those guys thanking him for their success
SNL had a very funny sketch about this. A reporter was interviewing teams in a team Lumberjack Competition, after the competition was over.
The winners thanked Jesus for their victory.
The guys who came in second place said, "Well, our team did the best we could, but you can only go so far if one guy on your team isn't giving it his 100%. Jesus really dropped the ball on this one."
Another concurred: "I really thought we had a shot to take the Logrolling competition, but Jesus' head wasn't in the game. Jesus cost us big-time on this one."
Etc.
10194. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 1:35:08 AM
#10192 was to #10189. (More liberals swooned over Goldwater -- in his later years -- than over Reagan...)
10195. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:36:10 AM
JJ:
McCain-Feingold will not hurt Republicans all that much. Keep in mind, dude: Democrats are well behind the Republicans in hard-money donations-- around one-half the Republican total-- but are nearly equal in soft money.
Take away soft money, and Republicans are left with a big advantage in hard money. That's why Torricelli cooperated with Mitch McConnel to takn McCain-Feingold when it actually had a chance of passing this autumn.
10196. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:36:50 AM
Stumbo:
Maybe liberals have something of a crush on Western elderly Rough-Rider types.
10197. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:43:32 AM
"I am saying that there were no such rumors."
"GOP presidential hopeful Gary Bauer on Tuesday blamed the campaign of front-running Republican Texas Gov. George W. Bush for questioning McCain's fitness for office.
"Jeff Flint, spokesman for Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch's presidential campaign, said, 'There's obviously some sort of orchestrated campaign to put that information out there and it's probably coming out of the Bush campaign.'"
-- Associated Press, November 24, 1999
"Sen. Chuck Hagel had heard the stories, and he was furious. The rumor echoing in the Senate's marble corridors was about what George W. Bush's many Senate allies were up to. As Hagel had heard it, they were trashing Hagel's Vietnam buddy, Sen. John McCain, telling potential contributors that his long imprisonment in Hanoi had left him too emotionally volatile to be president. ... Several big-time contributors, Hagel says, report that GOP senators are warning them away from McCain because he's 'unstable.'"
-- Newsweek, Nov. 29, 1999
Maybe Mr. Bauer and Senator Hatch's people are wrong, and the Bush camp had nothing to do with the rumors about Senator McCain's fitness. But unless you think Senator Hagel is lying, it seems to me that he heard campaign contributors say they were warned away from Senator McCain because of his supposed instability.
10198. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 1:50:09 AM
Ace:
There was that P.J. O'Rourke line about how he didn't really mind being called a Nazi -- because nobody's ever had fantasies of being ravished by someone dressed as a liberal. Substitute a Wild-West outfit, and there you go.
10199. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:51:56 AM
Trial:
Sorry, that's evidence, but not dispositive. Hegel said he heard it from contributors.
Things get twisted around in transmission. There is no doubt people made an issue of McCain's temperament. No doubt. He's an angry guy, and his anger can apparently be frightening. Reporters have told him this to his face during interviews. And Al D'Amato, defending McCain, stated McCain didn't have the worst temper in the Senate when he was there-- he had the THIRD worst temper, after another Senator and D'Amato himself.
But I doubt anyone has linked this temper promplem to his POW experience-- which is the important point. Hegel heard that's what the rumors were; but who knows what they really were. One guy might have said, "The guy's got a temper problem. And you know, he WAS a POW for five years." Hegel hears this, goes ballistic, and thinks ALL temper stories are making the linkage to being a POW.
Once again, no one-- no one-- is on the record saying he heard these stories first hand. Not a SINGLE REPORTER has ever been peddled the story.
10200. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:55:18 AM
Ace --
"But I don't understand why your liberals swoon over [McCain]."
And I don't understand why you conservatives are down on him.
10201. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:55:49 AM
continued:
Apparently you wish very much to believe the Bush camp is spreading, or at least encouraging, these stories.
Ask yourself: Why?
The Bush campaign has been almost FLAWLESS so far. You can malign Bush himself all you like; but the campaign has been extremely tight and effective. Smart people are running this show-- you must believe this, of course, because you believe W. is dumb.
So-- please explain to me how the Republican Brain-Trust behind Bush-- years and years and years of political experience and savvy-- gets it into their head to peddle the STUPIDEST rumor imagineable?
And it was STUPID. It had NO CHANCE of working, and a 99% chance of backfiring disasterously. (In fact, it did backfire, predicatably.)
So why would they do this, dude?
10202. concerned - 12/14/1999 1:57:21 AM
Re. 10197 -
Ah, yes, the 'Great Imaginary Whispering Campaign'. GWB hasn't needed anything of the sort IAC, given that McCain has never been any real competition for him.
If you want your fill of Big Lies, rotten stunts and below-the-belt shots, just see what 'Love Story' Bore is pulling on Bradley.
10203. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 1:58:05 AM
TrialShark:
I am not down on McCain in the least. If you'd bothered to read my last post, you'd have seen I prefer McCain as President, but I support GWB as a good second-choice who has a better chance of actually winning.
If you mean-- why do OTHER conservatives hate McCain? I have no fucking idea. I check out Free Republic every once in a while to see McCain reviled for no good reason at all.
If I had to guess-- I'd say they hate McCain because liberals like him, and therefore he must be a liberal Manchurian Candidate.
10204. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:01:17 AM
Oh-- they also seem to hate him for the WTO thing. The crazies hate W. for the same reason, of course.
And because Bush Senior and Bill Clinton were running coke in through Mena Airport.
10205. Spudboy - 12/14/1999 2:04:48 AM
Here's one GOP strategist who doesn't think Bush's campaign has been "flawless."
10206. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:05:55 AM
One last point: There is the NWO/WTO Buchananite fringe which hates McCain, but most Republicans don't seem to.
McCain polls well as soon as he gets name recognition and exposure. He's leading Bush in NH and will undoubtedly take a few primaries from Bush along the way.
10207. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 2:06:29 AM
TS:
"And I don't understand why you conservatives are down on him."
I can only speak for myself, but I think I've previously mentioned why I'm down on him, despite his positive qualities that would otherwise put him ahead of GWB: his silly positions on (i) campaign finance, and (ii) tobacco lawsuits. And (iii) the UFC, what the hell.
10208. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:08:52 AM
Spudboy:
Hilarious. Severin's article concerns W. HIMSELF, not his CAMPAIGN. I specifically told TrialShark: "You can malign W. all you like, but his campaign has been flawless. His people must be smart if he is so dumb."
So, thanks once again for misreading and posting an irrelevancy.
I am always happy to read Jay Severin, though, so thanks for the irrelevant post. However, I must ask-- if we're to take Jay Severin's opinions as the Gospel, would you mind reprinting his musings on the Clinton Mob?
10209. Al D - 12/14/1999 2:13:55 AM
CalGal
I didn't forget my password and GW did a good job and that's a fact.
Rosettastone
I did get in touch with jexster and I'm about to fly off to S.F. and I hope to see him there. When i post at night, I don't expect so many posts after me. I sort of figure that the threads are mine to tread as I like. I never really worked on the Jenny, the Foss Tug, but she is real, and every word I uttered about her is true.
10210. Stumbo - 12/14/1999 2:17:25 AM
Strike "lawsuits" from #10207.
10211. concerned - 12/14/1999 2:29:03 AM
McKeating at least knows how to call a liar a liar:
"Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who is running for president, was asked yesterday about Vice President Al Gore's claim that he is the only candidate who supported campaign-finance
reform before he ran for president.
"I just think that . . . while he was inventing the Internet, I was inventing television," Mr. McCain replied on "Fox News Sunday."
"I mean, he also said that he co-sponsored McCain-Feingold three years after he left the Senate. That's a unique parliamentary maneuver."
Mr. McCain added: "Look, I welcome the vice president's involvement in this issue. But the real scandal in Washington was not Monica Lewinsky. It was the debasement of the institutions of
government by the Clinton-Gore campaign — renting the Lincoln bedroom, selling seats on official trade missions — and, frankly, that will be a stain on American history."
10212. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:35:15 AM
concerned:
TrialShark asked why conservatives were down on McCain. As you call him "McKeating," you seem to be one of those conservatives who is down on him.
So, please explain. What is it about McCain that wrankles you? He's got a circa 95% approval rating from conservative watchdog groups. Surely a deviation from the party line on tobacco and campaign finance can't be enough to make you call him "McKeating."
10213. concerned - 12/14/1999 2:42:17 AM
Re. 10212 -
Hey, I'd vote for McCain. But I'm afraid he'd be somewhat vulnerable against a slime merchant like 'Tobacco' Bore.
I'm down on Buchanan, myself. As a politician, he's a good commentator, and that's about it.
10214. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:43:32 AM
wrankles? Rankles, right?
So why call him "McKeating"? I mean, I know about the Keating Five, but why insult him if you don't have anything against him?
10215. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:46:18 AM
Ace --
"Sorry, that's evidence, but not dispositive. Hegel said he heard it from contributors. Things get twisted around in transmission."
Hmmm. If you're allowed to dismiss contrary evidence as being the result of miscommunication, I guess you can sustain any position you like.
"Apparently you wish very much to believe the Bush camp is spreading, or at least encouraging, these stories. Ask yourself: Why?"
My "apparent wishes" are the product of your prejudices, Ace. Kind of like your assumption that I support Congressman Shays.
I find the idea that Senator McCain's opponents spread the rumors plausible because political operatives of all stripes have been known to go on the attack, whether or not there's a high likelihood of success. Sometimes it even works.
Does this mean it was the Bush camp that did it? Beats the heck outta me. If they did it, it was a bonehead play that could only be salvaged by a conspicious denunciation from the candidate himself, preferably in the first debate.
Your observation that the Bush campaign has been "almost flawless" is incapable of proof or refutation at this point; I'm guessing that the Bush folks didn't exactly plan to have Senator McCain riding so high in New Hampshire at this point, but maybe that's not a flaw. There's still plenty of time.
I do think they bobbled the ball on the rumors; regardless of the source, I think the Bush campaign should have done a better job sticking up for Senator McCain and denouncing the rumors. It would have looked decent and noble and might even have been sincere.
10216. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:50:14 AM
If they did it, it was a bonehead play that could only be salvaged by a conspicious denunciation from the candidate himself, preferably in the first debate.
This is my point. It was not just a boneheaded play in twenty-twenty hindsight; it was obviously a boneheaded play ab initio.
Over in TT Fergusson Foont raised this issue three months ago and CalGal, Niner, and I all stated how collossally stupid such a play would be, and how it could only reflect badly on all of McCain's foes, none of whom was a soldier in Vietnam, all of whom had cushy berths to one extent or another.
The stupidity of the play was obvious then to pikers like me. How on earth could the stupidity of the play escaped Bush's Brain Trust?
10217. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:50:26 AM
Ace --
"If you'd bothered to read my last post, you'd have seen I prefer McCain as President, but I support GWB as a good second-choice who has a better chance of actually winning."
I didn't see that post before asking my question, nor did I mean to limit the question to you.
I disagree that GWB has a better shot at winning, but that's not going to be something we can ever prove or disprove.
10218. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:51:56 AM
I'm guessing that the Bush folks didn't exactly plan to have Senator McCain riding so high in New Hampshire at this point
Ummmmmmm... Senator McCain has his own undeniable strengths as a candidate, which Bush simply cannot negate.
McCain is talking up campaign finance, which is hugely popular with the public.
10219. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:52:48 AM
Ace --
"The stupidity of the play was obvious then to pikers like me. How on earth could the stupidity of the play escaped Bush's Brain Trust?"
These are in large part the people who squandered the Gulf War and lost the White House to the governor of a small southern state, right?
Seems to me that they're not exactly infallible.
10220. concerned - 12/14/1999 2:55:03 AM
Re. 10214 -
Sorry about that. I think he would probably be an effective chief executive, if he had a chance to get there.
10221. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 2:56:12 AM
These are in large part the people who squandered the Gulf War
Giggle. And you, of course, would have supported a high-casualty campaign to take Baghdad which would have demolished our support among the Gulf Coalition and detabilized the area, right?
And I remember all those brave Democrats voting against even expelling Iraq from Kuwait... and yet you urge a bloody campaign to take Baghdad.
10222. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:00:32 AM
Simple fact: Bush was right to stop where he did.
Unless, of course, you think it would have been better to occupy the country for ten or more years with several divisions of American troops.
10223. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:03:01 AM
Ace --
Quit giggling and think.
We're talking political campaigns. "Squandered the Gulf War" does not mean "lost the Gulf War," it means lost the 1992 election despite having crushed the enemy and achieving a 90%-plus approval rating.
10224. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:05:03 AM
Ace --
"Unless, of course, you think it would have been better to occupy the country for ten or more years with several divisions of American troops."
Again, you're off topic. But since you asked: I'm not so sure it wouldn't have been a better idea. Occupation worked wonders for Germany and Japan.
10225. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:10:39 AM
it means lost the 1992 election despite having crushed the enemy and achieving a 90%-plus approval rating.
Well, that's what happens when a recession occurs. I think you know damn well that if we were in a recession during the impeachment, Al Gore would be our President.
As for occupying Iraq:
I doubt very much you believe this; you suggest it mainly because you want to find fault with Bush.
No doubt it *might* have been better to take on the Soviet Union immediately after WW2 and push them back behind their borders, while our troops were over there, while they were exhausted, and while we had a monopoly on atomic firepower.
It's fun to play at might-haves, I grant you.
What if Superman's space-crib had landed in Nazi Germany rather than Smallville Kansas? We'll never really know.
10226. concerned - 12/14/1999 3:10:55 AM
American occupation of Iraq would have inflamed Muslim fundamentalism like nothing else could have, quite possibly leading to the downfall of the governments of more moderate states such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
10227. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:13:04 AM
while the SOVIETS were exhausted, I meant; but our troops were exhausted as well.
10228. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:22:27 AM
Ace --
"Well, that's what happens when a recession occurs."
Maybe. But if they're as infallible as you seem to believe, it seems to me that with a decisive victory over the Iraqis the year and a 90% approval rating in the third year of his Presidency, the super-geniuses of the Bush campaign should have been able to do a bit better.
"I think you know damn well that if we were in a recession during the impeachment, Al Gore would be our President."
Interesting point, but I guess we'll never know. It is fun to play at might-haves, I grant you.
10229. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:25:28 AM
And one other thing, Ace: "As for occupying Iraq: I doubt very much you believe this ..." Your opinions concerning my beliefs have proven unreliable in the past. This is another instance where you're off the mark.
10230. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:25:33 AM
Trialshark:
The geniuses in the Bush campaign cannot win with a pair of threes. And when you're in a recession, that's the hand you hold.
People vote with their pocketbooks. Cliched but true. I voted against Bush because I didn't think the was doing enough to kick start the economy.
Looking back, I think non-intervention was the right course, as we came out of the recession just before the election. Many people no doubt feel the same way now, and felt the same way BEFORE the recession, but a bad economy changes your thinking in a hurry, if only for a time.
10231. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:29:18 AM
In addition, Bush did wage a very weak campaign. He was obviously tired by that point and phoning it in. Two quarts short of charisma and energy, as he has said.
And Clinton *was* an attractive candidate in 1992. Or at least I thought so.
I remember being a bit put off by his lapses of honesty and his rumored history of womanizing. "But how much harm could such character defects POSSIBLY cause?" I thought.
10232. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:33:16 AM
Ace --
"The geniuses in the Bush campaign cannot win with a pair of threes."
So you say. The fact remains that they lost, and lost to a man who by all rights they should have beaten. So as I said -- I'm not willing to convey the mantle of infallibility on the Bush campaign just yet.
10233. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:37:42 AM
"The fact remains that they lost, and lost to a man who by all rights they should have beaten."
Hah, hah. Suddenly you postulate Clinton to have been a weak candidate when it serves your current purposes.
Clinton was the best Democratic candidate since Kennedy (or LBJ, if you want to count him, but he ran as an incumbent).
He favored leftish economic intervention while the economy was in recession, and abandoned old unpopular causes like the death penalty and spineless pandering to whatever the Rainbow Coalition types wanted.
But NOW, because you wish to prove that Bush was dumb, you suggest that Bush should have "by all rights" beaten the presumably weak pretender Clinton.
During the worst recession since the mid-seventies.
Okay.
10234. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 3:43:58 AM
.
Molly Ivins with the Bush column she didn't finish---and a personal note (excerpted below).
"A personal note: I have contracted an outstanding case of breast cancer, from which I fully intend to recover. I don't need get-well cards, but I would like the beloved women readers to do something for me: Go. Get. The. Damn. Mammogram. Done."
10235. concerned - 12/14/1999 3:44:14 AM
I also think a certain jug-eared grenade with a bad haircut had something to do with Bush Sr.'s loss. I still remember Perot's specious accusations against the Bush Campaign - something having to do with selling compromising photographs of his daughter's wedding to tabloid magazines. Now, that doesn't make much sense, but Perot never really did either, AFAIC.
10236. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 3:50:05 AM
Ace --
"But NOW, because you wish to prove that Bush was dumb..."
Right, Ace. "Not infallible" means "dumb." That's exactly what I meant.
Not.
Bush had a lot going for him in '92 -- enough so that many Democrats decided not to challenge him. Yet he still lost to a realtively obscure governor who had a ton of personal baggage that somehow was never properly exploited.
This doesn't make Bush "dumb;" it makes his advisers "not infallible." And if they could lose to Governor Clinton, they can certainly lose to Senator McCain.
10237. concerned - 12/14/1999 3:55:00 AM
Then there's Lawrence Walsh's exquisitely timed Iran Contra indictment of Caspar Weinberger, what was it, four days before the 1992 elections?
Gee thanks, Walshie - you helped get Impeachment Boy elected *and* kill the IC Statute with that brilliant move!
10238. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 3:59:51 AM
"Bush had a lot going for him in '92 -- enough so that many Democrats decided not to challenge him. Yet he still lost to a realtively obscure governor who had a ton of personal baggage that somehow was never properly exploited."
Properly exploited? You mean Republicans should have played up the draft-dodging? Or the womanizing (only *rumored* at that point; and while Clinton seemed to admit it in the Steve Kroft interview, he also seemed to promise it would never happen again, and I believed him).
Eh. Whatever.
No Democrats ran against Bush because they were pussies and saw that huge 90% approval rating after the Gulf War. Clinton, Tsongas, and Brown weren't pussies (well, Brown is just nutty) and DID run.
And then the economy headed south and Bush had a 40% approval rating a year later.
Clinton is the luckiest man alive, to have his serious competitors scared out by the 90% approval rating but then going on to face a President with a 40% approval rating.
In any event, MANY people could have beaten Bush at that point, due to the economy. Tsongas would have beaten him if Clinton didn't. And Kerrey, Gore, and Bradley could have beaten him at that point to.
Re: McCain
You're mischaracterizing what we're debating; not due to maliciousness, I'm sure, but simply because you've forgotten.
I don't claim Bush's campaign is too smart to lose to McCain. He probably has too much money and support to lose, but he could lose.
I am arguing that a rock is too smart to think a whispering campaign connecting a war-hero's hellish torture in the Hanoi Hilton to unfitness to be President could ever, EVER, work.
It didn't work, assuming it was tried at all. It COULDN'T work. Ever.
And as dumb as you might think Bush is, no one is dumb enough to think it could have worked. No one. Anywhere.
10239. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 4:01:21 AM
connie --
Wow. You and Ace have me convinced.
I now believe that none of the Bush campaign advisers bear the slightest responsibility for the GOP's loss in 1992. It was all someone else's fault. The Bush brain trust did everything perfectly.
And what they did for Dad, the infallible ones will surely do for his son.
10240. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 4:07:21 AM
Ace --
"I am arguing that a rock is too smart to think a whispering campaign connecting a war-hero's hellish torture in the Hanoi Hilton to unfitness to be President could ever, EVER, work. It didn't work, assuming it was tried at all ... no one is dumb enough to think it could have worked. No one. Anywhere."
I'll grant you that it didn't work. But I won't go so far as to say no one would try.
10241. concerned - 12/14/1999 4:08:27 AM
I think it makes an awful lot more sense for McCain supporters (or people opposed to GWB) to *claim* a whispering campaign and point fingers at the Republican front runner than for there to *be* any such whispering campaign.
10242. concerned - 12/14/1999 4:10:44 AM
Re. 10239 -
Ha ha ha, TS. To the contrary. I think Bush Sr. ran a *very* lackluster campaign in '92. But he had help in losing from several quarters.
10243. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 4:13:14 AM
But I won't go so far as to say no one would try.
I grant you SOMEONE might try as an off the cuff comment. I grant someone might be stupid enough to say, without thinking too much about it, "Don't support this guy. He doesn't have the temperment. He flies off the handle at the slightest thing. And you know-- those five years in the Hanoi Hilton."
Yes, someone could be that stupid.
Now, let's take that person calling up someone else: "Hey, what do think about trying to connect McCain's temper to his torture in Hanoi? Maybe they knocked a screw loose, you know?"
Response: "Are you out of your fucking mind?"
"Heh. Um, yeah. I guess it's pretty stupid. Just brainstorming here, man."
Extemporaneous stupidity on the part of one man, or perhaps two or three men having the same stupid thought? Possible.
Calculated, planned stupidity to which more than a single person agrees?: Not possible.
Keep in mind, TrialShark: The rumor came from the CONTRIBUTORS, if anything. Guys trying to help the campaign, possibly, but not the guys who plan the campaign.
10244. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 4:18:06 AM
...contributors who I'm sure assume that because they're rich, they must be smart, and who desperately want to be more involved in the excitement of a campaign beyond merely writing a big check.
If anyone floated that whisper, I'm sure they thought it was a great idea. Just like everyone thinks every goddamn idea they have is brilliant.
No one, however, who had any experience in politics, or a super-90 IQ, would think it a good idea.
10245. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 7:00:16 AM
Concerned Message # 10241:
I think it makes an awful lot more sense for McCain supporters (or people opposed to GWB) to *claim* a whispering campaign and point fingers at the Republican front runner than for there to *be* any such whispering campaign.
Jesus H. Christ. Tell me you're not fucking serious. While it is remotely (and I use that word very generously) possible, it certainly does not "make an awful lot more sense" for McCain to pull a fast one on himself and hope the finger gets pointed at Bush. If that's the case, then John-Boy really does have snakes in his head.
But I'm inclined to agree with virtually everyone else, that someone (maybe someone from W.'s campaign, maybe not) is spreading malicious gossip about a guy who indisputably made an extreme sacrifice for his country. And I really hate to see anyone, from either "wing", fucking around with such a record.
10246. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 8:40:27 AM
I'm concerned about concerned. Sumthin just aint "right" here.
10247. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 10:04:37 AM
E-mail from my cyber-pal Ted Zep:
"Here is my e-mail to Bob Parry(if Magazine and The
Consortium) about my televised call on C-Span.
Dear Bob,
Tonight there was a live call-in show about George
Bush, on C-Span's Presidential Portraits. It was held
at the Bush Library, with Robert Greene, a Bush
biographer as guest. They even had the "Studebaker" on
display, and mentioned it! (I've read that this is an
invented little anecdote).It was pretty much the
"sunny side" of the Bushes, so I decide to interject a
little doubt into this portrait. Surprisingly, the
screener let me ask my question.
I asked, "Much is being made of George Bush's
patriotism in serving during WWII, but there is
another side to this story, as his father, Prescott
Bush, had his assets seized under the Trading With the
Enemy
Act, for trading with Nazi Industrialists. There are
also questions that George Bush's History with the CIA
extended beyond his term as CIA Director. When he was
Vice President, he put Manuel Noriega on the CIA
payroll. Also, Caspar Weinberger's notes revealed that
Bush was not 'out of the loop' of Iran-Contra as he
claimed. The Consortium, an on-line investigative
journal, has explored the other side of this history."
10248. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 10:05:03 AM
(continued)
"Surprisingly, Mr. Greene was nice and relatively
unruffled. (I missed the very beginning of his
response, in the gap between their hang-up and
turning the volume back up on my set): "[I think with
regard to Prescott Bush] the caller has recounted this
correctly. Much of that information is classified, but
this is part of the ongoing on-line discussion.
Having studied Iran-Contra, I believe that VP Bush was
more in the loop than he claimed, but maybe not as
much as his enemies would like to believe.
"But the key aspect of Bush is his loyalty, which cost
him politically in maintaining his allegiance to John
Sununu and Clarence Thomas."
Then they quickly switched to a photo of Bush with
LBJ--something about a troubling time--maybe it was
the JFK death?(Adrenalin was pumping so I
kind of missed it). Then they went into Bush's
letter(dictated to his assistant) telling Nixon it was
time to resign. They also talked about how difficult
it was as GOP Chairman for Bush to deal with
Watergate.
They seemed to shift things back to Watergate to
emphasize that Bush took a stand against Nixon. They
did this at least one more time during the program.
Later, they did flash a photo of him as CIA Director,
posing in the Atrium with the CIA Seal.
All the other calls seemed flattering and asking
positive questions.
I'm just having fun with this stuff--so I just wanted
to let you know that there are many of us who are
supportive of your efforts.
All the best,
Ted"
10249. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 10:35:10 AM
10250. msgreer - 12/14/1999 11:04:47 AM
Cellar
Excellent article. Has anyone sent Rudy and his friends the Surgeon's General just released report on mental illness? No no. That would never come across his desk or any Repug's for that matter.
Homelessness is a solvable issue. No I don't have all the answers but I would be willing to work with Rudy should he call.
10251. Ronski - 12/14/1999 11:15:19 AM
Equating Hillary Clinton and Helen Douglas is one of the silliest things I've read in a long time, and I read a lot.
10252. msgreer - 12/14/1999 11:19:24 AM
AS for Ms. Heather MacDonald perhaps she should experience what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck. Then when she has an emergency and all her paycheck is gone, she can't pay the monthly dues on her Fifth Avenue condo, nor charge to Bonwits, her car is gone because she can't make the payments, she starts selling her jewelry and various electronic devices just to EAT and darn when she goes to look for help with social agencies they don't exist because her man Rudy has closed so damn manner. Then Heather could live on the streets and be interviewed by bitches such as herself.
Cellar, would Hollywood like this one? Think there is a story for God's sake.
I see Anne Coulter playing Heather. Perfect match.
10253. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:25:05 AM
The same gnashing and wailing accompanied welfare reform. Indeed, to have someone work while in a shelter is frightening. And to take people off of the streets by arrest in a city that regularly loses scores to deaths by freezing in the winter months. Positively Dickensian. And children of parents who cannot care for them may be taken away from them. The horror.
10254. Ronski - 12/14/1999 11:25:45 AM
Solution to "homelessness":
For the mentally ill, direct oberved treatment (DOT) to ensure they take their meds, in supervised group homes or small institutions.
For the criminally inclined, jail.
For the rest, a job, of which there are quite a few around these days.
10255. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:29:01 AM
Since the police crackdown on the homeless started Nov. 23, about 226 people have been arrested, 577 have been transported to shelters and more than 95 have been taken to hospitals.
Sounds positively fascist.
10256. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:30:47 AM
Here is a snapshot of homeless adults in the United States, from a Housing and Urban Development Department report released this week:
Parents
Without children 85%
With children 15%
Sex
Male 77%
Female 23%
Age
17-24 10%
25-54 81%
55+ 9%
Health problems
39% Mental illness
26% Drug abuse
38% Alcoholism
26% Acute infectious conditions (for example, bronchitis, pneumonia.)
8% Acute noninfectious conditions (for example, skin ulcers, lice.)
46% Chronic health problems (for example, arthritis, diabetes)
10257. msgreer - 12/14/1999 11:42:08 AM
Ronski
Not a bad beginning. Just one thing. Surgeon Generals report on mental illness says the jails are full of mentally ill persons whose pnly reason for being jailed was their behavior. Behavior related to their mental illness. So before we throw the "criminally inclined" into jail it might be an act of humanity if we as a society helped those folks with medication and supervised, safe places to go while getting their illness under control. I don't doubt for a minute most folks want to work and this can be achieved.
109109
You make my case for me. Thanks for those statisics. Hey, maybe some HMO wants to hop in and help these folks out. Sounds like some could get back on their feet if their medical issues were dealt with.
Spent time talking to folks with diabetes lately, Niner?
10258. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:47:18 AM
msgreer
I'm not sure what your case is, but I am sure that my conversations with the afflicted would neither strengthen nor weaken it.
10259. 109109 - 12/14/1999 11:48:28 AM
msgreer
And I assume that in your compassion, you support the forced institutionalization of the mentally ill.
10260. dusty - 12/14/1999 11:54:17 AM
msgreer
"AS for Ms. Heather MacDonald perhaps she should experience what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck."
Just as an aside, I was startled to read this sentence. I have a friend named Heather MacDonald, who happens to be homeless, and doesn't even get a regular paycheck. But I take it this is a different person.
10261. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 11:57:15 AM
Cellar - Only you could post a link to a Village Voice article and expect it to be taken seriously. Who will you be quoting next? Lyndon LaRouche?
10262. JudithAtHome - 12/14/1999 11:58:11 AM
Niner:
I think my irony detector is working today...love your 53 & 54.
10263. msgreer - 12/14/1999 12:01:28 PM
dusty
No I was not making reference to your friend. Cellar linked an article on the homeless where a 'reporter' was mentioned. Her name was Heather MacDonald.
10264. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:02:19 PM
Ace --
"Keep in mind, TrialShark: The rumor came from the CONTRIBUTORS, if anything. Guys trying to help the campaign, possibly, but not the guys who plan the campaign."
Actually, Hagel said the contributors told him the rumors came from Republican members of the Senate.
"If anyone floated that whisper, I'm sure they thought it was a great idea. Just like everyone thinks every goddamn idea they have is brilliant."
Yup. Even when they're dead wrong.
Especially when they're dead wrong.
So let's recap: you no longer think "no one is dumb enough to think it could have worked. No one. Anywhere."
Having acknowledged that someone might have thought it a bright idea, you can no longer argue there were no rumors because no one would be dumb enough to spread them. There's no need to posit that Senator Hagel was the victim of miscommunication.
Still, you're sure it couldn't possibly have been anyone in the Bush campaign who did the deed. Maybe it wasn't. But Bauer, Hatch, and McCain's advisers think it was, and given Hagel's claims I can't buy your argument that it couldn't have been.
10265. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:04:07 PM
MsGreer - You make my case for me. Thanks for those statisics.
Those statistics show that, despite VV's claims to the contrary, the average homeless person is not a child.
10266. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:06:58 PM
One more thing, Ace: despite the fact that JJ's claim -- that I always assume a rumor about a Republican must be true -- is demonstrably false, you keep on plugging. First you argue defending Senator McCain doesn't count because he's really an "honorary Democrat;" then you claim that there weren't really any rumors.
I admire your devotion to JJ. You're being silly, but at least you're loyal.
10267. 109109 - 12/14/1999 12:08:28 PM
Trial
The whispering campaign was actually created by McCain, and smartly so. He has insulated himself from legitimate criticism as to whether he is a dick to people by way of a very potent rejoinder. He is not well liked in the Senate. He has made it work for him on the level of maverick. He now has a nice elbow to those who press the point of his prickly nature.
CRITIC: "McCain is a hothead and if he doesn't get his way, he screams at you. I'm not sure this is the kind of guy we want."
SUPPORTER: "How dare you impugn this great man and suggest that his years as a captive have made him ill-suited to the presidency."
Give the man his props. He (and/or his supporters) have created an environment that transforms criticism of his style into flag burning.
10268. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 12:09:18 PM
Niner --
What does "parents without children" mean?
I always thought having kids was sort of a definitional prerequisite.
10269. 109109 - 12/14/1999 12:11:46 PM
Trial
Don't know. I lifted it from the Washington Post. I assume it means that the children aren't physically accompanying them on their homeless odyssey.
10270. JudithAtHome - 12/14/1999 12:14:13 PM
Maybe Rudy has them all in a hotel somewhere, holding them hostage til the parents get a job.
10271. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 12:16:57 PM
TS - The fact remains that the whole whispering campaign remains a rumor passed from one anonymous source to another. All accounts are second-, third-and fourth-hand. Because it tends to discredit Republicans, you believe these rumors are fact.
Let's go back in time a bit. We had direct testimony from victims of Clinton's sexual assaults. These weren't rumors or third-hand reports. If memory serves, you went out of your way to find some pretext on which to disbelieve their testimony.
I think the contrast proves the point. You can continue to deny it, but your own words betray you.
10272. msgreer - 12/14/1999 12:44:22 PM
JJ
I was not speaking of the percentage of children. My point was there are alot of physical ill persons on the street that might benefit from good health care, job training and then to work.. in that order. It would be a starting point in reducing the number of homeless.
10273. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:02:39 PM
39% Mental illness
26% Drug abuse
38% Alcoholism
I assume overlap of all three, but 3 out of every 4 homeless persons are mentally ill, drug fiends, drunks or some combo.
You cannot job train these people. Any offer of medical assistance will be taken for as long as their addled states stay reasonable, or up until the moment that the need for drugs and alcohol becomes acute (less than 24 hours). Giuliani's offer - while certainly not warm and fuzzy - is at minimum a noisy rebuke to tired and unworkable platitudes. But these homeless will persevere in their state despite the preachy molly-coddle of the welfare state and the stinging slap of Giuliani's "You sleep, you work, you stay off the streets, and if you can't find a roof for your kids, you lose them."
In the end, the debate is only about 1/4 of those who are homeless (i.e., those who aren't mentally ill or slave to drugs/booze) . . . probably less.
10274. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:09:55 PM
JJ --
"Because it tends to discredit Republicans, you believe these rumors are fact."
Which rumors?
There are two sets here: first, the rumors about Senator McCain, which I disbelieve and have challenged. That alone demonstrates that your contention -- that I take all rumors about Republicans as established fact -- is false.
The second set are the rumors about the origin of the rumors about McCain. On this, I am prepared to accept the word of a Republican -- Senator Chuck Hagel -- that the rumors about McCain are being spread by other Republicans. He or his sources could be lying, I suppose, but I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion.
I'm also not willing to conclude -- as the campaigns of GOP candidates Bauer and Hatch have claimed -- that the rumors about Senator McCain necessarily originated with the Bush camp. But neither am I willing to assume that the Bauer and Hatch people are simply smearing Bush with baseless accusations.
So let's recap: I don't believe the rumors about Senator McCain (R-AZ) are true; I don't believe Senator Hagel (R-NE) is a liar. I'm not convinced, as the Bauer and Hatch campaigns are, that the rumors originated with the campaign of Governor Bush (R-TX); but I don't assume that the Republicans in the Bauer or Hatch campaigns are making up their claims, either.
Hmmm... maybe I am being too rough on those Republicans.
10275. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:13:16 PM
MsGreer - My point was there are alot of physical ill persons on the street that might benefit from good health care, job training and then to work.. in that order
I don't think it would do anything to reduce the number of homeless. The problems of the hardcore homeless go way beyond health care and job training. These things are already available. Unless you are prepared to force them into alcohol and drug treatment, job training, and medical/mental treatment programs, the effects will be minimal. Even if you force them into programs, many of them won't be helped.
10276. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:14:31 PM
Niner --
"The whispering campaign was actually created by McCain, and smartly so. ... Give the man his props. He (and/or his supporters) have created an environment that transforms criticism of his style into flag burning."
Could be. If he did come up with it to innoculate himself, he deserve credits, because it seems to have worked. I don't know that I'd have tried such a risky move, though: there are too many potential downsides.
And I would never assume, as you have, that Senator McCain would stoop to such Machiavellian maneuvers ... because if I did make such an assumption, it would hurt JJ's feelings.
10277. Ronski - 12/14/1999 1:19:00 PM
msgreer,
I agree that the number of mentally ill among the incarcerated is probably a good deal higher than the population at large (and was going to mention that). The exact numbers would be dependent on the definition of mental illness, which is a very broad term ranging from simple mood disorders to full-blown psychoses. I would caution that we not use the term mental illness to excuse any and all anti-social behavior.
Heather MacDonald, who is not a reporter but a highly-respected urban public policy analyst with the Manhattan Institute (not my favorite think tank, but it has some good people like Walter Olson), has repeatedly pointed out the real facts of homelessness. An inescapable conclusion (unless one is writing for the Village Voice) about the homelessness situation is that a good number of the homeless are single men who simply do not want to work.
Some also are profoundly anti-social people who wish to be near others (in cities) but do not want to be tied down to any material possessions other than those they lug around and do not wished to housed permanently. These people, who used to be called "feral" by Geraldo Rivera and a few others back in the early 70s, are probably suffering from some sort of mental disorder as viewed by most people, though I am not certain I would agree with that assessment myself. Bottom line: You cannot help those who refuse to be helped.
As for Giuliani, he has continued the City's longstanding policies of providing free health care to anyone who walks into municipal hospitals, forcible rounding up of the deranged homeless on sub-freezing nights who are brought by the police to emergency rooms and treated there, and an extensive low-cost housing program that dwarfs most other cities' efforts, far from being the Hun that Rosie O'Donnell thinks he is.
10278. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 1:20:29 PM
Niner #10273,
While the debate may be about how to help the remaining 25%, Giuliani's remedy criminalizes the acts of the whole group, including those who, as you concede, will persevere in their state. Unless you want to fill the prisons with these people, any sensible solution must include treatment. And yes, I support forced institutionalization of mentally ill who are unable to provide for themselves. It's better for these people to be in an institution than a prison.
10279. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:21:18 PM
The Weekly Standard
December 6, 1999
Anatomy of a Pseudo Smear;
McCain supporters point fingers Bush backers say, Who, me?
FRED BARNES;
"SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL of Nebraska says he first got wind of the whisper campaign against John McCain while listening to columnist George Will on ABC's This Week on November 7. Will cited Republican senators as remarking on McCain's "personal pique" when opposed. It goes, said Will, "to the question about whether or not you are going to deal with all the people in [Washington] who disagree with you, even when you are president." Then, Hagel says he heard rumors that a few senators were privately suggesting McCain, the Arizona senator, was traumatized as a POW in North Vietnam and now is too unstable to be president. Hagel concluded McCain was being viciously smeared.
A McCain pal and supporter, Hagel went on the warpath. He confronted senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia, the point man in the Senate for George W. Bush's presidential campaign. Hagel also asked to meet with Karl Rove, Bush's chief strategist. Through Coverdell, Bush denied spreading any stories about McCain's fitness. Rove declined to meet with Hagel, but he, too, denied the Bush campaign was smearing McCain. Later, a number of pro-Bush senators insisted
they hadn't intimated that McCain is unstable.
10280. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:21:54 PM
All that, however, didn't end what has become one of the oddest episodes in the GOP presidential struggle, and one that may wind up aiding McCain's White House bid. If nothing else, McCain is a sympathetic victim. He was a hero in Vietnam, who refused early release by his Hanoi jailers. So using McCain's Vietnam experience against him would indeed be a smear. But there's reason to believe the smear never occurred.
The smear story broke in the press on November 19 with a column by Elizabeth Drew in the Washington Post, followed two days later by one in the New York Times by Maureen Dowd. Drew named four Republican senators as participants in "a smear campaign of the ugliest sort." Dowd wrote about " whispered insinuations" by Republicans, including Bush backers, that McCain had been driven "cuckoo" in Vietnamese dungeons. And Dowd quoted Hagel as saying the anti- McCain talk is "an orchestrated effort, very subtle, very clever." What started as complaints about McCain's temper, Hagel said, turned into discussions
of his temperament, then to suggestions of "instability."
There's a problem, however, with the notion of a smear campaign against McCain: No actual instances of smears have been reported, no examples of Sen. X talking to reporter Y about McCain and Vietnam. Neither Drew nor Dowd cited any, though Drew said on CNN she had the "most multiple and hardest confirmations" of smears. Roll Call, the Capitol Hill newspaper, searched for instances and couldn't find any. McCain himself said on Face the Nation on November 21 that he didn't know of any. Howard Opinsky, McCain's campaign press
secretary, told me, "I don't have any evidence one way or the other, and we're not saying any exists." Even Hagel described the smears as "phantoms."
10281. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:22:27 PM
But Hagel did say he heard that two "money men" from New York had asked two senators if they should back the McCain campaign and were told they shouldn't because McCain is unstable. But Hagel doesn't know the names of the senators. And every senator whose name has come up in connection with the alleged smear has reacted indignantly. Hagel says he talked to Senate GOP whip Don Nickles,
who was named by Drew as a smearer, and believes his denial. Majority leader Trent Lott, also named by Drew, told reporters on November 19: "I don't know what is wrong with Elizabeth Drew. . . . There is not one iota of truth to it. There is no whisper campaign." Coverdell, in a letter to the Post, said the "accusations are reckless, without merit, and quite simply, poppycock." Nickles,
in a separate letter to the Post, called the charge he'd smeared McCain "absolutely false. . . . I have the greatest respect for him and I would not undermine him or his campaign in any way whatsoever."
Perhaps these denials should be taken with a grain of salt. Drew wrote that denials should be expected. "Nobody is going to stand up in front of the world," says Hagel, and assert that McCain is unfit to be president because of what happened in Vietnam. But denials aren't proof that what's being denied is true either. It is clear that a number of McCain's Senate colleagues don't say nice things about him. McCain has bucked the leadership on campaign finance
reform and anti-tobacco legislation, and he prides himself on being a maverick. Lott and senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, an influential Republican, "have a problem with McCain," Hagel says.
10282. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:22:41 PM
So do other Republicans. The flap over McCain's temper began with an October 25 story by Richard Berke of the New York Times in which Arizona governor Jane Hull told of McCain's "occasional eruptions at her." The story also quoted Michigan governor John Engler questioning whether McCain is a team player. The McCain campaign -- and McCain himself -- took this as a shot across the bow from the Bush campaign. McCain suggested a memo must have gone out from Bush
headquarters with orders to attack McCain's temper. The Bush camp scoffed at this. A week later, McCain's hometown paper in Phoenix, the Arizona Republic, said in an editorial that there's "reason to seriously question whether McCain has the temperament, and the political approach and skills, we want in the next president of the United States."
It's possible that gripes about McCain's temper were interpreted as tacitly alluding to the after-effects of his hideous treatment as a POW. George Will, for instance, didn't mention Vietnam. I suspect we'll never know for sure whether McCain was smeared. But lack of certainty didn't stop Newsweek from giving Lott a down arrow for trashing McCain. And presidential hopefuls Gary Bauer and senator Orrin Hatch quickly blamed the Bush campaign for smearing McCain. Mike Murphy, McCain's strategist, says the McCain campaign won the flap over his temper and Vietnam. Of that, there's no doubt.
10283. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:33:58 PM
Niner --
Thanks for the article. I especially liked the summation: "I suspect we'll never know ..."
That's what I admire about Fred Barnes -- his willingness to go out on a limb like that.
As I said before: if McCain did spread rumors about his fellow Republicans, he deserves credit for being ballsy and for winning the spin war. You don't get to be where he is now without being willing to roll the dice, but I wouldn't have counseled him to do it: too much risk.
10284. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:35:53 PM
Dan
"While the debate may be about how to help the remaining 25%, Giuliani's remedy criminalizes the acts of the whole group, including those who, as you concede, will persevere in their state. Unless you want to fill the prisons with these people, any sensible solution must include treatment. And yes, I support forced institutionalization of mentally ill who are unable to provide for themselves. It's better for these people to be in an institution than a prison."
Vagrancy is a crime. A sad fact, but true. Additionally, it is a crime to neglect children. It is not, however, criminal to require that homeless people go to shelters, with or without their children, that when they get there, they do some work, and that if they refuse to do work, they be separated from children for whom they clearly cannot care. You may fill the prisons, you may tax the hospitals, but you will also take people off of the streets who would otherwise risk the temperatures of winter.
10285. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:37:51 PM
TS - I never said you were being too hard on Republicans. I said you are being a sap. Someone says someone says someone is spreading a rumor and you believe they really are.
On this, I am prepared to accept the word of a Republican -- Senator Chuck Hagel -- that the rumors about McCain are being spread by other Republicans.
But he has no first-hand knowledge. He is just passing on what others have told him.
He or his sources could be lying,
Or they could be mistaken, or misquoted, or they could be reacting to the same rumors of rumors we have heard, or they could just be acting in the interests of their candidate. If this is true, who are the contributors and who are the Senators? Why don't we have one individual who will stand up and be identified claiming that Senator Lott or any of the other accused approached them with the story? Why are the only reports second, third and fourth hand? If there was a campaign to destroy McCain's chances, who were they talking to?
but I'm not willing to jump to that conclusion.
No, you are much more willing to believe in some dark conspiracy to spread rumors about McCain.
10286. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 1:43:37 PM
JJ --
You seem unwilling or unable to deal with the fact that --regardless of their source -- I do not accept the rumors about Senator McCain as true, and have defended him against them. Nor am I willing to blame Bush for spreading them, though unlike you, I believe it's possible that he (or his followers) did. Nor am I willing to assume that Gary Bauer and Orrin Hatch are simply smearing Bush.
I'm defending a lot of Republicans here, sport. You claimed I always do the contrary. You were wrong.
10287. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 1:46:47 PM
Niner #10284,
I don't disagree with most of what you've said. However, I would prefer that the homeless who are unwilling to work due to addiction or mental illness be treated and if necessary institutionalized, rather than imprisoned. I dislike Giuliani's plan because it does not include any provisions to do so.
10288. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:50:23 PM
I question the existence of the rumors as attributed to unknown senators (i.e., that McCain is mentally unstable as a byproduct of his POW experience).
I'm positive that Bush backers and McCain's colleagues have stated that they think he's a hardhead with a wicked temper.
I surmise that Hagel and Drew just decided to read between the lines for purposes both journalistic and political.
10289. Ronski - 12/14/1999 1:53:27 PM
Dan,
Scroll back. There are already and have been for decades services to help the homeless of the kind you describe. Giuliani is focusing on the able-bodied who are refusing to work.
10290. 109109 - 12/14/1999 1:53:50 PM
Dan
"However, I would prefer that the homeless who are unwilling to work due to addiction or mental illness be treated and if necessary institutionalized, rather than imprisoned. I dislike Giuliani's plan because it does not include any provisions to do so."
It cannot. You can imprison someone against their will. That is the nature of prison. You cannot, however, force someone into treatment against their will (though you can make it a condition in lieu of sentence if you are a judge). And if you do make such a condition, the mentally ill person and the addict go to court ordered treatment in lieu of prison, stay a night and then split.
It is standard in heroin recovery programs to have the moderator say at the outset, "Of the 30 of you, 1 will be clean this same time next year."
10291. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 1:55:52 PM
TS - I don't believe the rumors that you beat your wife. I also don't believe the rumor that you kill neighborhood pets for sport. While I don't necessarily believe Ace's contention that Cellar is the one spreading these rumors, I can't conpletely rule it out. It is clear that someone in the Mote has been spreading these rumors. I have it on good authority.
10292. Ronski - 12/14/1999 1:57:15 PM
Niner,
"But is that any reason to stop squandering the taxpayers' money on treatment programs," some would ask (but not I, of course).
10293. 109109 - 12/14/1999 2:02:50 PM
Ronski
No. Not you. Not such a draconian thing as that.
10294. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 2:03:40 PM
Niner #10290,
"You cannot, however, force someone into treatment against their will..." Unfortunately, I believe you are right under current law (I believe that mentally ill and addicts who need such treatment are incapable of choosing to refuse such treatment of their own free will -- I think the cases to the contrary are wrongly decided). It's a situation where I don't like the choices our society has made.
10295. Ronski - 12/14/1999 2:05:45 PM
Dan,
Would you force those with a penchant for marijuana to submit to some sort of treatment that attempts to cure their preference for the weed?
10296. 109109 - 12/14/1999 2:09:06 PM
Dan
I agree. If Giuliani, through the courts, had the power to have judges incarcerate the homeless into treatment prisons and/or mental hospitals, the playing field would change. But then every person presently bleating about the cruelty of his policy and its supposed Catch-22 would catch their breath, and start bleating about the loss of rights to the mentally ill and the criminally addicted. As it is, Giuliani has taken a bright line: get off the street with or without your children, get into the shelter, and work a little for your bed. If you can't do that, you'll go back on the street and risk jail (where you'll be warm) and if you can't do that and you have children, they stay (as wards of the state), you go.
Given his constraints, it is utterly reasonable.
10297. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 2:09:38 PM
Ronski #10295,
Not without proof that marijuana is both addictive and harmful. Neither exists now.
10298. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:12:53 PM
Niner --
"I surmise that Hagel and Drew just decided to read between the lines for purposes both journalistic and political."
I can believe that a journalist would altered accounts of Senator McCain's temper to make the story better.
It's also possible that Senator Hagel decided to "read between the lines," changing the core details -- ie, that the rumors relate to McCain's POW experience -- in order to change the nature of the story for political gain. I'm not willing to assume he created such a false details, however.
If Hagel were inclined to invent such a story, it would be far easier to blame Bush supporters in Texas or Arizona that he won't have to work with next year or the year after, rather than his colleagues in the Senate. Alternatively, he could have blamed the Gore or Bradley campaigns. He did none of these things, and so I suspect that his story is true as stated.
But to borrow a line from our mutual hero Fred Barnes: it's possible we'll never know.
10299. Ronski - 12/14/1999 2:15:17 PM
Dan,
I agree that marijuana is neither addictive in the usual sense of the word, nor is harmful if used in small quantities, or at least no more so than a combination of alcohol and tobacco. (I don't use it myself.)
My point, however, is that there are plenty of young men among the homeless who enjoy smoking dope and not working.
10300. 109109 - 12/14/1999 2:15:39 PM
Hagel in all likelihood heard the "whispers," and filled in the gaps. Like calling a black "uppitty," he heard the codewords ("crazy, "wacko," "possessed") and being a loyal lieutenant in the McCain brigade, he fired what has been a very impressive salvo.
10301. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:15:51 PM
TS - I just got an email from a Motie who says that he just got an email which confirms that members of the Mote's Inner Circle have been spreading rumors about you. Those members have said that because you beat your wife and kill your neighbors pets you are too unstable to host a Mote thread.
Don't worry, though. I defended you. I wrote him back and told him that your wife beating and pet killing would not affect your ability host a Mote thread.
I just want you to know I think this secret email campaign to destroy your reputation is in no way acceptable behavior in the Mote. I think the Inner Circle should be ashamed of their attempts to prevent you from getting a thread to host. I want you to know that I am behind you 100% against this evil conspiracy.
10302. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:20:55 PM
JJ --
Thanks for defending me like that, pal. I think you're an okay guy, no matter what everyone else says behind your back.
10303. TrialShark - 12/14/1999 2:24:34 PM
Niner --
"Hagel in all likelihood heard the "whispers," and filled in the gaps."
Nah. I'll take the man at his word. Either the stuff Senator Hagel heard about Senator McCain was linked to McCain's POW experience, or Hagel is one devious operator. And if he's that devious, I doubt he'd finger his colleagues when it would be so easy to point at someone else.
10304. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 2:24:51 PM
I for one would like to see all motie hosts release their medical records and take urine drug tests.
10305. Ronski - 12/14/1999 2:29:13 PM
Niner,
Avoid kaiser rolls and poppyseed cake, which will yield a false positive.
10306. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 2:29:57 PM
Ronski, any recommendations for how I can cover up the Thorazine?
10307. Ronski - 12/14/1999 2:31:30 PM
Espresso?
10308. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:35:43 PM
Indy - I will gladly release my medical records. Do you have a spare filing cabinet? The four drawer kind. The two drawer cabinet would only take us up to 1990.
I will also claim that I have not ingested or injected any illegal substances in the last 20 years. I will also claim that I haven't smoked any illegal substances in the last 15 years.
As you can see, I am (cough) perfectly (cough, hack, cough) suited (cough, cough, gag, sneeze) to be (shudder, shake, twitch) thread host.
10309. CalGal - 12/14/1999 2:40:18 PM
Indy,
I'm completely clean from birth, and I still have an altered reality. Go figure.
10310. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:41:42 PM
CalGal - I still have an altered reality
That explains your penchant for voting Democratic.
10311. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 2:42:37 PM
CalGal - BTW, Are you ever going to respond to my post to you in Health Issues?
10312. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 2:46:46 PM
CalGal and JJ, you both have my full vote of confidence.
Except on those occasions when I "forget" to take my medication (a' la Bill Bradley), turn into the Lizard, and try to kill Spiderman, I'm fine too.
10313. 109109 - 12/14/1999 3:09:31 PM
Trial, JJ
From Meet the Press
MR. RUSSERT: Senator Hagel, you created a stir some weeks ago in an interview with Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. Let me put that on the screen for you and our viewers and read it to our table here. "There's no question in my mind that some of my Senate colleagues want to drive a stake through John McCain's heart. It's an orchestrated effort, very subtle, very clever. The underlying
message is: 'John's nuts and shouldn't be around any kind of buttons that could lead to nuclear war.' It's disgusting, despicable rumor-mongering about a guy who has given so damn much to his country by a lot of guys who have never given anything and never worn uniforms." What are you talking about?
SEN. HAGEL: I plead guilty. I did say that. And there has been an effort across the political landscape to take the issue of temperament and instability based on John's five and a half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp to an inconclusion that, "Well, maybe he's a good guy, a hero, but he's just not quite right for this job." We know there was something going on out there. A number of us jumped into that breech to see if we could identify it. I went to see my friend, Paul Coverdell, about it. I'm convinced that Paul Coverdell and Don Nickels and some others that were mentioned in this had nothing to do with it. I'm convinced that Governor Bush knew and knows nothing about this. But this is the kind of backroom stuff, behind the curtains, Tim--it's very dangerous to the system and to the process. If you want to take John McCain on, take him on head on. Have the courage to step forward.
10314. 109109 - 12/14/1999 3:12:52 PM
MR. RUSSERT: But Senator Hagel, you said, "It's my Senate colleagues who want to drive a stake through his heart." Who are they?
SEN. HAGEL: Well, the fact is that we do know that there's some activity out there. And we are aware of some of those phone calls that came to some of the campaign finance people. We had people who wanted to contribute that called us back and said they had talked with various senators. So the fact is that we know it's there. I think we've been able to deal with it. We're going to move on. John McCain is talking about why he wants to be president. His leadership,
his policies and where he would take this country.
MR. RUSSERT: The leader of the Senate's named--Trent Lott was raised by Elizabeth Drew. Is there any truth to that?
SEN. HAGEL: I didn't talk to Trent about it. You'd have to talk to Trent about it.
10315. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 3:20:00 PM
I think "McCain's nuts" was a trial balloon that popped pretty quickly. Whoever was behind it (and I don't think it was McCain or his team performing an "inoculation") wanted to deflate McCain's war record a bit. It's his ace in the hole. If you notice, the other previous "trouble" for McCain was the ad that featured Arlington.
Both times McCain has responded quickly: pulled the footage, released his records. McConnell and McCain's other enemies will have to work a little harder.
10316. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 3:20:48 PM
Niner - Gee, I'm convinced.
10317. 109109 - 12/14/1999 3:20:51 PM
12/4/99
THE BELTWAY BOYS
KONDRACKE: Joining us now to talk about his man John McCain is Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel. Welcome back to the show, senator.
U.S. SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL (R-NB): Thank you.
KONDRACKE: Can I get to the bottom, please, of this whispering campaign business? I mean, you -- you're one of the people who was talking about it. The allegations were that a bunch of Republican senators were going around saying that John McCain was somehow unstable as a result of his service -- I mean, his confinement in Vietnam.
Who did it, and how much of it was there?
HAGEL: Well, that's the insidious thing about whispering campaigns, it's always behind closed doors, behind the curtains, and nobody knows. We know there was a good amount of it going on. I think we've been able to stop a good amount of it. Obviously it corresponds with John McCain's rise in the polls and how well he's doing in the campaign.
This is a tough business. We understand that, and there'll probably be more of it.
KONDRACKE: But how do you...
HAGEL: But we've got to move on.
KONDRACKE: How do you know what was going on? What -- just tell us what the flavor of this was, and who was spreading it.
HAGEL: Well, if we knew who was spreading it, it'd be a little different ball game, but...
10318. 109109 - 12/14/1999 3:21:08 PM
KONDRACKE: Well, what did you hear about it?
HAGEL: We heard an awful lot back through financial backers, people who wanted to join John's campaign, and calling certain individuals, and they were told by these individuals that, you know, John's a good guy, a war hero, but he -- I don't know, temper, temperament, five and a half years in a prison, prisoner of war camp, may not make him suitable.
Well, that's just wrong, it's the worst kind of sewer politics. We know that that was going on. I think we've been able to stop it, I hope we have.
But we're going to go on and talk about the important things for this
country, and John's going to talk about why he wants to be president of the United States, as he did in New Hampshire last night.
10319. JJBiener - 12/14/1999 3:30:49 PM
Niner - HAGEL: We heard an awful lot back through financial backers, people who wanted to join John's campaign, and calling certain individuals, and they were told by these individuals that, you know, John's a good guy, a war hero, but he -- I don't know, temper, temperament, five and a half years in a prison, prisoner of war camp, may not make him suitable.
This is interesting. Apparently the whispering campaign was some financial backers asking for opinions on McCain. That is a different picture than we have been led to believe.
10320. Ronski - 12/14/1999 4:01:22 PM
It really doesn't matter if McCain wins New Hampshire. Bush has a virtual lock on the nomination, and is the current favorite for the general election, though that may well change as people come to see what a lightweight he is. Right now, most voters aren't thinking about November 2000.
10321. Dantheman - 12/14/1999 4:03:31 PM
Ronski #10299 (Sorry -- I had a fun-filled lease status meeting to attend),
People who take a non-addictive, non-harmful substance (whether marijuana or apple juice) cannot blame their need for treatment for their failure to work. As such, I don't understand your point.
10322. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 4:11:38 PM
By the way, Niner, I've reconsidered about whether Frist could be vulnerable to a strong candidate (you mentioned Ford). I'd neglected to take into consideration that Gore might be the Democratic nominee. In that case, I suppose the right Democrat might give Frist a run, but I still think he's fairly popular in a state that seems to be going more and more Republican (both senators and governor).
10323. Ronski - 12/14/1999 4:15:13 PM
My point has been that Giuliani-bashers are isolating his recent directive on the homeless and work from the vast array of social services his administration provides and are simultaneuously suggesting that the Mayor is bent on incarcerating people with medical problems, mental illnesses, and drug addictions that could be cured were there active intervention programs (which there are). In fact, what the Mayor is doing is focusing on that portion of the homeless who are so by the choice of refusing to get a job, many of whom while away the hours stoned.
I also wanted to know whether you believed drug use was grounds for imprisonment, as part of my general interest in the stupidity of the so-called War on Drugs.
10324. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 6:57:16 PM
By any measure, after more than six years of reinventing, today’s federal government is not doing more with less as the Vice President promised. The 1998 federal budget is $1.6 trillion, 20 percent higher than when Clinton and Gore took over. The $137 billion in savings Gore claims from reinventing government has never been independently verified. In fact, the administration's own budget director, Leon Panetta, found the initial savings claims so unbelievable, he refused to sign off on them. 10325. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 8:24:51 PM I also wanted to know whether you believed drug use was grounds for imprisonment, as part of my general interest in the stupidity of the so-called War on Drugs. 10326. Cellar Door - 12/14/1999 8:26:06 PM Will non-Christians be allowed to vote in the Presidential election? 10327. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 8:56:56 PM Cellar: 10328. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 9:00:55 PM Why should they be honest about that, of all things? 10329. 109109 - 12/14/1999 9:23:38 PM Cart 10330. CalGal - 12/14/1999 9:31:44 PM Hell, most Americans are agnostics anyway. It just makes them feel like they belong if they call themselves Christian. 10331. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 9:40:57 PM 10332. robertjayb - 12/14/1999 9:57:20 PM . 10333. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:16:01 PM He says that after a particularly strenuous evening of partying, he awoke to find a nine-foot Jesus standing at the foot of his bed. 10334. 109109 - 12/14/1999 10:19:37 PM Cart 10335. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:22:05 PM Cal Message # 10330: 10336. CalGal - 12/14/1999 10:22:20 PM Cart, 10337. CalGal - 12/14/1999 10:24:53 PM Surveys show time and again that the US is by far the most religious of the industrialized nations, beating out heavily Catholic nations like Italy and Ireland. 10338. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:25:20 PM Niner: 10339. 109109 - 12/14/1999 10:25:30 PM God very mad! 10340. joezan - 12/14/1999 10:26:21 PM 10341. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:27:50 PM 10342. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:30:32 PM So who gives a fuck if they say they believe in God? 10343. Indiana Jones - 12/14/1999 10:32:37 PM If this gets too deep, deposit some of it in the spirituality thread. The host there is just as cavalier about standards as the beer-swilling reprobate here. 10344. CalGal - 12/14/1999 10:35:31 PM Well, what do you think the Christian Coalition would do, were some prospective candidate to let it slip that he doesn't believe in God? I have a feeling they'd give a very serious fuck. 10345. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:38:18 PM Ace Message # 10341: 10346. CalGal - 12/14/1999 10:40:28 PM Knock that shit off, you immoral atheist, or I'll find Niner's rainman deity and flood your godless abode. 10347. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:42:02 PM 10348. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:44:20 PM Cal: 10349. AceofSpades - 12/14/1999 10:46:10 PM 10350. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:46:21 PM Cal Message # 10346: 10351. EricCartman - 12/14/1999 10:48:07 PM We can't trust a filthy fish-eating Papist like Kennedy, because if we ever get into a war with Vatican City, who would he side with? 10352. concerned - 12/14/1999 11:00:10 PM Cellar Door asks: 10353. concerned - 12/14/1999 11:08:50 PM Cellar Door asks: 10354. concerned - 12/14/1999 11:23:11 PM Re. 10308: 10355. Al D - 12/15/1999 12:00:42 AM Many people in Northern Calif. believe theat crystals have magical curative powers and that little pyramids sharpen razor blades. They are mostly from the intelligent left. They scorn such banal and purile ideas of Christianity that has lasted some 2000 years. Is it possible that the values of the Judeo/Christian have had a beneficial effect on Western civilization? Not to the Liberal who hates those values with a passion. Of course many Liberals are as passionate in their religous beliefs as conservatives. And no doubt some conservatives use religion as a tool. So do some liberals, namely our beloved leader, the Rev. William J. Clinton. 10356. ButterfieldSwire - 12/15/1999 12:20:45 AM I can't believe people are going to vote for McCain. Didn't they ever see "The Deer Hunter?" The dude's a time bomb. I just hope he doesn't have one of his flashbacks when he's got his finger on "the button." 10357. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 12:36:36 AM I can't believe these attacks on McCain."He's got a temper." 10358. concerned - 12/15/1999 12:57:14 AM Oops. Sorry for the double post above. 10359. robertjayb - 12/15/1999 1:31:56 AM 10360. Stumbo - 12/15/1999 1:39:41 AM "new"? 10361. ee - 12/15/1999 1:40:45 AM I read in Time magazine where one of the Columbine killers said he was glad to die because he knew he was going to a better place. I wonder if he had grown up hearing solid bible teaching about the reality of hell if he might thought differantly. 10362. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:43:04 AM No, no. EE, teach AD how to log in as himself. And make sure you make a note of both your passwords. 10363. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:44:02 AM Did the Columbine kid say he was going to heaven? It's entirely possible that he felt like any place--including hell--was better than his life here. 10364. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 1:45:01 AM Davis Message # 10355: 10365. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:47:37 AM They usually bathe once a week, wear Birkenstocks, and smoke dope and listen to reggae. 10366. ee - 12/15/1999 1:50:01 AM Cal: He didn't say heaven he just said better. If you've ever heard stern bible preaching on hell you would know he didn't mean hell would be better. 10367. ee - 12/15/1999 1:51:19 AM How about AllDayVice for a monicker? 10368. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:54:09 AM EE, 10369. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:54:51 AM Well can't he just logon as AlD? He just has to remember to do it when he shows up. 10370. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 1:55:39 AM You forgot the herbal tea and the homemade eucalyptus wine. 10371. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 1:57:13 AM ee: 10372. concerned - 12/15/1999 1:58:44 AM Re. 10359 - 10373. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:05:33 AM 10374. ee - 12/15/1999 2:08:02 AM Cal Of course, this requires a "leap of faith" on your part--namely, you'd need to accept that there are people who, for many different reasons, don't believe in God despite a fair amount of exposure. 10375. CalGal - 12/15/1999 2:08:06 AM All they want to do is get high and have sex. 10376. CalGal - 12/15/1999 2:11:02 AM EE, 10377. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:11:25 AM 10378. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 2:12:34 AM Ace: 10379. ee - 12/15/1999 2:12:37 AM THEN, of course, pulling a kid out of class, away from his peers, would cause 10380. ee - 12/15/1999 2:14:17 AM Cal: Ya, nuts is nuts regardless. 10381. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 2:18:08 AM Cal Message # 10375: 10382. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 2:19:31 AM Um, need to get a grip. 10383. ee - 12/15/1999 2:19:40 AM Cal: Ya, nuts is nuts regardless. 10384. ButterfieldSwire - 12/15/1999 2:19:56 AM CellarDoor - Youv'e got a lot of gaul comparing yourself to a guy who got thrown in a dank cell in the Hanoi Hilton for his country. Look, I'm not saying your not crazy, but there's crazy and then theres McCain crazy. 10385. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 6:00:06 AM Forgot to respond to this one earlier... 10386. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 6:00:29 AM (cont. to Niner): 10387. ButterfieldSwire - 12/15/1999 8:33:55 AM Transcript of the Republican Debate from www.allpolitics.com 10388. ButterfieldSwire - 12/15/1999 8:37:52 AM HO CHI MINH: Please, Lieutenant McCain, stop wasting both of our time. Just sign this paper admitting your crimes against the Socialist Peoples of Asia and we can stop all of this...unpleasantness. You can go home to your family of running dogs. 10389. 109109 - 12/15/1999 9:59:25 AM Cart 10390. 109109 - 12/15/1999 10:00:04 AM "You make a minor mistake in Message # 10334, in assuming that an atheist presumes humans to be the "be all-end all". This is simply not the case. I certainly don't feel that way; in fact I rather hope that humans are not the pinnacle of all life in the universe. Given our baser nature, that would set a fairly low standard for all the infinite possibilities out there in the cosmos, no?" 10391. 109109 - 12/15/1999 10:00:14 AM 10392. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:14:28 AM Here is one of Maureen Dowd's better columns, pointing out what should be obvious, that anybody trumping his or her religion for political gain is not only worthy of contempt, but is probably not all that religious in the first place. 10393. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:22:09 AM I don't see how anybody who is truly familiar with the Christian faith could look at G.W.'s smirking face the other night and actually believe that is is sincere in his declarations of faith. 10394. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:22:53 AM "that is is sincere" = "that he is sincere" 10395. 109109 - 12/15/1999 10:26:35 AM From Dowd's colum 10396. 109109 - 12/15/1999 10:28:32 AM Lady 10397. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 10:36:04 AM Niner rules! 10398. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:39:51 AM 109, 10399. CalGal - 12/15/1999 10:40:52 AM Heavens, if everyone can determine a candidate's sincerity level just by looking at him, Al Gore is doomed. 10400. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:41:03 AM lack = lacks... 10401. 109109 - 12/15/1999 10:42:33 AM Lady 10402. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 10:44:34 AM CalGal, 10403. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 10:45:21 AM 10404. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 10:46:22 AM What was THAT?!? 10405. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 10:49:13 AM Dubbya may belives in Jesus, but has he ever been Touched By An Angel? 10406. Ronski - 12/15/1999 11:19:15 AM 10407. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 11:25:31 AM Ronski (10406): Definitely delving into the realms of spiritual issues. I can understand such a position as Bush's easily: 10408. Ronski - 12/15/1999 12:11:58 PM 10409. CalGal - 12/15/1999 12:13:32 PM As I said earlier--most Americans don't like to follow through on the definition of Christianity. That's why I think of them as agnostics. It surely seems that a belief in God and Christ is what it takes to get to heaven, by that book. So why fuss at Bush for answering that way? 10410. 109109 - 12/15/1999 12:21:00 PM That Bush is tongue-tied and maybe even muddled in his explication of how Christianity intersects with his life - as Cal points out, a difficult proposition for even our most articulate believers - strikes me as an indication of sincerity, rather than pre-packaged, smooth studio fodder for the masses. I suppose, however, that there are some who find greater sincerity and intelligence in Gore's reduction of his faith into a brief mash of capital letters ("WWJD"). But I saw the exchange, he was asked as to a great philosopher/thinker, he answered, and when asked to expound, he basically retreated into the coven of it being personal and rather difficult to articulate. A concern he proved with his halting response. To Maureen Dowd, this proves an evil shilling of religion and a deep exclusionary cruelty on the part of Bush. To Lady, coupled with his smirk, it is insincerity at its greatest. To Ronski, coupled with his earlier foray into entrance qualifications for heaven, it is yet another sign that the governor is dumb. 10411. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 12:28:21 PM CalGal, 10412. bubbaette - 12/15/1999 12:34:20 PM I recently got a bumpersticker for DH that says: 10413. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 12:34:28 PM 10414. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 12:35:12 PM bubba-mae, 10415. 109109 - 12/15/1999 12:36:26 PM Lady 10416. bubbaette - 12/15/1999 12:43:29 PM Although, when you think about it, WWJD could also stand for: 10417. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 12:45:20 PM 109, 10418. bubbaette - 12/15/1999 12:48:33 PM Lady 10419. Dantheman - 12/15/1999 12:51:06 PM Lady Chaos, Niner, 10420. CalGal - 12/15/1999 12:52:56 PM Lady, 10421. Ronski - 12/15/1999 12:55:22 PM 10422. CalGal - 12/15/1999 12:56:30 PM I SPOKE TO ELLIOT!!!!!! 10423. 109109 - 12/15/1999 12:57:00 PM Dan 10424. 109109 - 12/15/1999 12:58:02 PM Cal 10425. Ronski - 12/15/1999 12:58:55 PM 10426. TrialShark - 12/15/1999 1:02:07 PM 10427. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:02:30 PM Ronski 10428. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 1:02:52 PM Dantheman, 10429. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:03:35 PM Of course, most religious politicians manage to blend their religiosity with reason, logic and the facts of nature, despite the musings of Maureen Dowd. 10430. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:04:24 PM Well, you and I know this, TS. But Elliot resists my unique qualities. 10431. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:07:54 PM Lady, 10432. Ronski - 12/15/1999 1:08:14 PM 10433. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 1:12:37 PM CalGal, 10434. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:14:15 PM Ronski 10435. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:16:12 PM What you're talking about is the difference between leadership and pandering. One can do little about the ignorance of the public, but one can only make that ignorance worse by pandering. G.W. is pandering. 10436. TrialShark - 12/15/1999 1:18:00 PM 10437. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 1:20:22 PM bubaette(10416)--Good questions for the Temple of Doom. 10438. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 1:21:36 PM 109, 10439. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:29:03 PM Sure, Lady, but you don't trust or believe him anyway. Clearly, a lot of people do, or he wouldn't be doing that well. 10440. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:29:12 PM Lady 10441. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 1:30:24 PM 10442. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 1:36:54 PM 10443. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:37:00 PM Springfield, Illinois, February 11, 1861 10444. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:42:04 PM Philadelphia, Pennsylvania February 22, 1861 10445. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:42:25 PM cont.... 10446. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:43:54 PM Meditation on the Divine Will 10447. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:44:32 PM I apologize. But you can never have too much of that deist Lincoln, to my mind. 10448. bubbaette - 12/15/1999 1:45:09 PM Who Would Jesus Date? 10449. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 1:46:03 PM 10450. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:46:50 PM Washington, D.C. 10451. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:47:11 PM cont . . . 10452. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 1:48:39 PM 10453. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:49:22 PM Washington, D.C. 10454. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:49:42 PM cont . . . 10455. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 1:50:35 PM 10456. bubbaette - 12/15/1999 1:51:09 PM Was White Jesus Dramatic? 10457. 109109 - 12/15/1999 1:52:21 PM Ace 10458. Adrianne - 12/15/1999 1:55:29 PM 10459. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 1:57:04 PM Actually, most religions try to lay claim to being the one true faith. Even Taoism and Buddhism, the least strident on this issue, are prone to such abolutism in their internal factions. 10460. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 1:57:09 PM 10461. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:57:10 PM He didn't know how to type. 10462. CalGal - 12/15/1999 1:58:02 PM whoops. 10461 to 10457. 10463. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:00:05 PM "Not that Bush seems to have the sense to have figured this out. Indeed, I was struck by how his description of his faith and his "relationship with Christ" (a classic evangelical stance) is rather at odds with the beliefs held by traditional Catholicism -- you know, the dominant religion of the Hispanics he is believed to have made great inroads with." 10464. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:04:57 PM 10465. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:05:43 PM Gee. Mebbe he can raise Nixon from the dead while he's at it. 10466. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:07:33 PM 10467. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:09:49 PM 10468. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:10:18 PM In essence, spuds' "Star Trek" political outlook is dominant in most intellectual circles. As a nation, there should be Chekhov, Sulu, Uhura, Kirk, Spock, Bones, and Scotty, and they should all be beyond God and eternal life. One big, happy, nonjudgmental multiracial stew, where God can be whatever one can envision, and he or she always has a waiting cloud and harp. I don't see how the Bush camp could have missed this strategy. 10469. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:11:08 PM Ace: My problem isn't with Bush saying he had faith in Christ. My problem is with his recurring implications that his style of believing is the only true path to salvation. 10470. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:11:50 PM Spud 10471. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 2:12:02 PM Funny how it was okay when Carter did it. 10472. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:13:56 PM Incidentally, Ace, Christianity doesn't "earn my wrath." I attend church regularly. 10473. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:14:03 PM The implications of Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, and the list goes on, are synonymous with Peter at a gate, and the gate is there for a reason. Rather, what many want is a watered down, non-offensive, comfy explication of faith. And for the most part, politicians who have to appeal to a broad group comply. 10474. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:14:29 PM 10475. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:15:57 PM 109109: Quite the contrary. I think it's entirely possible to say one believes in Christ without having to imply that everyone else is going to hell. 10476. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:16:26 PM 10477. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:18:00 PM Spud 10478. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:18:19 PM 10479. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:19:32 PM 10480. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:20:29 PM I thinks Spuds is talking about alternate routes to the White House, which, if I'm reading him, means soft-pedaling the amnation-day ing-thay. 10481. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 2:20:41 PM I believe in After Dinner Mints. 10482. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:22:18 PM 10483. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:24:13 PM I find that by emphasizing ritual slaughter of animals over faith in Jesus, my support in the suburbs has solidified. 10484. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:25:12 PM It's okay to "believe" that Jesus is the only way to Salvation-- as every single denomination of Christianity teaches 10485. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:26:48 PM 10486. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:28:12 PM 10487. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:29:01 PM 10488. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:31:57 PM 10489. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:33:42 PM Ace 10490. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:34:14 PM 10491. CalGal - 12/15/1999 2:34:37 PM But you obviously are not familiar with the beliefs of the so-called "liberal" Protestants, which mitigate the claims to exclusivity found among fundamentalists and Catholics. 10492. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:35:21 PM 10493. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:39:43 PM 10494. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 2:42:22 PM Criminy, but how will I ever fill the collection plates in the Temple of Doom if you folks keep all this fire and brimstone stuff over here? 10495. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:44:16 PM Ace 10496. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 2:44:28 PM 109109: I'd be glad to discuss this in private, but I have a longstanding policy of not discussing my personal religious beliefs in public. Again, I refer you to Jesus' parable of the tax collector. 10497. CalGal - 12/15/1999 2:46:08 PM I've been hitting that note of yours pretty hard, Cal. 10498. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:46:14 PM 10499. 109109 - 12/15/1999 2:48:04 PM Spud 10500. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:50:32 PM 10501. Dantheman - 12/15/1999 2:50:57 PM Ace, 10502. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 2:54:48 PM 10503. CalGal - 12/15/1999 2:58:22 PM Some scoff and call it Christianity Light. Others call it a necessary review of doctrine and the teachings of Jesus. 10504. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:02:23 PM 10505. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:05:46 PM 10506. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:07:14 PM Ace 10507. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 3:08:49 PM Ace, if you have any "Lou" links, I'll be happy to post them in Spiritual Issues. 10508. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:09:35 PM Ace: Many Christians (myself included) read it as a warning against public proclamations of your salvation, because they become proclamations of your spiritual superiority. This is known as the sin of spiritual pride, one of the Seven Deadly Sins. Note the verse just prior: "And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:" 10509. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:11:11 PM 10510. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:14:11 PM Spud 10511. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:15:58 PM 10512. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:16:31 PM Ace 10513. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:18:34 PM Ace 10514. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:20:31 PM As for these beliefs being "Christianity Light": Well, they are espoused by some of the most serious and scholarly theolgians in the world. Refusing to ascribe to black-and-white thinking doesn't mean you don't believe in anything; it simply means you take your faith seriously enough to explore all of its ramifications and implications seriously, to consider other viewpoints, and to work to make it a living faith that is not separate or apart from the real and secular world, and which doesn't resort to superstition as the basis of their faith. Indeed, I will argue that these theologians take their faith a great deal more seriously than the simplistic non-thinkers who take the fundamentalist course. Certainly, I can assure you that I believe in these ideas far more than I did the fundamentalist version when I was that kind of Christian. They are alive; I live them; they are concrete and real and meaningful to me. 10515. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:20:36 PM 10516. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 3:20:43 PM Trust in Bush would seem to be foreclosed based on the smirk alone. But you concede my point: it is not the confluence of religion and politics that offends. It is the confluence of religion and politics and Bush. 10517. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:21:53 PM No, 109109, I don't answer questions when they're stupid and irrelevant. 10518. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:23:34 PM 10519. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:24:13 PM Ace 10520. CalGal - 12/15/1999 3:24:14 PM If they want to believe in nothing and give it a name, that's fine. 10521. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 3:24:48 PM Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. 10522. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:24:56 PM Ace: 10523. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:26:14 PM Ace 10524. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:27:16 PM 10525. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:28:51 PM Spud 10526. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:30:30 PM Ace: 10527. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:31:02 PM 10528. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:33:43 PM 10529. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:35:20 PM Spud 10530. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:36:05 PM 10531. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:36:27 PM Ace: "I just KNOW that it's so!" 10532. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:37:04 PM "And if you disagree with me, I'm going to spew shit all over you!" 10533. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:37:32 PM 10534. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:39:01 PM 10535. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:39:11 PM The answer, as to what happens to angel five, should be politic, given the venue. 10536. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:39:51 PM Ace: 10537. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:39:53 PM 10538. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:41:16 PM 10529 10539. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:41:36 PM Hey dumbshit -- I did answer the question about the religious Jew. 10540. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:41:56 PM 10541. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:42:37 PM 10542. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:44:11 PM Spud 10543. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:45:20 PM "I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God, as revealed in the Torah, into your life, it changes your heart." 10544. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:45:48 PM Well, Ace, non-believers like angel five and yourself get to discover their fate when they die. As do the rest of us. 10545. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:48:08 PM 10546. 109109 - 12/15/1999 3:50:09 PM Spud 10547. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:50:59 PM 10548. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:53:19 PM Well, I certainly haven't had a "frothing conniption" about Bush's remarks. I rather mildly indicated I thought they were ill-advised. And the reason I believe they're ill-advised is that, in this country, our political leaders are supposed to be the leaders of us all, regardless of our faith. I don't want a president who indicates he'll only be a president for evangelical Christians. Nor do I want one who believes that people who believe differently from him are going to hell. 10549. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:53:26 PM 10550. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:55:59 PM 10551. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 3:56:31 PM 10552. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 3:57:14 PM Ace: 10553. CalGal - 12/15/1999 4:01:05 PM My vote (and many others') will depend on how he expresses those beliefs in public, particularly in settings where it's clear he's running for president. 10554. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:02:12 PM 10555. 109109 - 12/15/1999 4:03:02 PM Ace 10556. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:04:37 PM 10557. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 4:04:38 PM Hypothetical: Suppose a guy is running for President, and he's asked not about the afterlife, but about his marriage vows. 10558. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:06:42 PM 10559. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:10:12 PM 10560. 109109 - 12/15/1999 4:10:36 PM I know what awaits you. 10561. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:11:27 PM 10562. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 4:13:12 PM 109, 10563. Spudboy - 12/15/1999 4:14:31 PM Actually, Ace, your argument militates against ever voting for an evangelical Christian at all. 10564. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:17:03 PM 10565. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:24:47 PM 10566. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 4:34:06 PM Speaking of political footballs -- Spreads are now up in the Pool Thread. Get 'em while they're hot! 10567. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:36:39 PM 10568. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 4:37:29 PM Wel I would certainly not vote for such a Jew. 10569. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:38:36 PM 10570. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:45:19 PM 10571. Indiana Jones - 12/15/1999 4:46:34 PM Al Gore defending Clinton? 10572. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:50:11 PM 10573. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:50:43 PM 10574. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 4:50:53 PM Yeah, uh, right Ace. Whatever you say. 10575. TrialShark - 12/15/1999 4:51:07 PM 10576. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:53:08 PM 10577. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:53:58 PM 10578. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:55:11 PM 10579. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:55:22 PM 10580. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 4:56:51 PM 10581. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 5:04:00 PM 10582. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 5:08:36 PM 10583. EricCartman - 12/15/1999 5:20:51 PM Ace: 10584. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 5:32:41 PM Ace, 10585. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 5:57:09 PM Having said that, Ace, I will trot out this distinction. Gore has attempted to cite his faith, unconvincing though he may be, as a means of realizing his own political need to convince the voters to forgive Clinton's personal shortcomings and instead focus on what he has tried to achieve as President. At the same time, he has in no small measure attempted to use his beliefs as a tool for distancing himself from Clinton, but only in a personal sense rather than a political sense. All the same, though, I think that he has erred in making his religious beliefs an issue in his campaign. 10586. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 6:46:47 PM Ace, 10587. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 7:11:18 PM LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD. 10588. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 7:11:47 PM LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD. 10589. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 7:12:12 PM LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD. 10590. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 7:29:06 PM "It's people looking at the very concrete possibility of fundamentalists acquiring the political power to impose their religious doctrine on all of us." 10591. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 7:29:32 PM 10592. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 7:34:10 PM 10593. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 7:39:49 PM 10594. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 7:41:50 PM 10595. AceofSpades - 12/15/1999 7:46:06 PM 10596. Cellar Door - 12/15/1999 8:25:16 PM You'relying, Ace. 10597. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 9:47:05 PM Ace, 10598. LadyChaos - 12/15/1999 9:47:48 PM For the record, Ace, and I'll try to use small words: 10599. JonesAtLaw - 12/16/1999 12:11:37 AM Religious belief is discriminated against in this country? Not if it is mainstream, all American Protestantism. We scorn theism? Looked at your money lately? "In God We Trust" added at the turn of the century. For the first hundred years of the republic, "Liberty" was enough. Christ's birthday is a federal holiday, as is Thanksgiving (do you go around thanking your neighbors or something, or is it religious?) We haven't had a president who doesn't run around saying God Bless America for decades. 10600. concerned - 12/16/1999 1:33:34 AM Al 'No Controlling Legal Authority" Bore tells yet another Big Lie. 10601. concerned - 12/16/1999 1:52:25 AM 'Pinoccio' Bore's penchant for prevaricating and the unresolved DoJ criminal investigation into his campaign finance abuses alone should disqualify him from being US president. 10602. concerned - 12/16/1999 1:55:36 AM Ooops. *Pinocchio Bore* 10603. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 2:40:54 AM Ace: 10604. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 2:43:39 AM (cont. to Ace): 10605. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 2:47:25 AM Now, on to your hypotheticals: 10606. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 2:51:14 AM Message # 10592: 10607. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 2:54:26 AM (one more for Ace): 10608. concerned - 12/16/1999 3:50:33 AM Spudboy says: 10609. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 4:03:35 AM 10610. Uzmakk - 12/16/1999 6:49:48 AM Very interesting. 10611. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:05:39 AM 10612. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:06:08 AM 10613. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:08:17 AM 10614. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:19:28 AM 10615. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:22:39 AM 10616. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:29:18 AM 10617. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 7:31:43 AM 10618. ButterfieldSwire - 12/16/1999 8:56:08 AM Nice speech, Ace, but I still ain't voting for no dang Witch. Or Warlock neither, just to show I ain't sexist. 10619. Dantheman - 12/16/1999 9:01:19 AM Pennsylvania's Democrats still can't decide on Senate nominee 10620. ButterfieldSwire - 12/16/1999 9:06:02 AM Al Gore on Foreign Policy (from Business Week interview with the Vice-President). 10621. ButterfieldSwire - 12/16/1999 9:20:02 AM So, anyway, I will be voting for Bush next year. But I have to say its really an aesthetic choice. Meaning I don't really care. I'm just trying to figure out, if I could figure out a dollar figure on how much I care. Question: If you could pay x% of your income over the next four years and guarantee your man would win the Presidency, whats the maximum x you would be willing to pay. 10622. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 9:37:29 AM I think they should pay me. 10623. Ronski - 12/16/1999 9:44:48 AM I think it would take more than 3 percent of my income to ensure the election of Harry Browne, and the amount necessary to elect a Libertarian president would be illegal were it donated by an individual under the current insidious "campaign-reform" law, one which Bradley and McCain would only make worse. 10624. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 9:49:39 AM Ace: 10625. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 9:51:37 AM I wonder if I can sell my vote on E-bay? 10626. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 9:53:57 AM bubbaette: 10627. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 9:57:18 AM I reckon my vote is about as valuable as a polished turd. 10628. ButterfieldSwire - 12/16/1999 10:01:01 AM Don't kid yourself, the online market in polished turds is totally saturated. 10629. rosettaSTONE - 12/16/1999 10:29:35 AM A teaser. 10630. rosettaSTONE - 12/16/1999 10:40:42 AM LIBERTIES/By Mo Dowd "Just Go Away, Jesus" 10631. Ronski - 12/16/1999 10:41:28 AM Parodies notwithstanding, Bush is still a homophobic dunce. I mean that in my usual tolerant and understanding way, of course. We can't all be "A" students (no, I take that back, we can with grade inflation). 10632. rosettaSTONE - 12/16/1999 10:48:40 AM (continued) 10633. rosettaSTONE - 12/16/1999 10:49:56 AM Darn it, Ronski. Couldn't you wait until I finished the posting!!!? 10634. 109109 - 12/16/1999 10:56:42 AM Cart 10635. 109109 - 12/16/1999 10:57:02 AM The obvious truth is that religion and politics have gone hand in hand since the beginning of the republic, Christian dogma is the cornerstone of the nation's ideals, and that the entire social support system is based on a confluence of reason, intellect, and Judeo-Christian ethic. Moreover, the public policy positions of Bush and Gore - while properly influenced by their faith in Jesus (Jesus changed the former's heart and has become the benchmark for the latter's actions, after query) - are also influenced by various other contributors. One can be religious, love Jesus, and even believe that acceptance of Jesus is the only way to heaven, yet still lead a religiously disparate nation effectively and fairly. 10636. Ronski - 12/16/1999 10:57:57 AM Monica Lewinsky, looking cheap again, testified that she was "pretty upset" over learning her conversations with Linda Tripp had been taped. 10637. Uzmakk - 12/16/1999 10:58:52 AM Yo, pols, who is Ambassador Richard Fisher? 10638. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:02:07 AM 10639. robertjayb - 12/16/1999 11:03:06 AM . 10640. Uzmakk - 12/16/1999 11:06:12 AM Thank you, Robertjayb. 10641. nowayoyos1 - 12/16/1999 11:07:56 AM to rosettaStone -- yes, ronski's blast at GW interrupted your post of my parody. (Does he work for MO? Nah, probably he works for Pat Buchanan!) 10642. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 11:10:59 AM Oh c'mon...you post your notes and you take your chance...it reads fine just the way it is. 10643. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:14:31 AM 10644. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 11:14:54 AM Nah, it's really pretty lame, IMO. Seems like the demss thought Maureen was an unrepentant republican when she was razzing Clinton for 10645. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 11:18:52 AM bubbaette: 10646. Cellar Door - 12/16/1999 11:19:43 AM You think Dubbya is "ACTUALLY SINCERE" Niner? Fabulous. I've got some swampland in Florida that should interest you. 10647. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:20:46 AM We Libertarians eschew the for-us-or-against-us mentality. First of all, having more sense than everyone gives us credit for, we know no one is for us. And, for that matter, no one is against us, since those who might be against us know we just don't count. 10648. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 11:21:36 AM By the way, my comments about the parody were in response to whoever wanted it reprinted in toto merely because another post had popped up inbetween. I think it's obvious we can all follow an item whether it's all of a piece or has 3 or 4 digressions in the middle. 10649. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 11:22:57 AM Ronski! Are you from Texas? 10650. 109109 - 12/16/1999 11:24:37 AM Cellar 10651. rosettaSTONE - 12/16/1999 11:28:12 AM Welcome, nowayoyos. 10652. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 11:30:34 AM When Will Jesus Deliver? 10653. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:31:52 AM 10654. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:32:46 AM 10655. nowayoyos1 - 12/16/1999 11:42:30 AM OK, rosettaStone, here it is, the first half: 10656. nowayoyos1 - 12/16/1999 11:43:32 AM (part II: MO DOWD, as parodied by nowayoyos1) 10657. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:45:35 AM (Can I post now?, he asked sheepishly.) 10658. nowayoyos1 - 12/16/1999 11:46:43 AM Post away, Senor Ronski -- say R U a Buchananite? 10659. rosettaSTONE - 12/16/1999 11:46:45 AM Thank you, and we hope to see you post here again, nowayoyos. BTW, what does your name mean? 10660. Ronski - 12/16/1999 11:51:41 AM 10661. nowayoyos1 - 12/16/1999 11:52:51 AM rosettaStone, my moniker is a long story, but suffice to say, it came to being out of exasperation with the NY Slimes political forums, to whom I said (and still say) "NO WAY, YOYOS!" 10662. Adrianne - 12/16/1999 12:19:11 PM Forgive me if a lot of this has been covered, I confess scrolling past some... longwinded, profanity-laden screeds that might have contained a nugget of information. And some other stuff too, 'cause I'm lazy. 10663. Ronski - 12/16/1999 12:19:23 PM 10664. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 12:21:52 PM WWJD...Who Wants Jelly Doughnuts? 10665. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 12:26:59 PM Where Was Jesus's Divingboard? 10666. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 12:28:46 PM Good one, Judith! 10667. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 12:38:17 PM Walter Winchell's Jewish Daughter? 10668. CalGal - 12/16/1999 12:42:18 PM Ronski, 10669. Cellar Door - 12/16/1999 12:43:08 PM Niner, as we all should know by now the REAL question is "What would Brian Boitano do?" 10670. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 12:47:44 PM WWBBD? 10671. theDiva - 12/16/1999 12:53:08 PM WWBBD? 10672. CalGal - 12/16/1999 12:55:12 PM No way. The only reason he won in 88 was because of the antiquated judging methods. The other Brian was better. 10673. CalGal - 12/16/1999 12:55:35 PM For sentimental skating memories, though, nothing beats Wylie's brilliance in 92. 10674. Ronski - 12/16/1999 12:59:03 PM 10675. Dantheman - 12/16/1999 12:59:37 PM Adrianne #10662, 10676. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:00:47 PM Cal 10677. Ronski - 12/16/1999 1:03:09 PM 10678. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:03:56 PM Phillippe Candeloro. Yum. 10679. 109109 - 12/16/1999 1:04:14 PM Cellar 10680. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:06:14 PM Niner 10681. Ronski - 12/16/1999 1:06:57 PM Cal, 10682. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:10:41 PM Ronski, 10683. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:11:32 PM Diva, 10684. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:12:12 PM are known as laissez-fairies. 10685. Ronski - 12/16/1999 1:12:36 PM Diva, 10686. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:16:09 PM Cal 10687. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 1:17:36 PM Diva: 10688. bubbaette - 12/16/1999 1:18:21 PM Weebles Wobble Just Don't (fall down) 10689. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 1:18:36 PM sKating.... 10690. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:19:44 PM Judith 10691. Ronski - 12/16/1999 1:20:27 PM 10692. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:21:51 PM heeheehee..... 10693. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:22:58 PM Figure Shating? 10694. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:23:53 PM Judith, are you thinking of Kurt from Canada? The guy who won the worlds several times but never got higher than bronze in the Olympics? 10695. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:24:22 PM 10696. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:25:10 PM You realize, ladies, that we are totally off topic and Niner CAN'T EVEN DELETE OUR POSTS?!?!?!?! 10697. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 1:26:43 PM This, um, so-called "satire" of the Dowd column is one of the lamest things I've ever seen. Certainly, I got the "joke" the first time around. Ha... ha.... 10698. 109109 - 12/16/1999 1:28:03 PM Lady 10699. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 1:28:20 PM Cal: I agree with everything you say but I still watch it if it's on and I'm not busy. 10700. JudithAtHome - 12/16/1999 1:30:08 PM Cal: 10701. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:31:19 PM Niner 10702. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:36:11 PM Why, Rosetta, must you constantly drag in these half-brained cretins from the NY Times threads? 10703. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:37:00 PM Some of my best friends are half-brained cretins. 10704. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 1:41:04 PM 109, 10705. CalGal - 12/16/1999 1:42:43 PM It depends on the context. 10706. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 1:43:56 PM Ack! Silly women, with yer figure skating. I guess we can tell who's seen the South Park movie and who hasn't. Go rent it, and don't let the kids watch it. That's what Brian Boitano would do. 10707. theDiva - 12/16/1999 1:45:22 PM Cart 10708. 109109 - 12/16/1999 1:46:17 PM Lady 10709. nowayoyos1 - 12/16/1999 1:53:41 PM Well, lady Chaopectate, what's a nice liberal shill like you doing on a forum like this? 10710. Adrianne - 12/16/1999 1:54:02 PM LadyC 10711. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 1:54:16 PM CalGal, 10712. Adrianne - 12/16/1999 1:59:55 PM 10713. 109109 - 12/16/1999 2:01:18 PM Lady 10714. CalGal - 12/16/1999 2:08:48 PM I have consistently said that I fear politicians who invoke their religious beliefs in a pandering appeal for conservative votes. 10715. 109109 - 12/16/1999 2:08:53 PM Ad 10716. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:11:44 PM Actually, the context is everything in this case. 10717. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 2:12:48 PM 109, 10718. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:13:20 PM Now, Bush's remarks in themselves were pretty innocuous. But they come in an important context, including his own previous pronunciations that only evangelical Christians can get into heaven (which he was less than convincing in backing away from). More important is the concern of people like me or even more conservative folks like Jay Severin or William Safire -- and that is the lingering question of just how captive Bush is to this faction of evangelical Christians, which has been trying to increase its political clout for the past 20 years with only limited success. Personally, I've been looking for reasons to vote for Bush, but my biggest worry is that his "compassionate conservatism" is just so much empty rhetoric, to be replaced by his willing concession to a variety of extreme-right-Christian policy decisions once he is elected. And he gave a pretty clear answer, I thought, in that debate: He is indeed a complete captive of those interests, so complete that he will pander rather brainlessly to them in a national debate. 10719. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:13:33 PM Now, have away. This is probably the only post I can afford to make today. So don't take my non-answers as an indication that I'm running from your questions or responses. 10720. DaveM - 12/16/1999 2:14:28 PM I realize that I'm not adding anything new, but: 10721. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 2:17:12 PM 109, 10722. 109109 - 12/16/1999 2:31:54 PM Lady 10723. Ronski - 12/16/1999 2:33:54 PM I am most comfortable with this political philosophy, that we do not need politicians to "run" the country; by actively limiting the scope of government, the threat of the religious right is necessarily diminished: 10724. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:34:37 PM 109: Enemy of the state? Who's getting out of hand with the overheated rhetoric here? 10725. CalGal - 12/16/1999 2:40:38 PM Spud, 10726. 109109 - 12/16/1999 2:41:01 PM Ah yes . . . context. No "captive" he. 10727. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:43:47 PM Has Gore ever indicated he will help promote the evangelical agenda? Has he ever indicated he's in bed with the Christian Coalition and their ilk? 10728. 109109 - 12/16/1999 2:46:33 PM Bush says he doesn't have a litmus test on abortion for a running mate. Abortion is perhaps the paramount issue for evangelicals today. 10729. CalGal - 12/16/1999 2:46:50 PM Has Gore ever indicated he will help promote the evangelical agenda? Has he ever indicated he's in bed with the Christian Coalition and their ilk? 10730. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:47:44 PM Today's parting shot: 10731. spudboy - 12/16/1999 2:53:35 PM CalGal: Have the Jews ever declared that this is a "Jewish nation"? Have they ever announced their intention to mold public policy to fit their religious beliefs? Have they ever declared a strategy of electing "stealth" candidates to further their agenda? 10732. OhioSTOPAS - 12/16/1999 2:55:35 PM Cal: Your analogy mischaracterizes Spud's position. Your hypothetical voter didn't say if the Jewish candidate sought to enact laws to compel citizens to act in accordance with his religious beliefs, which is Spud's (and my) beef with the Christian Coalition. 10733. OhioSTOPAS - 12/16/1999 2:56:08 PM Spudboy beat me to it, and said it better than I. 10734. OhioSTOPAS - 12/16/1999 2:57:51 PM I also thought Adrianne hit the bull's-eye in message #10662. 10735. 109109 - 12/16/1999 2:59:53 PM Spud 10736. spudboy - 12/16/1999 3:03:40 PM 109109: Now that you have divined my *real* motives and uncovered my hidden bigotry, no doubt through the power of telepathy, why don't you try running for God? 10737. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:04:31 PM The best is this charge against an "addled, hand-wringing approach to a 'balanced' view of the real world." 10738. spudboy - 12/16/1999 3:04:44 PM Of course, I suppose I could try divining *your* motives as well. 10739. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:06:14 PM spud 10740. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:07:39 PM Call me that again and I'll sock you in your damn nose, you pansy (or something to that effect). 10741. spudboy - 12/16/1999 3:09:13 PM Pfffft. Outta time. No doubt you will declare that I'm conveniently running away. 10742. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:11:11 PM spud 10743. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:13:15 PM 109, 10744. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:13:40 PM Otoh, the Pat Robertsons use their religion to arouse an "us against them" mentality amongst Evangelicals, appealing to their fears without thought to the consequences. Jerry Falwell, of all people, has recently begun to acknowledge this problem. Using religion as a platform for divisive political rhetoric has more negative consequences than the Evangelicals have been willing to recognize. To an extent, I have to give Bauer credit for recognizing this problem in taking a different approach to the abortion issue. I think that comparing Roe v. Wade to Dredd Scott is an eloquent and honorable, albeit misguided (imo), way of appealing to all of us without resorting to divisive, "Christians vs. Liberal Atheists"-type rhetoric. However, his enlightened approach seems to begin and end there, as was evidenced by his proclamation that he would solve school shootings by posting the Ten Commandments in the hallways. 10745. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:15:53 PM "Bush hasn't spent the majority of his life proclaiming his faith, working within it and contributing to it." 10746. Ronski - 12/16/1999 3:18:31 PM What Bush has actually said that is in keeping with -- if not to the paleolithic right of -- the Christian Coalition is that it is perfectly okay to throw consulting adults into jail for what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms: he has said he supported the Texas (anti-)"sodomy" law that targets gays only, and which was used recently against a gay couple turned in by a vicious, snoopy neighbor. 10747. DaveM - 12/16/1999 3:24:08 PM CalGal - 10748. DaveM - 12/16/1999 3:24:15 PM I am always intrigued by your unique understanding of context (and your apparent belief in your own acontextuality). 10749. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:24:53 PM Mily pane Ronski, 10750. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:25:07 PM 10751. CalGal - 12/16/1999 3:25:13 PM Ronski, 10752. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 3:27:37 PM 10753. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:28:00 PM Lady 10754. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:29:37 PM 10755. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:30:10 PM DaveM 10756. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 3:33:08 PM 10757. CalGal - 12/16/1999 3:33:14 PM DaveM, 10758. Ronski - 12/16/1999 3:34:15 PM Cal, 10759. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:34:22 PM 10760. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:36:00 PM Trial 10761. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:36:42 PM 10762. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:36:47 PM 109, 10763. PsychProf - 12/16/1999 3:37:15 PM niner...maybe Hobbes... 10764. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:37:51 PM 10765. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 3:38:17 PM 10766. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:38:46 PM 10767. DaveM - 12/16/1999 3:38:58 PM Ace - 10768. CalGal - 12/16/1999 3:39:14 PM Ronski, 10769. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:40:41 PM 10770. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:40:56 PM Lady 10771. OhioSTOPAS - 12/16/1999 3:41:27 PM Did George W. Bush actually say he discovered Christ thirteen years ago? 10772. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:41:46 PM Ace, 10773. CalGal - 12/16/1999 3:42:06 PM What if someone is unwilling to talk on a POLITICAL level? What if they believe that they have access to the TRUTH and are unwilling to compromise? It sounds as though you have a neo-republican tendency, which is funny, if you don't mind my saying, because of your "slightly" caustic discursive style. 10774. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:43:21 PM 10775. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:44:20 PM Psych 10776. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:45:45 PM 10777. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:47:26 PM 10778. DaveM - 12/16/1999 3:48:39 PM 109109 - 10779. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:48:49 PM 12 steps. 10780. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:50:20 PM Wrt to G.W. and the anti-sodomy laws, again I would point out that blaming the Texas electorate misses the point. The guy is running for President, and we are being asked to judge his ability as a leader. Pandering is not leadership. I am likewise frustrated with Clinton's actions in the "drug war" to cover his conservative flank. Even though it is politically risky to even suggest a different approach to drug policy, I have nothing but contempt for elected officials who are so willing to destroy lives in order to pander. Clinton's pandering one drug policy is, imo, philosophically indistinguishable from religious pandering; all of it demonstrates a lack of personal courage. 10781. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:52:03 PM 10782. CalGal - 12/16/1999 3:52:38 PM How does one engage them in a political argument when they are so full of self-righteousness? 10783. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:52:57 PM 10784. spudboy - 12/16/1999 3:53:29 PM Ace: 10785. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:54:08 PM 10786. 109109 - 12/16/1999 3:54:21 PM DaveM 10787. Ronski - 12/16/1999 3:54:22 PM 10788. Dantheman - 12/16/1999 3:57:31 PM CalGal 10773, 10789. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 3:57:40 PM Ace, 10790. DaveM - 12/16/1999 3:59:10 PM Ace - 10791. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 3:59:24 PM 10792. Ronski - 12/16/1999 3:59:36 PM Ace, 10793. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 4:02:28 PM 10794. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 4:03:25 PM 10795. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 4:04:54 PM 10796. AceofSpades - 12/16/1999 4:07:32 PM 10797. DaveM - 12/16/1999 4:08:00 PM Actually, I don't really care about Bush's answer - he could have said Buddha and it would have been fine by me. He missed an opportunity to shine, in my opinion; he easily could have contradicted the allegation of stupidity. I actually think that "Christ" is an inciteful answer; however, it needed to be explained (because it is ambiguous, as I said earlier), and Bush didn't seem willing to do it. Absent explanation, it lends itself readily to manipulation by his opponents - it fuels the fire. 10798. Dantheman - 12/16/1999 4:08:57 PM Ace, 10799. lou - 12/16/1999 4:28:40 PM 10743. LadyChaos - 12/16/99 8:13:15 PM 10800. lou - 12/16/1999 4:30:31 PM d) was supposed to be: insert your own answer 10801. OhioSTOPAS - 12/16/1999 4:33:06 PM In msg 10715, Niner offered this quote from Thomas Jefferson, reportedly in a letter to James Madison: 10802. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 4:33:37 PM Letters, I get letters.... 10803. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 4:35:11 PM (cont. to Ace): 10804. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 4:37:06 PM Niner Message # 10634: 10805. lou - 12/16/1999 4:43:14 PM 10804. EricCartman - 12/16/99 9:37:06 PM 10806. lou - 12/16/1999 4:45:09 PM I need to get a better typist! 10807. lou - 12/16/1999 4:54:53 PM Check out the following Jefferson site: 10808. EricCartman - 12/16/1999 5:07:22 PM Lou: 10809. spudboy - 12/16/1999 7:16:10 PM Here's an interesting item that could become something bigger: 10810. TrialShark - 12/16/1999 7:34:00 PM 10811. Cellar Door - 12/16/1999 7:49:06 PM The very moment Isikoff realized he wasn't going to get a Pulitzer for "Uncovering Clinton>" 10812. Adrianne - 12/16/1999 8:43:57 PM 10813. PincherMartin - 12/16/1999 9:08:39 PM Cartman -- 10814. CalGal - 12/16/1999 9:20:35 PM I am a moral and solute agnostic. Surely I don't have to start dissing everything in order to prove it? 10815. PincherMartin - 12/16/1999 9:27:13 PM No, I didn't. Where is it? 10816. PincherMartin - 12/16/1999 9:27:44 PM This is Elliot803, right? 10817. CalGal - 12/16/1999 9:33:22 PM Yes, it is. Let me see if I can pick it up quickly, hang on. 10818. CalGal - 12/16/1999 9:35:09 PM Shit. I just got hit in the head with a limitation that is on me to fix. The damn Go To window only takes 4 characters. Snarl. 10819. ButterfieldSwire - 12/16/1999 9:44:42 PM A radio show on W., Religion and Politics. A good site in any case. 10820. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 9:45:02 PM Yeah, I came across that Go To window problem yesterday. I was going to mention it but found the solution in typing the post number at the end of the URL. 10821. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 9:48:07 PM Adrianne, 10822. Spudboy - 12/16/1999 10:09:43 PM Ad: I concur on your frustration with 109109. A classic case is his #10735, where, without any supporting evidence, he leaps to the conclusion that "you make your own hobgoblins and spooks to support your preconceptions. You hide your bigotry under the icing of reason and fairness." 10823. CalGal - 12/16/1999 10:32:55 PM Spud, 10824. PincherMartin - 12/16/1999 10:37:08 PM Thanks, CalGal. 10825. phillipdavid - 12/16/1999 10:50:56 PM LadyChaos, 10826. PincherMartin - 12/16/1999 11:02:45 PM CalGal -- 10827. LadyChaos - 12/16/1999 11:04:49 PM CalGal, 10828. JonesAtLaw - 12/17/1999 12:30:12 AM Dantheman- you made the best point of the day. There are similarities between the current religious conservatives and previous liberal movements in that they used religion as a means of justifying and advancing a political agenda. Remember the civil rights movement? It was largely driven by religious leaders, using religious faith and appeals to religious principals. It was a natural law critigue of the leagalist view under Jim Crow. 10829. EricCartman - 12/17/1999 12:35:20 AM Pincher Message # 10813: 10830. PincherMartin - 12/17/1999 12:43:24 AM Cartman -- 10831. EricCartman - 12/17/1999 12:53:25 AM Pincher: 10832. Spudboy - 12/17/1999 2:04:09 AM CalGal: But when you make generic statements about a candidate's relationship with religion and then fuss when you are shown that the same behavior doesn't seem to bother you if the candidate and/or the religion changes, you look flat out ridiculous. 10833. CalGal - 12/17/1999 2:12:57 AM Spuds, 10834. CalGal - 12/17/1999 2:18:03 AM BTW, I never called you a bigot. Nor do I think you're a bigot. 10835. Stumbo - 12/17/1999 3:23:54 AM EC: 10836. CalGal - 12/17/1999 3:29:43 AM No, I'm sure he was referring to me. I'm stupid, Ace is a racist bigot. 10837. bloodnfire - 12/17/1999 6:00:01 AM EricCartman. Your Message # 10804. "Faith is a fine thing. I just would rather that the business of running the nation, and its states and municipalities, be conducted sensibly and rationally, not because Jehosophat 3:16 contains a relevant parable involving tent pegs and camel butter. That certainly doesn't disqualify religious people from holding public office, in my mind. It means that we're all better off when they leave their spiritual beliefs at home and in church, and not try to implement these beliefs as the law of the land" 10838. Adrianne - 12/17/1999 6:36:00 AM Stumbo 10839. Dantheman - 12/17/1999 8:37:41 AM Jones #10828, 10840. lou - 12/17/1999 9:32:36 AM 10438. LadyChaos - 12/15/99 6:21:36 PM 10841. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 10:43:57 AM Public changes mind on impeachment 10842. Cellar Door - 12/17/1999 11:52:55 AM Then how do you figure the 62% approval rating he scored in the polls just yesterday? 10843. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 11:55:31 AM 10844. Dantheman - 12/17/1999 12:03:59 PM Here's another version of the story Ace cited: 10845. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 12:08:38 PM 10846. Dantheman - 12/17/1999 12:13:02 PM The survey public's opinion of Bill Clinton as a person 46% favorable (not 35%), 50% unfavorable. 10847. TrialShark - 12/17/1999 12:38:36 PM 10848. jexster - 12/17/1999 2:16:04 PM *Making of a Willie-slide* 10849. rosettaSTONE - 12/17/1999 2:22:15 PM Hi, jexster. Good to read you. I accidentally destroyed your email to me a couple weeks back. Tell us again about the newspaper article about you. 10850. TrialShark - 12/17/1999 2:43:41 PM 10851. Ronski - 12/17/1999 2:45:37 PM 10852. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 2:48:56 PM 10853. AceofSpades - 12/17/1999 2:50:45 PM 10854. TrialShark - 12/17/1999 2:52:59 PM 10855. EricCartman - 12/17/1999 4:24:30 PM Stumbo Message # 10835: 10856. Ronski - 12/17/1999 4:47:56 PM Krauthammer's remarks are noteworthy because he is in fact a political conservative of moderate stripe who is not in any way hostile to social and religious conservatives. 10857. Dantheman - 12/17/1999 5:08:21 PM Ronski, 10858. Ronski - 12/17/1999 5:11:10 PM And just for the record, for those of you who believe that George "round-up-and-jail-all-the-queers-and-throw-away-the-key-despite-what-all-my-gay-friends-from-Yale-and-all-the-gay-guys-on-my-staff-think-no-better-yet-let's-just-line-'em-up-and-shoot-'em-hell-we-got-plenty-a'-walls-in-Texas-and-we-can-always-get-more-bullets" Bush is indeed sincere in his religious views, you're not going to tell me that Steve Forbes is sincere, are you? 10859. Ronski - 12/17/1999 5:11:59 PM 10860. TrialShark - 12/17/1999 5:14:06 PM 10861. Ronski - 12/17/1999 5:15:37 PM 10862. LadyChaos - 12/17/1999 8:40:17 PM lou, 10863. LadyChaos - 12/17/1999 8:40:41 PM lou (cont'd),This is the primary distinction I make. Presidents such as Lincoln and Carter referred to their faith as a guide for how they believed they ought to conduct themselves in the pursuit of their political goals. Candidates such as Bauer, on the other hand, use religion as a blunt instrument, as a means of stirring up divisive emotions, as a foundation for promising the enactment of a specific legislative agenda should they be elected. Granted, Bauer has toned down his rhetoric on the abortion issue, and as I have said, his analogy between Roe v. Wade and Dred Scott is a much more appropriate call to civic morality, that is, a morality that can be arguably derived from our founding documents, as opposed to religious morality. 10864. LadyChaos - 12/17/1999 8:46:29 PM Shark, 10865. lemwalker - 12/17/1999 9:14:45 PM Pollster called the other night. Odd that living way out here draws the pollsters. Nielsen wished my opinion on tv once. Unfortunately we don't get tv. 10866. john kisch - 12/17/1999 11:30:13 PM I finally meet someone who's actually been polled. I find the numbers often strange. Yet they seem to be accurate. 10867. CalGal - 12/17/1999 11:35:50 PM I don't think we have a real left in America, do we? They certainly don't have a viable candidate. 10868. john kisch - 12/17/1999 11:37:53 PM I've never been called. I'm not sure I care to be. 10869. CalGal - 12/18/1999 12:05:35 AM Do you think the left has a real presence here? 10870. TrialShark - 12/18/1999 1:58:29 AM 10871. concerned - 12/18/1999 4:47:08 AM Ok. Who didn't 'put their toys away'? 10872. TrialShark - 12/18/1999 4:54:24 AM 10873. concerned - 12/18/1999 4:57:13 AM Re. 10867 - 10874. concerned - 12/18/1999 5:01:21 AM Re. 10872 - 10875. concerned - 12/18/1999 5:05:32 AM Re. 10872 - 10876. ButterfieldSwire - 12/18/1999 7:28:48 AM From the Iowa Republican Debates 10877. 109109 - 12/18/1999 9:19:56 AM Ad - 10812 10878. 109109 - 12/18/1999 9:21:54 AM Lady - re 10822 10879. 109109 - 12/18/1999 9:28:12 AM Spud - re 10822 10880. 109109 - 12/18/1999 9:42:57 AM Final thoughts on this issue (yea, right). The invocation of Jesus Christ by Bush has so many people in a tizzy for so many reasons. Three camps have emerged: the "Bush is captive" camp; the "Bush is whore" camp; and, the "Bush is unseemly" camp. This, despite the fact that Bush responded to a question, and then did just about everything you could do not to elucidate on his personal religious convictions. 10881. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 9:48:46 AM 109, 10882. 109109 - 12/18/1999 9:49:17 AM race yourselves=brace yourselves 10883. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 9:51:40 AM In last night's debate, Bradley demurred on the question of faith. Gore reiterated his position that he felt it was appropriate for him to profess his faith, but he emphatically insisted that it had no place in determining policy, because to do so would miss the point of our constitutional way of life. 10884. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 9:58:38 AM Gore would shred Bush in an open formate debate, btw. 10885. 109109 - 12/18/1999 10:20:39 AM Lady 10886. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 10:43:40 AM Bush may be a Christian but he is blind to the needs of the hungry and the poor in his own state. In todays paper, he says he doesn't believe the federal study that shows 13% of Texas households are "food insecure" or unable to meet basic food needs at all times. 10887. joezan - 12/18/1999 11:02:48 AM 10888. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 11:14:14 AM joezan: 10889. Cellar Door - 12/18/1999 11:40:48 AM Niner, gays -- in the military and out -- are a problem for all religions. Some aretrying to grapple with it, some are standing still like deer caught in the headlights, and others are heading back to the bunker armed to the teeth. 10890. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 11:56:13 AM Cellar: 10891. dusty - 12/18/1999 12:49:44 PM In Message # 10886 JudithAtHome notes: 10892. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 1:00:15 PM 109, 10893. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 1:00:39 PM dusty: 10894. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 1:00:42 PM Quoting the Bible as support for political objectives puts one on a slippery slope, because the range of political philosophies which the Bible can support is much broader than the range of philosophies permissible under our Constitution. In other words, our form of government is but a small sub-set of forms of government that would be acceptable under theocratic dogma. To invoke the Bible as a basis for a political goal sets a dangerous precedent, even if it is consistent with Constitution, because it opens the door to all kinds of factionalist demagoguery, invoking the name of God and His Word as a justification for a wide range of actions. 10895. dusty - 12/18/1999 1:02:18 PM 10896. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 1:05:15 PM dusty, 10897. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 1:10:42 PM dusty, 10898. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 1:12:29 PM Sorry, that link is bad. Just check above at #10894. 10899. dusty - 12/18/1999 1:25:40 PM Here is the Star-Telegram article, mentioned by JudithAtHome: 10900. ChristiPeters - 12/18/1999 1:29:10 PM *short aside* 10901. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 1:38:08 PM dusty: 10902. dusty - 12/18/1999 1:49:30 PM JudithAtHome 10903. dusty - 12/18/1999 1:52:50 PM 10904. joezan - 12/18/1999 1:59:49 PM 10905. CalGal - 12/18/1999 2:04:11 PM Yeah, 39 cents sounds about right for mac n cheese. Although I couldn't tell you how much things cost in general. When did the cent symbol disappear from the keyboard? Did @ take its place? 10906. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 2:09:44 PM dusty: 10907. ScottLoar - 12/18/1999 2:18:25 PM The price of food - fresh, frozen, canned, dehydrated, prepared, cooked, reconstituted, raw or quick-chilled or quick-served - is ludicrously cheap as compared to other countries and as a proportion of spent income I daresay probably the lowest in the industrialized world. Offhand I cannot think of one of the 13 countries with which I'm familiar that has consistently cheaper food prices than the US. But do Americans eat well (a topic raised again and again in the forum preceding this)? Fattening, yes, for it leaves once craving taste but nutritious if gauged by the increasing height and longevity of Americans. Tasty? Usually no, and gone with the ceremony of dining. 10908. dusty - 12/18/1999 2:21:51 PM JudithAtHome 10909. ScottLoar - 12/18/1999 2:22:41 PM The large-volume discount supermarkets allow consumers to buy in bulk at dealer prices. Incredibly cheap. Today we enjoyed alder smoked, honey-cured salmon at US$8.99/lb. Just the very idea that such foods can be had in the US Midwest is staggering. 10910. dusty - 12/18/1999 2:23:39 PM JudithAtHome 10911. ScottLoar - 12/18/1999 2:24:15 PM The price of basic foodstuffs like potatoes, onions, bread, cheese, butter, and chicken is so low as to make me doubt if the producers are making money. 10912. dusty - 12/18/1999 2:32:46 PM ScottLoar 10913. dusty - 12/18/1999 2:35:02 PM BTW the article is here:Food Security 10914. JonesAtLaw - 12/18/1999 2:37:47 PM The rub to eating cheaply and well is time. I have a longtime client who is on social security disability for organic brain syndrome. He raises a large vegetable garden, buys whole or raw foods, and bakes bread etc for himself. It fills his days, and gives him something to be proud of. He gives friends fresh vegetables in summer, and canned goods the rest of the year. He smokes meats and makes a bit of money on the side smoking turkeys etc for holidays. 10915. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 2:38:52 PM Oh, I don't doubt food is cheap in this country. Having to buy food in other countries taught me that. I never thought I'd live to see the day a watermelon cost $17.00 but I did in Japan. 10916. JonesAtLaw - 12/18/1999 2:43:48 PM All that being said, I think that the biggest problem is learned helplessness. Much homecooking is remarkably easy, once you've been shown how to do it. Most is better tasting and better for you than what you buy pre-prepared. It is not as fast though, and if you don't make preparation of dinner, and the eating of dinner, and clean up a cooperative family thing, it's a chore. 10917. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 2:45:43 PM Ha...I like your assumption that it's both easy and tastes good; I have an ex who might disagree! 10918. CalGal - 12/18/1999 2:49:34 PM If a couple are working two jobs, and eventually tire of mac and cheese, tuna cassarole etc. it isn't always easy to make it on food stamps. 10919. ChristiPeters - 12/18/1999 2:50:39 PM "You must not shop very frugally. My wife and I and our kids love mac-n-cheese. We always have a stash of 10 or 12 boxes. Of course, we'd never pay the regular price - we wait for the sales, then buy a whole bunch - at Meijer they even have have it on sale for $.19 one day a year. (And I'm talkin' Kraft here...not the bland store-brand stuff)." 10920. CalGal - 12/18/1999 2:54:47 PM Incidentally, Jones, I'm not attacking you. I am rather struck at this sort of assumption you display in dialogues about the poor and their expectations. 10921. ChristiPeters - 12/18/1999 2:56:59 PM CalGal - To tell the truth I have little patience for people who are tired of eating the same old thing since I think getting to eat, period, is something to be grateful for. Also it is possible to vary your diet and still make it on food stamps. The only thing I ate regularly while we were on food stamps that I just refuse to eat now is chicken leg quarters. Since I was lucky enough to have purchased a freezer before economic hard times hit, I bought a lot of the $.29/lb-but-only-if-you-buy-10-lbs-or-more chicken leg quarters and they were our main protein staple. However, I didn't really like them before then, so that's more the reason. 10922. CalGal - 12/18/1999 2:59:11 PM Also it is possible to vary your diet and still make it on food stamps. 10923. dusty - 12/18/1999 3:01:08 PM CalGal 10924. ChristiPeters - 12/18/1999 3:07:23 PM CalGal - If it can be made with chicken (and sometimes even if it shouldn't be), I made it. However, I never have and never will like dark poultry meat. So when I finished my degree and got a decent job, I swore I'd never eat it again. 10925. dusty - 12/18/1999 3:24:31 PM In response to Judithathome's query Message # 10906: 10926. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 3:28:20 PM I wonder where Broder got the idea giving was down? 10927. Cellar Door - 12/18/1999 3:29:11 PM Judith re #10890 -- Sorry about your friend. 10928. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 3:29:52 PM Cellar: 10929. Spudboy - 12/18/1999 3:39:46 PM 109109: Spuds has determined that Bush's religiosity is dangerous (i.e., that Bush as a "captive." The conclusions make you a guesser, and a relatively transparent one at this isue, and Spuds a hypocrite (for he does not spread the butter of his "papist menace" to Gore, ostensibly because Spuds, like many, believes that Gore is just scamming up his "What Would Jesus Do?" and thus, Spuds is made comfortable). 10930. Spudboy - 12/18/1999 3:41:16 PM Christianity in politics is AOK as long as the Christian politician is reading the Christian dogma in a way Spud would read the Christian dogma. 10931. Spudboy - 12/18/1999 3:42:15 PM Now, is fundamentalism ultimately dangerous? Probably, but not merely because of its brainlessness. It has become dangerous because it has explicitly stated its intention to become the ruling political force in America. I refer back to my #10716: 10932. dusty - 12/18/1999 3:46:42 PM JudithAtHome 10933. Spudboy - 12/18/1999 3:50:34 PM One further point: Fundamentalist Christians have absconded with the generic term “Christian” when referring to themselves, largely because they see themselves as the only “true” Christians. (I encountered this in the Fray when Jenerator declared that I wasn’t a “real Christian.”) A good recent example: The incident in Newark where Roman Catholics who called a priest about confession found that they had instead been connected with a born-again Christian in California with a dim view of the sacrament. When contact by the press, the man declared: "Confession is one of the big repulsive things to Christians because it encourages confessing sins to a man, and only Christ can forgive our sins." This is a fairly typical but revealing slip -- the man obviously doesn’t think Catholics are “real Christians.” 10934. Spudboy - 12/18/1999 3:51:23 PM And therein lies the difference: I have no problems with politicians being religious folk. And someone whose theological views agree with mine might garner my vote. But those views include the insistence that we keep Caesar in his realm, and that secular public policy be conducted not for narrow religious ends but for the benefit of people of all faiths -- evangelicals included. 10935. dusty - 12/18/1999 4:01:47 PM Spudboy 10936. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 4:02:02 PM dusty: 10937. dusty - 12/18/1999 4:09:09 PM JudithAtHome 10938. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 4:10:55 PM Obviously, I'm not that familiar with Schorr OR Broder, since I can't seem to tell one from another. 10939. dusty - 12/18/1999 4:11:40 PM JudithAtHome 10940. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 4:20:31 PM dusty: 10941. dusty - 12/18/1999 4:28:05 PM LadyChaos Message # 10894 10942. dusty - 12/18/1999 4:31:07 PM JudithAtHome 10943. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 4:33:12 PM Maybe that was what stuck in my head...I don't as a rule think of him at all. :-) 10944. dusty - 12/18/1999 4:49:45 PM JudithAtHome 10945. JudithAtHome - 12/18/1999 5:11:23 PM Okay....sorry. Maybe I should either make sausage balls or listen to the radio but not try to do both. Call me Gerald Ford... 10946. dusty - 12/18/1999 5:43:08 PM 10947. dusty - 12/18/1999 5:48:03 PM JudithAtHome 10948. LadyChaos - 12/18/1999 6:14:01 PM dusty, 10949. dusty - 12/18/1999 6:48:58 PM LadyChaos 10950. ButterfieldSwire - 12/18/1999 10:06:30 PM Bush is a Methodist (I assume United, since "his" book cites a sermon from a UMC pastor as a major spiritual influence, plus he's too upper crust not to be). Gore on the other hand is a fundamentalist Baptist (as is Clinton and Jimmy Swaggert). 10951. jexster - 12/18/1999 10:12:20 PM Rose, 10952. jexster - 12/18/1999 10:16:34 PM [cont] 10953. jexster - 12/18/1999 10:20:26 PM [cont] 10954. jexster - 12/18/1999 10:22:24 PM " And Willie Brown is not a leftist? And Ammiano isn't?" 10955. Spudboy - 12/19/1999 12:40:39 AM Dusty: 10956. Cellar Door - 12/19/1999 2:08:55 AM Dictatorships formed on the basis of "I'm right and you're not" scare me far more than Gary Bauer of Alan Keyes. 10957. Stumbo - 12/19/1999 2:12:29 AM Dunno if this will meet Dusty's expectation, but... 10958. dusty - 12/19/1999 10:39:13 AM Stumbo 10959. dusty - 12/19/1999 10:43:07 AM Cellar Door 10960. dusty - 12/19/1999 10:44:58 AM Spudboy 10961. Spudboy - 12/19/1999 12:32:59 PM Gore and Clinton are both Southern Baptists. That particular faith is generally fundamentalist, though it was not always so. The conservative fundamentalists have taken over the church leadership in the past 20 years or so. But its membership includes a large number of people who are more in the mainstream tradition, and I think Gore and Clinton fall into that category. 10962. JudithAtHome - 12/19/1999 12:39:51 PM Stumbo: 10963. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/19/1999 2:01:47 PM Judy: Those type of posts are totally unnecessary. Email him if you want to smile at each other. 10964. EricCartman - 12/19/1999 2:54:28 PM Stone: 10965. Cellar Door - 12/19/1999 4:40:00 PM Keyes is becoming more interesting in my mind 10966. Dusty - 12/19/1999 5:51:47 PM Cellar Door 10967. JudithAtHome - 12/19/1999 6:29:12 PM Rosetta: 10968. wonkers2 - 12/19/1999 7:38:21 PM Nice to see that Bradley, Hillary, Gore and Clinton, in that sequence, agree that "don't ask, don't tell" is a flop. I wonder if any of the Republican candidates will follow suit. McCain might have the courage to follow the lead of his Arizona mentor, General/Senator Barry Goldwater on the subject. And one would think that Steve Forbes, in light of his father's orientation would support changing the policy? Unfortunately General Powell was unable to see the analogy between integrating blacks into the military and doing the same for gays. 10969. concerned - 12/20/1999 4:58:03 AM Well, it seems John McCain failed a two question 'pop quiz', not being able to give the proper response to either. I wonder how 'No Controlling Legal Authority' Bore would fare with questions of this caliber? Not too well, I'm afraid. For him, I would propose a list of questions that related with issues that he has publicly dealt with before, such as the following: 10970. concerned - 12/20/1999 5:06:31 AM Re. 10950 - 10971. concerned - 12/20/1999 5:10:12 AM ..do to... 10972. concerned - 12/20/1999 5:53:17 AM Re. 10891 - 10973. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/20/1999 7:23:25 AM Man, Algore was worse than I thought yesterday on MTP. He's getting worse with each debate. 10974. JudithAtHome - 12/20/1999 9:15:54 AM At one point, Gore turned in his chair as stiffly as though he were in a full body cast. Way to tense, needs to relax. 10975. theDiva - 12/20/1999 9:17:52 AM Gore was obnoxious and evasive all at the same time. You have to say this for the man, he's versatile. 10976. JudithAtHome - 12/20/1999 9:28:47 AM Gore needs to remember how well Bradley played the game of basketball...he's still got the moves. 10977. theDiva - 12/20/1999 9:31:06 AM Truth be told, I didn't watch the entire show. I got too angry after Russert directly asked Gore as to why an impoverished single mother scrimping to send her child to Catholic school shouldn't receive a tax credit, and Gore danced around the question. Intellectual dishonesty just pisses me off. 10978. Dantheman - 12/20/1999 9:37:45 AM 10979. joezan - 12/20/1999 9:39:10 AM 10980. theDiva - 12/20/1999 9:40:28 AM (snickering) 10981. ROSEttaSTONE - 12/20/1999 9:49:57 AM Viewers could hear Gore sighing theatrically off-camera during several of Bradley's answers, prompting the Bradley camp to issue an "official deep-sigh count" of seven. 10982. 109109 - 12/20/1999 9:51:39 AM spud 10983. 109109 - 12/20/1999 9:52:16 AM cont... 10984. 109109 - 12/20/1999 9:52:24 AM 10727 - Has Gore ever indicated he will help promote the evangelical agenda? Has he ever indicated he's in bed with the Christian Coalition and their ilk? Not that I'm aware of. Last I checked, those were the folks working most furiously to defeat him. OTOH, there's Bush." 10985. 109109 - 12/20/1999 9:54:22 AM spud 10986. 109109 - 12/20/1999 9:55:38 AM Spud 10987. JudithAtHome - 12/20/1999 9:59:50 AM Rosetta is over in TT trashing me...I used to think he was pining for me but now I see he is just a sad little man looking for any attention he can get.
Gore's primary evidence of cost savings is to declare 309,000 fewer government employees exist today than when Clinton took office; that government is no bigger today than when John F. Kennedy was president. But the numbers mislead. The majority of these cuts come from military reductions following the Cold War. Government still employs more civilian employees than at any time in the last 30 years.
In fact many of these cuts came from efforts unrelated to Gore's. For example, the defense cuts came from military base closures that were well under way when President Bush left office. Nearly 15,000 positions were eliminated when the Resolution Trust Corporation and other bank regulatory agencies finished the savings and loan bailout. And nearly 100,000 cuts came from workers who were due to retire -- but waited around to receive a one time $25,000 buyout passed by Congress in 1994.
The overhwelming majorityof the homeless are CHILDREN!
Are they on drugs, ronski?
We're allowed in the voting booth with the tacit understanding that our presence is tolerated but not appreciated, and no matter whom we vote for, it will by necessity be someone who officially endorses some sort of hidebound superstition or other.
Just once, I'd like to see a professed atheist (or even an agnostic) run for President, just to watch the appropriate organizations rant and rumble about it being the end of civilization as we know it.
They would rant and rave at the same fever pitch that is heard at the idea of Harry Browne as President because an agnostic or atheist would garner comparable support.
Oddly, Cartman and Cellar find comfort in the notion of an agnostic--someone like them-- holding high office.
And yet they seem absolutely dumbfounded that Christians have the gall to share this feeling.
One of the few public people I credit with sincerity when they claim to "have come to know Jesus" or to have "found Jesus" is Billy Joe Shaver, the country singer-songwriter.
Billy Joe is said to have traveled some hard miles during the outlaw
music era...and he looks it. He says that after a particularly strenuous evening of partying, he awoke to find a nine-foot Jesus standing at the foot of his bed. He took that as a sign to mend his
sinful ways, and he did.
I believe him. And if Shrub decides to testify about a nine-foot Jesus, I'll believe him too.
Yeah, psychedelic mushrooms will do that to you.
Ace Message # 10331:
No, it's understandable that Christians prefer another Christian to hold office. It would be nice if maybe the candidates just said nothing at all about what, if any, their religion is.
Nice for you, you godless dope fiend. But the reality is that most people, in that believe in some superstitious, silly, unprovable higher folly, would like to hear that a candidate shares their tribal infantilism.
Like me, for example. I don't like some guy thinking he's the be all and end all directing social policy or making nuclear decisions.
I want him like me. The clouds rumble, we both put our beers down and say "God mad!"
Hell, most Americans are agnostics anyway.
I disagree. Surveys show time and again that the US is by far the most religious of the industrialized nations, beating out heavily Catholic nations like Italy and Ireland. Some 75% of Americans polled say they seriously believe in the existence of angels.
There's obviously a higher proportion of those folks in "flyover country" than in Northern CA, but still, there's a lot of 'em, and many expect their elected officials to impose their personal creeds on everyone.
Niner is undoubtedly right, since he's one of the status quo who both believes and likes to know he's part of the pack.
The important thing to remember, though, is that all politicians lie. So who gives a fuck if they say they believe in God? Remember that they're just trying to pacify the needy Niner sort.
You miss my point. I said that they call themselves "Christian".
The reality is that if you scratch the surface, most Americans are these kind of pseudo-Christians. They want a warm fuzzy notion that something good happens after they die, but it's not like they really believe in any particular religion. Pick and choose as makes them feel good.
Well, then you can join your preferred candidate in a rain dance, or some similar ritual, to placate your moody sky-god. Me, I like the idea of the guy with his finger on the nucular button paying more attention to logic and reason, and maybe a bit less to the guy in the funny hat who just got around to pardoning Galileo's "heresy" a few years ago.
Nite folks.
Niner:
I want him like me. The clouds rumble, we both put our beers down
and say "God mad!"
LOL!
It would be nice if maybe the candidates just said nothing at all about what, if any, their religion is.
Yes, they should lie about. I agree.
Unless, of course, if they're atheists. Then they should proclaim that proudly.
I think it's very important to lie about religion, given that people like cartman think religious people are crazy and should not be trusted with the nuclear button.
Politicians should withhold that information-- which Cartman deems important, suggesting that religion crowds out "logic and reason"-- from the electorate.
Well, what do you think the Christian Coalition would do, were some prospective candidate to let it slip that he doesn't believe in God? I have a feeling they'd give a very serious fuck.
And it does make a real difference, as the Ten Commandments nonsense post-Columbine clearly illustrates.
Remember that [politicians are] just trying to pacify the needy Niner sort.
Isn't that what church is for?
Night, all.
Dearheart. I should have been more specific. Rewrite:
So what sensible non-believer (and of course, we all are sensible) gives a fuck about what some asshole politician says to make the needy Niner sorts feel better?
Isn't that what church is for?
Now, now. You're back to "shoulding" again, and you know where that gets you.
Here we go again. You do see a difference between the phrases "say nothing at all about religion" and "lie about religion", don't you? Certainly if they're asked, there's nothing wrong with speaking up about it. And unless they're nutjob fanatics like Pat Robertson, there's really nothing wrong with them saying it anyway. I just said it would be interesting if a candidate, when asked, were to claim agnosticism or atheism.
There just seems to be a tacit litmus test wrt religious conviction, with candidates proclaiming their faith. So, as a hypothetical, I'm curious as to whether an acknowledged agnostic/atheist would stand a snowball's chance in hell (irony, get it?) as a candidate from either of the major parties.
Is all. I meant.
Certainly if they're asked, there's nothing wrong with speaking up about it.
Fine. They always ARE asked. They are asked about their religion right after the basics of their personal lives (married? Children? etc.) are asked about.
So no problem, I guess.
So what sensible non-believer (and of course, we all are sensible) gives a fuck about what some asshole politician says to make the needy Niner sorts feel better?
Generally, I don't give a fuck, until something like Columbine happens, and much taxpayer time and money is totally wasted on navel-gazing over society not having enough God in their lives. Then it becomes extremely tiresome. Or when a crackpot loon like Pat Robertson actually gets even a slight chance to become the Head Enchilada of these here Yew-nited States.
It's an old cliché that neither politics nor religion should be discussed in polite company (fortunately, that doesn't apply here). But I would add to that by saying that mixing the two can be especially volatile. It's the worst kind of rabble-rousing, because usually the most vociferous of the religious folk are the nuttiest.
Frank Zappa was once asked in an interview whether he'd vote for Jesse Jackson, and why or why not. FZ said no, because he's serving another boss, and it's important for politicians to not lose sight of the fact that the citizens are their boss. Which is close to what I'm getting at here.
Ah yes. "Creeping Papery."
We can't trust a filthy fish-eating Papist like Kennedy, because if we ever get into a war with Vatican City, who would he side with?
So that's what happened before!
I dunno. Marilyn Monroe?
"Will non-Christians be allowed to vote in the Presidential election?"
Guess you'll never know unless you try.
"Will non-Christians be allowed to vote in the Presidential election?"
Guess you'll never know unless you try.
I'm inhaling a controlled substance as I type this (done growed it myself). My medical history to date is pretty flimsy. Let's see. I saw a doctor about six months ago & got some cortisone for a minor skin infection on a finger. About five years ago, I drove myself to a hospital emergency room because a drill bit snapped & went through my hand (I was tired from working too long when it happened). I took a blood test to qualify for an insurance policy about four years ago , the results of which looked generally normal. I get colds and flus occasionally, usually one to three times a year, blah blah blah.
Well, I am in a bit off to Calif. so the next words from the ancient inbecile will be frome e.e.'s computer, if he allows. Ta Ta.
Yes. And?
Here he is, once of the few candidates to atually serve in the military -- and he was held a prisoner of war for crying out loud, and suffered goodness knows what rather than stay home and have WILD PROMISCUOUS SEX like me -- a faithless corrupt depraved ho-mo-sex-ual.
And guess what? HE gets the shaft!
I'm tellin' ya -- in this country you just can't win, no matter what.
If you see my name on this or other threads more on the near future bear in mind it may be AD the AI not EE the RF
Many people in Northern Calif. believe that crystals have magical curative powers and that little pyramids sharpen razor blades.
Yes. They are called tree-huggers. They usually bathe once a week, wear Birkenstocks, and smoke dope and listen to reggae. Good for them.
What those people don't do, unlike some religions which I won't name, is 1) insist that their way is the right way, ordained by their book and their God; 2) attempt to convert all non-believers to their way of thinking; 3) attempt to clog up school boards and electoral seats with purveyors of their brand of superstition. Are there people trying to make schools teach "crystal healing" in science class? No, there are not. But there are places where creationism is now expected to be taught side by side with evolution in science class. Mind you, only Christian creationism; heathen superstitions needn't have their voices heard, because God says they're wrong.
Is it possible that the values of the Judeo/Christian have had a beneficial effect on Western civilization?
It depends on which values you refer to, Al. The Golden Rule is a very beneficial value for all people, though religious people seem to be much more likely to violate such advice. But all religions have some form of the Golden Rule inherent in their creeds. Even satanism.
Where Judeo-Christian "values" tend to become rather dotty is in matters of sex. Much hand-wringing ensues over the notion of people attempting to figure out what God really wants them to do with their pee-pees. Unless it's strictly for breedin' purposes, of course.
Which is fine. Everyone's entitled to believe whatever faith they want; that's what makes this country great. But it's a good idea to keep religion and politics at a respectful distance from one another.
You forgot the herbal tea and the homemade eucalyptus wine.
Yeah, but there's no guarantee that he believed it. I got lectures on hell and the devil and it made no difference to me.
Of course, this requires a "leap of faith" on your part--namely, you'd need to accept that there are people who, for many different reasons, don't believe in God despite a fair amount of exposure.
But in any event, your conclusion is faulty. The fact that he said he's off to a "better place" has at least two possible interpretations: 1) that he has a specific "better place" in mind; 2) more likely, that his life on earth is so horrible that he is convinced that any thing (including no afterlife at all) would be better.
Yep. When I was living in Ukiah, you couldn't swing a dead cat without knocking one of those guys face first into his oversized bong. But I have to admit, I did quite like the hippie chicks there. All they want to do is get high and have sex. Bummer.
If you've ever heard stern bible preaching on hell you would know he didn't mean hell would be better.
I have a feeling Harris and Klebold were probably thinking along the line of "better to reign in hell than to serve in heaven". Plus they were obviously nuts.
Simply because Bore, Hilliary, Sharpton & the rest of that crew are exploiting Jesus for political gain by lying that he and his family were 'homeless' doesn't change the fact that GWB is above any such blatant, clumsy, dishonest and self-serving stratagems.
attempt to clog up school boards and electoral seats with purveyors of their brand of superstition.
Sure... political or religious leanings have no place in the schools. At least conservative political or religious leanings have no such place.
If you want to teach kids about homosexuality, masturbation, etc., that's just fine. It's okay to force LIBERAL mores on children, against the wishes of their parents, because liberal mores are GOOD.
(And don't tell me that SOME schools allow parents to yank their children out of such classes if they disagree with them. Oddly, this never seems to be a proper solution when somebody suggests any sort of conservative/religious instruction-- THEN, of course, pulling a kid out of class, away from his peers, would cause DEVASTATING PSYCHOLOGICAL HARM and DANGEROUGS ALIENATION from his classmates, and is most definitely NOT a legitimate solution when teaching something which might disagree with a child or parents' beliefs.)
I accept this. It's obvious. About 1/2 the kids in our congregation who where "brought up" in the church reject it upon adulthood.
Yes, but did they shave their armpits?
Right. So it's possible that they were brought up with religion and it just didn't take.
And as you know, it's also possible that a kid--now or in the future--could be both completely nuts and accepting of a Christian belief system. Thus resulting in a violent purge of all non-believers at the high school.
This wouldn't be any more the result of Christian belief than Klebold's and Harris's action are the result of their assumed non-belief.
It really does disgust me. The double-standards, the sheer irrational vindictive hatred the Atheist Left directs at anyone who doesn't agree with them.
The Atheist Left has a conniption if a Nativity Scene is displayed at a school. "Why that might offend some students' RELIGIOUS BELIEFS or lack thereof!" And so we must be scrupulous solicitious of such children's/parents' feelings.
And yet, when they decide to teach something deeply offensive to Christians?
FUCK 'EM, is the response. THOSE DIRTY ILLITERATE MOTHERFUCKERS WILL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT. FUCK THEM, FUCK THEIR STUPID "JESUS," FUCK THEM ALL TO HELL. THE DAY WE STAMP OUT THIS MISERABLE VIRUS KNOWN AS CHRISTIANITY, OR ROUND THESE SIMIAN SUBHUMANS INTO CAMPS, CAN'T COME TOO QUICKLY.
Sure... political or religious leanings have no place in the schools. At least conservative political or religious leanings have no such place.
Um, no, you had it right the first time. School isn't the place for teaching about New Age magic crystals and pyramid worship, any more than it's the place for teaching the Ten Commandments or catechism. However, I think that comparative religion courses for high-school students would be beneficial.
If you want to teach kids about homosexuality, masturbation, etc., that's just fine. It's okay to force LIBERAL mores on children, against the wishes of their parents, because liberal mores are GOOD.
Sex education courses should be optional; parents certainly should be able to pull their kids out of a class, if they don't want them hearing about the mechanics of straight/gay sex, or masturbation. Hell, the kids will figure it out soon enough anyway, if they don't know it already.
Show of hands: who actually learned anything significant in their public school sex-ed class, that they hadn't already seen in pornos, Playboys, or Showtime "After Hours"?
Didn't think so.
Ace: We did that with one of our sons. It was no big deal. I don't think the class was any big deal either but my wife did.He wasn't hassled by other kids.
Sometimes. I don't hang out much in that area anyway.(g)
Ace Message # 10377:
Actually, I agree with you there. I think people and groups that can't handle a simple (privately funded) Nativity scene needs to get a grip. Prayers at football games, commencements, graduations -- I could live without the tacit endorsement, but again, another alternative is that people can be grown-ups and not go apeshit over a simple non-denominational expression of spirituality.
I be conjugatin'!
Niner Message # 10329:
...an agnostic or atheist would garner comparable support [as Harry Browne].
Really? Even if it were a front-runner from a major party? That's what I was curious about in the first place -- since a profession of religious faith is practically required from all candidates it seems, how might a declaration of agnosticism/atheism from an otherwise perfectly moderate mainstream candidate affect his chances? And if they are affected by such a statement, is that a good thing?
You make a minor mistake in Message # 10334, in assuming that an atheist presumes humans to be the "be all-end all". This is simply not the case. I certainly don't feel that way; in fact I rather hope that humans are not the pinnacle of all life in the universe. Given our baser nature, that would set a fairly low standard for all the infinite possibilities out there in the cosmos, no?
So, if we agree that people are entitled to their own opinions wrt matters of personal spirituality, and we agree that agnosticism/atheism does not impute some sort of taint of inherent immorality or hubris on the nonbeliever, then what sort of weight, in a fair analysis, should a candidate's beliefs or nonbeliefs have on his viability?
Obviously, the weight I'm shooting for here is "none", but I'm aware that that is probably not a realistic reading of the current status quo. So, then, does that make it a fucked-up status quo that maybe should be re-assessed? And if so, doesn't that also lend credence to what Cellar and I alluded to earlier -- that declaring religious affiliation is not mere decoration for pacifying nervous nellies like yourself, but something which many folks take very seriously, for some reason?
Would you, in other words, refuse to vote for someone who mirrored most of your political opinions, merely because he was an atheist?
MODERATOR: Mr. Bauer, you've referred to the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision as "the flint that sparked an American Holocaust." What would you do as President to change America's abortion laws?
GARY BAUER: Kent, you're correct that Roe vs. Wade is an abomination. I promise to only appoint justices to the Supreme Court who have taken a holy oath to repeal that horrible law. I have brought here with me a written pledge
(Bauer pulls paper and pen from suit pocket)
in which I sign this promise, so help me God!
(Bauer signs paper, Applause)
Now, I want to ask each one of my friends and fellow Republicans here on the podium to sign with me. Senator McCain?
JOHN MCCAIN: I...uh...I..
JOHN MCCAIN: Never, you little red bastard!
(McCain breaks free from the guards and stabs Ho in the Adam's Apple with the pen).
GARY BAUER: Splurt...Gurgle...Arghhh....
Its really just a matter of time. I'm surprised this hasn't happened already.
"Really? Even if it were a front-runner from a major party? That's what I was curious about in the first place -- since a profession of religious faith is practically required from all candidates it seems, how might a declaration of agnosticism/atheism from an otherwise perfectly moderate mainstream candidate affect his chances? And if they are affected by such a statement, is that a good thing?"
You said it yourself. It is a religious electorate. No front-runner is going to be an avowed atheist. Is it a good thing? Depends on the atheist who is disqualified due to his atheism. But democarcy requires appeal to voters, and a basic prerequisite (today, at least) of American democracy is that a potential president be at least nominally religious (i.e., express belief in a Supreme Being). This does not necessarily mean that a candidate need speak in tongues or be free of sin. Reagan was no church goer. But he shared a fundamental and expressed view that he was working from a Judeo-Christian ethic. I have yet to see the downside to this expression. I have yet, in fact, to see an otherwise qualified atheist bemoan his or her philosophical exclusion from the process.
I suppose you could supplant a belief in God with a belief in Mulder and Scully, but I'm not sure it changes the equation. In short, most voters look for some like moral force in their candidates, and the entrance fee to that discussion is a belief in God.
"So, if we agree that people are entitled to their own opinions wrt matters of personal spirituality, and we agree that agnosticism/atheism does not impute some sort of taint of inherent immorality or hubris on the nonbeliever, then what sort of weight, in a fair analysis, should a candidate's beliefs or nonbeliefs have on his viability?"
I agree that people are entitled to their own opinions. I agree that atheism does not impute some sort of taint of inherent immorality or hubris on the nonbeliever. If, however, you are asking me to weigh it, I'd have to see the whole package, and I admit to a certain leeriness as to a president who does not believe in God. I'd want to know more. Just as I'd want to know more about a candidate who handles snakes in his or her off hours. An atheist "rejects all religious beliefs and the existence of God." In that I don't, this would certainly weigh heavily in my analysis, probably more so than whether a candidate holds the same position as I on ethanol subsidies. But that's just me.
Agnosticism is a lack of assuredness as to the existence of God, which is probably doable for a modern candidate.
"Obviously, the weight I'm shooting for here is "none", but I'm aware that that is probably not a realistic reading of the current status quo. So, then, does that make it a fucked-up status quo that maybe should be re-assessed? And if so, doesn't that also lend credence to what Cellar and I alluded to earlier -- that declaring religious affiliation is not mere decoration for pacifying nervous nellies like yourself, but something which many folks take very seriously, for some reason?"
Individuals are free to assess the status quo as much as they'd like, but the status quo is no more than the collective opinion of the many, and it is largely immune from "reassessment." People take the affirmation seriously because, to them, expression of faith is a measure of a man. Indeed, it may be a measure of a man to you. You and the rest of the electorate merely accord it different weight. Implicit in my joking references was the serious point that knowing whether someone believes in God tells me something about them that pleases me when I am asked to make a judgment as to the leader of the country.
"Would you, in other words, refuse to vote for someone who mirrored most of your political opinions, merely because he was an atheist?"
I don't know. I would have to see the candidate in 47 town meetings, debates, photo ops, and press conferences. But I'll admit that it would be a strike against him, for the reasons I've stated.
Hi! I'm a Christian, so vote for me and I promise to fry every crook, to lock up every drug addict, and to implicity advocate the harassment and murder of social deviants. Oh, and by the way, Jesus loves you!
Of course, Clinton walking out of church with a Bible in his hand was at least as laughable, just in case anybody wants to accuse me of being unfair. Gore's reference to WWJD made me want to puke. Christ as a fashion statement - yuck!
"Translation: You're either in the Christ club or out of it, on the J.C. team or off. This is the same exclusionary attitude, so offensive to those with different beliefs, that he showed in 1993 when he said that you must believe in Jesus Christ to enter heaven. (Mr. Bush has since conceded that only "God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush.")"
With translations such as this, no wonder Michael Douglas dumped her. Bush was asked a question. He answered it. He was asked to expound. In contrast to Dowd's column, he basically demurred. Still, the literati and intelligentsia positively foam.
I like the answer, and I am not much of a practicing Christian. And if it so enrages Dowd that she must interpret it in such a hysterical fashion, making it insidious and even dangerous, then so be it. But he answered a question, and when asked to bare his soul and guts, Bush politely said, "I'll pass."
Your assessment of the heart of Bush, in sole reliance on his smirk, smacks of phrenology.
Comparing phrenology to reading people's expressions is hardly apt. Reading a man's thoughts based on the tension between his words and the involuntary twitches of his facial muscles is an ancient survival tool that we all put to good use, wittingly or not, in our everyday lives.
I hear G.W.'s words, I watch his expression, and I know that he is being insincere. Such insincere claims of a moral center make him out to be every bit as much of an unprincipled whore as Clinton. Worse than Clinton, though, G.W. lack an intellectual center, as well. He's an empty-headed frat boy, appealing to empty-headed reactionaries.
Anyway, I have to get back to work.
You're free to use all the tools at your disposal. My only suggestion is that you cut the quasi-scientific tarot card pretense, and just hate him with abandon.
Some are easier to read than others. I find Bush to be particularly transparent. Gore began sliding in the credibility department a long time ago. It was a gradual process, but I think the clincher for me was moving campaign HQ to Nashville. For many people, that probably hurt him more than it helped. He seems completely baffled when people react negatively to his transparent maneuvering. He's too guileless to be a marketer like Clinton.
My take on Bush having claimed that only Christian believers go to heaven and then reversing himself, conceding that only God makes that decision, is that while politicians (and normal people) have a right to be smarter today than they were yesterday, this is yet another example of Bush's meager intellect.
"As I understand the scriptures, belief in Christ is the only way to achieve salvation. Of course as a mere mortal, I may not have full understanding, for even as a camel may pass through the eye of a needle, all things are possible with God."
If you started asking Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or even the smartest woman alive (Hillary Clinton) about their religious "beliefs" and they actually tried to answer, my bet is they'd sound pretty stupid and inconsistent, too.
I agree that the Clintons and Gore would sound as stupid.
I guess my problem is that a genuine Christian running for office is something of a necessary oxymoron. One of the fundamental lessons of the life of Christ is the value of humility, of reticence to accept the exalted status of political power. This automatically disqualifies anyone actively seeking power from citing the life of Jesus as his or her philosophical base. George Washington is perhaps one of the only examples of this in our history. Although some cynics might call him a very clever passive-aggressive politician, I think that he was more than that. He was a man who really did understand that the most basic lesson of character to be derived from Christianity is that of humility. Thus, anyone who says, "I'm a Christian, vote for me," has automatically impeached his sincerity.
That is not to say that Christians should not run for office. I have no doubt, for example, that Abe Lincoln was a devout Christian. He did not, however, make that a reason to vote for him. His actions in office demonstrated his moral center to a much greater degree than any amount of proselytizing could have.
HWJD: How Would Jesus Drive?
Hahaha! That's great. Can you send me one?
"I have no doubt, for example, that Abe Lincoln was a devout Christian. He did not, however, make that a reason to vote for him."
Astonishingly historically inaccurate.
In Abraham Lincoln's second inaugural address there were 14 references to God, four quotations from Genesis, the Psalms,
and Matthew, and numerous allusions to scriptural teachings.
Where would Jesus dine?
What would Jesus drink?
When would Jesus dance?
Why would Jesus donate?
You rebut your own rebuttal by noting that it was in Lincoln's second inaugural address that he made such references. This was obviously after he was elected. As I said, there is no evidence to indicate that he tried to make his faith a reason to vote for him. At the time, Lincoln and the Union were struggling with great questions about the meaning of power, democracy, and freedom. Such scriptural references were an obligatory part of conventional oratory in his time, yet you may recall that in that same address he expressed misgivings about both North and South claiming to have God on their side. This was, to me, an indication of his own doubts about the usefulness of citing God in the exercise of political power.
There are all sorts of great bumperstickers and shirts at this site:
www.northernsun.com/index.html
Lincoln was by no means a devout Christian. To the contrary, he rarely attended church before or during his Presidency, and even made light of it. While he was able to, and often did, quote the Bible extensively, his religous beliefs were Deist, in the same sense as Jefferson and Franklin's.
Who is to say what a "genuine Christian" is?
This hypocrisy--the pretense that we Americans are a people of faith who value this attribute in our leaders--is practiced not just by a few pockets of the American public, but the overwhelming majority of it. Why blame the candidates for doing what the public encourages?
It seems that you are only quibbling over the style of one versus the other.
It is a quintessentially dumb-ass statement for a politician to make, that only one segment of the voting electorate is elect.
Here I stand; I cannot recant.
CalGal, if you're THE CalGal, and are still in touch with PincherMartin and 109109, please pass on the message that I now consider them more bigoted than ever for opposing a policy in which gay people are allowed to serve in the military openly.
Please note. He said the CalGal, not THAT CalGal!
I'm almost speechless.
You are correct. In his blase attitude toward organized religion, he was very similar to Reagan. But he was also a God-fearing man of his time, and many of his most monumental political causes were influenced, if not created, by religious doctrine. One need only look to his speeches.
If you are in touch with Elliot, please pass on that I still miss him like Batman misses the Joker.
And Lincoln was a Deist. It was common for Deists to employ traditional Judeo-Christian scripture in public pronouncements, without adhering to the exclusionary fine points of Christian traditional theology that are so prevalent among today's Religious Right and those who pander to them.
Cal --
Whaddaya mean "THE CalGal?"
How could there be any other?
The distinction is meaningless. During the time of Lincoln, a debate such as the one we are having would have been ridiculous. All politicians believed in God, as did almost all constituents. Hence, such a belief was never questioned and the pandering of which you speak was entirely unnecessary, because there was no secular populace to speak of. Today, however, the tug between the secular and the religious is evident in our political life, though all of our politicians profess strong religious backgrounds, as opposed to reason, logic and nature.
Since when did church attendance stand as a measure of one's faith?
CalGal,
I'm hardly quibbling. The distinctions are clear. Christians are called to be "Christ-like" in the way that they conduct themselves. This means that a true Christian must, above all else, be humble and free from hypocrisy. As soon as you spout off about your faith in the way that Bush did, you are exalting yourself much like the Pharisee who Jesus so clearly despised. Bush was saying, in effect, "Look at me. I'm a Christian and therefore more trustworthy than those devil-worshipping Dems."
It's not a question of "style" at all. That most of the public are suckers for G.W.'s kind of appeal does not alter the issue for me.
Christians are called to be "Christ-like" in the way that they conduct themselves.
Yes, but many, many, many, many Americans refer to themselves as Christians without even knowing of this requirement, much less thinking that it needs to be adhered to.
It is the hypocrisy of the public that you need to bitch about. I wonder why more people don't realize this? It is the reason for every hypocrisy practiced by a candidate.
Niner,
The distinction is far from meaningless. In fact, it served as one of the primary bases for the founding of the republic: whether or not the state would interfere in matters of conscience, which is the real current debate in this country, not whether some people have religion and some people don't.
It is the hypocrisy of the public that you need to bitch about. I wonder why more people don't realize this? It is the reason for every hypocrisy practiced by a candidate.
What you're talking about is the difference between leadership and pandering. One can do little about the ignorance of the public, but one can only make that ignorance worse by pandering. G.W. is pandering.
But we are talking about whether Lincoln, like candidates today, professed his faith and/or relied upon religious doctrine in the formulation of his public policy. Separation of church/state issues are all well and good, but as yet, they have not been discussed. Rather, what has been discussed is the propriety of candidates such as Gore and Bush professing their belief in God, or relying on Christian doctrine, in their runs for the president. Some suggest that lincoln was different. In the first instance (professing belief), he was different, because there was no question of the matter due to the times. In the second (relying on Christian doctrine to formulate policy), he is the godfather of Gore's "WWJD?" and Bush's invocation of Jesus as his greatest philosopher/thinker.
Again, you're just determining who gets the most style points. The greatest vote slut in our history just happens to have a natural ability for faking sincerity and conviction.
"In the first instance (professing belief [in a run for office]), [Lincoln] was different, because there was no question of the matter due to the times."
And due to the fact that voters were handed copies of his second inaugural address prior to the election.
Lincoln's reliance on Christ's teachings as a moral beacon in the formulation of policy, if you will, is quite different from touting one's faith as a vote-getter. But even Lincoln derived his primary moral guidance from the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. One must remember that belief in the Bible is not incompatible with slavery, feudalism, or even monarchies. Only a few fringe sects, such as the Quakers, were committed abolitionists.
Lincoln understood the dissonance between the majority faith of the Nation and the morality that was mandated by our founding documents. At the end of the day, he chose the latter for moral guidance. I frankly don't trust Bush to comprehend the difference.
Hence--the bullshit is effective for his target audience.
Trust in Bush would seem to be foreclosed based on the smirk alone. But you concede my point: it is not the confluence of religion and politics that offends. It is the confluence of religion and politics and Bush.
As soon as you spout off about your faith in the way that Bush did, you are exalting yourself much like the Pharisee who Jesus so clearly despised
Ummm, where'd you get your religious training?
Christians are called upon to TESTIFY to the power of Christ, to PROCLAIM it, to TRUMPET it.
Not to HIDE it as if it were a dirty secret, as the Addled Atheists here obviously would prefer.
You can express your desire that Christians be silent about the Faith that they are called upon to testify to. But all your little wishes can't change the fact that Christianity asks for Christians to proclaim their faith.
My take on Bush having claimed that only Christian believers go to heaven and then reversing himself
And yet another Addled Atheist who wishes to rewrite the Bible and take out all those doggone hurtful judgemental parts.
Can't we all just ascribe to the Hollywood/New Agey ethos that if you're a "good person" and have "love in your heart" and the "spirit of a child still living in you" you'll go to Heaven?
Sorry, Ronski, but Christianity is rather rigid on the "Christ thing." See, Christianity holds, rather firmly, and rather uniformly, that if you don't accept Jesus as your Savior, you won't go to Heaven.
You can't take Christ out of Christianity. See? The word "Christ" is right there in the beginning of the word "Christianity."
Jews believe they are The Chosen. This doesn't bother me, particularly; I don't find it "hurtful" and "judgemental" that I'm not one of The Chosen. I don't ask Jews to rewrite their religion in order to "make me feel less excluded."
And yet so many of you demand the same of Christianity.
Sorry. Grow up. People do not exist to make you feel comfortable.
When Lincoln left Springfield to start his inaugural journey to Washington, D.C., he paid an unforgettable tribute to his friends and neighbors in what is known today as the Farewell Address. Lincoln spoke these famous, emotion-charged words as he boarded a special Presidential train at the Great Western Railroad station, now a restored Lincoln visitor site.
"My friends, no one, not in my situation, can appreciate my feeling of sadness at this parting. To this place, and the kindness of these people, I owe everything. Here I have lived a quarter of a century, and have passed from a young to an old man. Here my children have been born, and one is buried. I now leave, not knowing when, or whether ever, I may return, with a task before me greater than that which rested upon Washington. Without the assistance of the Divine Being who ever attended him, I cannot succeed. With that assistance I cannot fail. Trusting in Him who can go with me, and remain with you, and be everywhere for good, let us confidently hope that all will yet be well. To His care commending you, as I hope in your prayers you will commend me, I bid you an affectionate farewell."
Not quite, "he changed my heart." But in that vein.
On Lincoln's inaugural journey to Washington, he stopped in Philadelphia at the site where the Declaration of Independence had been signed.
"I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the patriotism, the devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can say in return, Sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments which originated and were given to the world from this hall. I have never had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here, and framed and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved that Independence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle of idea it was that kept this Confederacy so long together. It was not the mere matter of the separation of the Colonies from the motherland; but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world, for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is a sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence
Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiest men in the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs, there need be no bloodshed or war. There is no necessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say, in advance, that there will be no bloodshed unless it be forced upon the Government, and then it will be compelled to act in self-defence.
My friends, this is wholly an unexpected speech, and I did not expect to be called upon to say a word when I came here. I supposed it was merely to do something toward raising the flag. I may, therefore, have said something indiscreet. (Cries of "No, no") I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, die by."
Washington, D.C.
September, 1862
This fragment was found and preserved by John Hay, one of President Lincoln's secretaries, who said it was "not written to be seen of men." Some of the thoughts expressed here, written after discouraging days of personal sorrow and military defeats, also appear in Lincoln's great Second Inaugural Address of 1865.
"The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be, and one must be, wrong. God cannot be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party; and yet the human instrumentalities, working just as they do, are of the best adaptation to effect his purpose. I am almost ready to say that this is probably true; that God wills this contest, and wills that it shall not end yet. By his mere great power on the minds of the now contestants, he could have either saved or destroyed the Union without a human contest. Yet the contest began. And, having begun, he could give the final victory to either side any day. Yet the contest proceeds."
When Would Jesus Dither?
What Would Jesus Demand?
Where Would Jesus Delve?
Who Would Jesus Dress?
One of the fundamental lessons of the life of Christ is the value of humility, of reticence to accept the exalted status of political power.
What? Where precisely in the Bible does it suggest that Christians shouldn't hold political office, or be the tops in whatever field they're in?
Once again, Lady Chaos is IMPOSING her beliefs on people. She seeks to impose her rather idiosyncratic, completely made-up out of thin air bullshit anti-Christian beliefs on everyone else.
Note how cute her little "rule" is. In a nutshell, she says: "Real Christians shouldn't be in political office, and anyone calling themself a Real Christian while seeking office is therefore a liar and should not be elected."
What an extraodinarily useful proposition if you wish to exclude an entire religious group from political life (perhaps they should wear pink crosses, too!).
October 3, 1863
Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation
"The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign States to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere except in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the fields of peaceful industry to the national defence, have not arrested the plough, the shuttle or the ship; the axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadily increased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in the consiousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom. No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People . . .
I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.
In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the United States to be affixed."
Perhaps "Real Jews" should be kept out of office, too!
Perhaps "Real Jews" ought to be "reticent to accept the financial rewards of their labor," and we should seize it!
Splendid!
Let's enact religious tolerance by simply killing the religious! Then we'll have no big bad religious bullies spouting their spiritual flim-flammery at us!
December 1, 1862
Excerpt from the State of the Union
"I do not forget the gravity which should characterize a paper addressed to the Congress of the nation by the Chief Magistrate of the nation. Nor do I forget that some of you are my seniors, nor that many of you have more experience than I, in the conduct of public affairs. Yet I trust that in view of the great responsibility resting upon me, you will perceive no want of respect yourselves, in any undue earnestness I may seem to display.
Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shorten the war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Is it doubted that it would restore the national authority and national prosperity, and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that we here--Congress and Executive--can secure its adoption? Will not the good people respond to a united, and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means, so certainly, or so speedily, assure these vital objects? We can succeed only by concert. It is not "can any of us imagine better?" but, "can we all do better?" The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise--with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disentrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.. . .
Fellow-citizens, we cannot escape history. We of this Congress and this administration, will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personal significance, or insignificance, can spare one or another of us. The fiery trial through which we pass, will light us down, in honor or dishonor, to the latest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forget that we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows we do know how to save it. We--even we here--hold the power, and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free--honorable alike in what we give, and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last best hope of earth. Other means may succeed; this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a way which, if followed, the world will forever applaud, and God must forever bless."
No matter how much I post, Niner can bury me with his umpteen-billionth Lexis/Nexis cut and paste job.
Will Wild Jesus Domesticate?
When Was Jesus Done?
Who Was Jesus' Doppleganger?
Two points.
First, I took these from the web.
Second, I enjoy the words of Lincoln as matched to yours. Interestingly, Mr. Lincoln did not employ as many capital letters.
Wonder Where Jesus Dumped?
(firf, sorry)
If you're trying to build a truly pluralistic society -- one that is as hospitable to Buddhists or Hindis as it is to Christians and Jews -- then it has to come with the recognition that such claims to superiority have no place in the conduct of public policy. Particularly when you stop to consider that there is no consensus even within Christianity; Protestants for years voted en masse against Catholics (remember, the Klan of the 1920s was focused on combating "Papism"), and those divisions continue today, though less stridently. Fundamentalists despise "liberal" churches like the Methodists and Episcopalians and are dubious about Catholicism.
Not that Bush seems to have the sense to have figured this out. Indeed, I was struck by how his description of his faith and his "relationship with Christ" (a classic evangelical stance) is rather at odds with the beliefs held by traditional Catholicism -- you know, the dominant religion of the Hispanics he is believed to have made great inroads with.
One of the fundamental lessons of homosexuality is to be accepting of others differences, and thus no homosexuals should be allowed in the military, where differences with others are settled violently.
Hee, hee, hee.
One of the good things about being a white male is that I've actually BOTHERED to think about self-serving bigotry and sweeping generalizations about racial, religous, or sexual groups.
You minorities should give it a try. Try thinking about "tolerance." Think about the notion of "tolerating" not just those you favor (we all can do that, and you do it especially well), but also tolerating those you despise (which you're not nearly so good at-- you don't even try, quite frankly).
Obviously you've never really bothered to consider precisely what "tolerance" means, believing it instead to be a cute dressing-up of the notion that "whatever I say is right" or a club with which to beat others. You see it as a concept which restrains OTHERS from making patently ludicrous and bigoted statements but not, alas, yourselves.
Or link. Like someone else I know.
He should be able to get over this gaffe by merely answering the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" and thereafter, healing Bill Bradley's heart ailment.
Not that Bush seems to have the sense to have figured this out.
Hah, hah. BUSH MENTIONED CHRIST!! HE DARED TO SAY HE WAS A CHRISTIAN AND THAT CHRIST HAD CHANGED HIS LIFE!!
oh, no. That means he doesn't understand that he can't impose his religion on others.
And what do we make of Gore's trumpeting of What Would Jesus Do, or Bill Bradley's evangelical (born-again) Christian tract?
Here's an idea-- maybe just like a jew or Moslem running for office should be allowed to say they believe strongly in Judaism or Islam, maybe Christians should be allowed to do the same thing.
Or do you suggest that Jews should keep their Jewishness secret? And that perhaps they should lie if asked about who they consider their most important philosophical influence (which might just happen to be the Torah)?
Should Moslems keeps silent about the importance Mohammed plays in their lives?
Are they to be despised and derailed as crazy theocratical zealots if they dare cite religion as being important in their lives?
It's so, so funny. Christians seem to be the only religion you're allowed to say these ludicrous things about.
Because it's liberal to slam Christians, and liberalism is good.
Oh yeah-- and Christians are in the "majority." Hah, right. REAL Christians are looked at as freaks. There are actually very few religious Christians. Far outnumbered, as Cal notes, by the *culturally* Christian but factually agnostic.
Pud-Boy:
Should a religious Jew keep his convictions secret when running for office?
Would you denounce such a man as a crazy theocrat who will certainly subordinate the American interests to the interests of Israel?
If not, why not? Why does only one religion earn your wrath?
Niner:
How about a Lexis/Nexis on religious Jews holding office. Let's tear their comments about their religious beliefs apart.
Dirty, dirty Jews, trying to impose their absurd notions of "The Chosen" and "The Holy Land" on us.
A true Jew would never say he's a Jew. Anyone who says he's a Jew is a liar and unfit for office.
Then your problem is that Bush said he believed in Christ.
I also happen to take Jesus' parable about the tax collector and the Pharisee pretty seriously.
And to point out the incredibly obvious:
True Christians may be the largest religious group in America, but they are a tiny minority compared to the herds of Star Trek/New Age/Aren't we ALL going to Heaven? types out there.
And then-- and here's the funny part-- those who accept the majority's beliefs about not being serious about religion SIMULTANEOUSLY pat themselves on the back for being so "rebellious" and "free thinking."
Uh huh. "Free thinking"= definition: Believing whatever the hell 60% of America believes, and scorning those who think differently.
PS: I'm not religious at all. I don't believe in God. But unlike all of you smug Addled Atheists, I'm not *proud* of it.
Not believing in God is much like preferring blue as your favorite color. It's a nice, safe, popular answer. But it's nothing to get so self-righteous about.
Bush seems not to have picked up this knack.
Niner:
It's okay to "believe" that Jesus is the only way to Salvation-- as every single denomination of Christianity teaches-- but you can't REALLY *believe* it.
You can give it lip-service-- that's fine. But if you actually take it seriously, you're a loon.
That's how you can tell the nutjobs from the real Christians like Spudboy. The Real Christians like Spudboy don't believe in Christianity.
You were kind enough to share that you are churchgoing Christian. Do you believe in an afterlife?
think it's entirely possible to say one believes in Christ without having to imply that everyone else is going to hell.
Oh? What does YOUR Bible say about? I've owned both the King James and Catholic bibles, and they both seem pretty EXPLICIT that you're going to hell if you don't accept Christ.
There are about fifty statements to that effect. They're kind of hard to miss, being in the red-letters and all.
What does your preacher say about it, Spuds? What alternate routes to Heaven has he told you about?
Seriously. If your Bible, your Church, or your pastor has informed you about alternate ways of Salvation, I'm interested in hearing about them.
Niner:
Being a taco bender, you're probably a snake-handling Santariaist (sp?)?
Does Santaria teach you any alternate ways to Heaven, or are you just stuck with the boring default of Jesus?
Jesus this, Jesus that. Jesus Christ, Christianity is such a Charlie One-Note on this whole boring Jesus thing.
This isn't the place for a theological discussion, and I have no intention of getting into this any further today. But you obviously are not familiar with the beliefs of the so-called "liberal" Protestants, which mitigate the claims to exclusivity found among fundamentalists and Catholics. This comes from a basic recognition that God's grace is available to all the people He creates, including those who never have the chance to be exposed to Christ's teachings. But then, these churches don't read the Bible literally, either.
Spud:
Okay. And what path to Heaven do these "liberal" Protestants suggest, besides the boring default of Jesus?
Do tell.
Does God just sort of pick you?
Questions unanswered.
Promises of another day.
The bugle of retreat.
And it's okay. This is exactly the place for a political theological discussion. I decree it.
You know, Christianity could really be a popular religion, if we could just get Jesus Christ out of it.
The Freethinking Maverick Spud-Boy finds his beliefs comfortably agreeable with 60% of our agnostic nation: Religion is fine, so long as you don't actually believe in anything.
Once you believe in something, you become dangerous.
All my questions about Religious Jews running for office have been conveniently, predictably ignored, by the way.
Niner:
Are you actually religious? Or are you just yet another nominal Catholic?
No offense; some of my best friends are nominal Catholics.
I am a lapsed Catholic. I would call it a cultural Catholic. I am a semi-practicing, presently unaffiliated, free agent Christian.
Don't answer, by the way, if you feel that your Catholicism is irreconcilable with your position as Thread Host. I don't want you imposing your religious beliefs on all of us.
Remember the Pharisee, dude.
Ha, ha. Christianity lite. Translated: most Americans didn't like all that....rigidity. How to get them back into the church and pick up donations?
I know! Take out the rules! Leave in the mushy soft stuff about everyone going to heaven! Give people the opportunity to mix and match their preferences, depending on what works for them.
Welcome to the US version of Christianity. Agnosticism in all but name.
I've been hitting that note of yours pretty hard, Cal.
Rather, what many want is a watered down, non-offensive, comfy explication of faith.
I must say: I'm not going to Heaven according to ANY religion (except possibly Dennis Miller's religion, which holds you might get into Heaven if you're a "really funny fuck").
And yet I don't feel "excluded" or "judged" when Catholics or Evangelicals say so. I understand that's what they believe.
I can-- get this-- TOLERATE their beliefs and not have a hissy-fit about them saying nasty things like "You're goin to the Lake of Fi-re, You're goin' to the Lake of Fi-re..."
I don't get upset when Jews say I'm not one of The Chosen.
I don't get upset when Moslems call me an nonbeliever. You know, whatever they call us who have not accepted the teaching of Mohammed.
This is what they believe. More power to them.
I don't believe it. I am a strong enough person to accept their "judgment" without demanding they rewrite their respective Bibles to make me feel less "excluded."
I've already had to limit myself to one hooker a week.
Brothers Jim and Jimmy are laughing at me.
Fair enough. But the Bush error (of many years ago) was in articulating the harsh reality of most religions when he stated that "Christians only" is the rule in heaven. Politically, this is best left unsaid. And Cal is correct. For purposes of doctrine, this aspect is also dicey for many "Christians" (the conundrum of the Hutu baby slaughtered in the crib - damned?). Spuds is articulating a new version which is catching hold (for obvious reasons) in the new generation of Christians. Some scoff and call it Christianity Light. Others call it a necessary review of doctrine and the teachings of Jesus. For many folks, myself included, my adult religious experience is spent in large measure reconciling the issue.
Ace: "Liberal" Christians believe Christ offers the best and clearest path to God. But they also believe that God reveals himself to all men in their own way and time.
Now, I'm going to go wash the spittle off.
Yes, and even giving me credit on occasion. I'm much moved.
I don't know if you saw the Tech thread, but right now, posting takes me several minutes. As a result, I haven't actually seen your posts before I make mine. And it takes too fucking long to post "crosspost" as an acknowledgement.
-Romans 3:23 (KJV)
"Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, 'God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.' But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, 'God, be merciful to me a sinner!' I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted."
Hmmm. I don't see anything there about not running for political office.
What I see there is a simple parable about not claiming to be holier-than-thou. Which Bush didn't do. Every chance he gets, he acknowledges he's a sinner and not perfect.
There is no admonition there to refrain from professing a belief in Christ. Indeed, there are dozens of passages in the Bible which explicitly tell Christians to shout their belief in Jesus from the rooftops.
Then don't tease us with personal tidbits in support of your public pronouncements. Either get naked, or keep the garters on. (g)
Politically, this is best left unsaid.
Yes, and generally we CREDIT politicians for choosing sincerity over politically savvy plays, don't we?
Except when it comes to Republicans, that is.
Simple point: Bush was right about Christianity -- or at least 90% of Christianity-- when he said you accept Jesus or you go to hell. Nothing controversial, ecclesiastically, about that statement.
He's being politically savvier when he says "God decides who goes to heaven, not George W. Bush."
Cleverly, you'll notice, that latter statement is not a contradiction of the first. God WILL indeed decide who goes to Heaven-- and if Christianity is correct, it will be those who accepted Jesus as their Savior who go to Heaven.
Spuddy-Boy apparently thinks believing in things is dangerous. I guess his greatest hero must be Bill Clinton.
Whoops. Clinton is his greatest hero.
The only observant Jew in public office (as opposed to Jews whose religous beliefs are as strong as the sort of Christianity you're decrying) that I am aware of is Sen. Lieberman, who does not, to my knowledge, discuss his religious beliefs publicly. I am aware of his beliefs only because he tends to not vote or to give other Senators proxies during the Jewish Sabbath. I lived in Connecticut when he was first elected to the Senate and was unaware of his beliefs.
That being said, very religous Jews in Israel run to all sorts of extremes, ranging from the group who believes the State of Israel cannot exist because the Messiah has not yet come and therefore refuse to hold Israeli currency to the group that wants to bring about the Messiah's return by rebuilding the Temple, and in the process blowing up the current occupant of that land, The Dome of the Rock (and are totally unconcerned about the implications for Israel's relations with it's neighbors). Therefore, asking a religious Jew to subordinate his beliefs in his religion to those of Israel can be meaningless.
The only observant Jew in public office (as opposed to Jews whose religous beliefs are as strong as the sort of Christianity you're decrying) that I am aware of is Sen. Lieberman, who does not, to my knowledge, discuss his religious beliefs publicly.
I must sort-of disagree with this. I BELIEVE-- but I may very well be wrong-- that Lieberman mentions God a fair amount.
There is no point in having rules if you decide you don't need to follow them.
One can value the words and teaching of Christ without even believing in God, for heavens sakes. If that's the bit that people value, then go for it.
I think the intellectual challenge you describe is experienced by a relative few. In the end, I still come back to the notion that most people need to believe in a god. (Unlike some others, I don't view this as a weakness at all.) But nice, vague agnosticism--end of spectrum, that is--really isn't a viable alternative. And most of them were raised "Christian"--in most cases, the same "lite" Christianity that has now been formalized.
Thus you have "Christians" espousing the "all good people go to heaven" nonsense and "I'm a Christian, but those fundamentalists give us a bad name".
Cal:
I wouldn't go quite as far as you.
Although I do think it rather silly to believe in nothing at all and then declare it a religion (the Seinfeld Religion-- a religion about nothing), I don't think I have anything against "Protestant Lite."
If they want to believe in nothing and give it a name, that's fine. I myself believe in nothing which I've given a name. That name is "Lou."
But, of course, I'm sure many get very judgemental, just as you say, about those wacky Fundamentalists who dare to JUDGE PEOPLE.
Niner:
Re: Babies dying and go to hell
Have they had a chance to sin yet? I'm not sure you can sin before you're capable of conscious thought. I know Catholics used to have (and still might have) "Limbo" and "Purgatory" to cover these oddball situations. The Born Again Christians I've talked to also seemed to have some sort "rules" worked out for this, though I can't remember them at all.
It was presented to me in high school by an exacting Jesuit. I'll raise it in Religion.
I'm starting a religion too. It's called Cyberanity and is basically worship of the Internet. We have something like the Trinity: Al Gore, the Internet, and bandwidth.
Bill Gates is our Satan.
How to rectify this with Jesus' declaration in the Sermon on the Mount: "Let your light so shine before men, they they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven"? Well, the emphasis there is on works. I believe that letting one's light shine, and being an example for Christianity, comes down to a matter of action rather than words.
Personally, I do read Bush's comments as once again suggesting that *he* is righteous, and others who don't take the same path are damned. It probably has something to do with that smirk.
Incidentally, the passage isn't in Romans. Try Luke 18:11-14.
Niner:
I thought babies who hadn't excepted Christ, but also hadn't sinned, went to Limbo. A fuzzy area of neither reward nor punishmnet.
Then again, who the hell knows what Catholics believe.
Protestantism had it right: Strip it down to Jesus, Jesus, Jesus.
Stay on message.
Message: I Save.
How would you say if asked? Most likely, you'd be more politic, as Bush was several years after his first statement ("God decides!"). His sin: not running for president earlier.
Spuds:
Still waiting on:
--Are Religious Jews allowed to mention their beliefs when running for office/serving in office?
--What other paths to Christ do YOU know of, or do YOU believe in?
PS:
Your interpretation is dopey and self-serving as ever. "Righteous" is different from "Saved."
All true Christians are "Saved." Less are righteous.
George Bush declared he had opened his heart to Christ; thus, he had accepted Christ's salvation. This is wholly different from righteousness.
Christians are supposed to declare that they've been saved. I know you don't like thinking that, because you don't want to do it, but many people DO believe it, and it has nothing to do with winning over voters.
Some of the most annoying people in the world are Fundamentalist Christains. And they're not declaring their Faith in Christ to win any popularity contests. Far from it-- they know it will make them unpopular or thought of as freaks, but they do it anyway, because Christ asks that they do.
Sorry if you can't tolerate that.
Purgatory was taught. I have lapsed, however, and would probably need to take both the written and driving version of the test to re-up.
Spuds does not answer questions unless they are easy. It is his greatest sin in this thread, and it brings me pain every time I witness the act. More egregious than any personal attack or extended diatribe.
But he is my brother, and I love him.
But I don't try to convert everyone into thinking that my path is the only one.
Niner:
I'll ask you, since Spud boy will just avoid the question anyway:
If a reporter asks Bush directly if only those who believe in Christ, and...
1) His religion teaches only those who believe in Christ go to heaven.
2) His religion urges him to say so, publicly, loudly.
3) He believes in both 1 & 2...
Do you think Spud Boy thinks Bush should have lied to curry favor with the Star Trek/New Age types such as himself?
(I must ask you what Spuddy Boy thinks, as he inevitably begs off/ignores any question whose answer will undermine his position.)
Just like Ace, you miss the point. I have no problem with Bush or any other politician proclaiming their faith, if they must proclaim it. I do have a problem with the implied assertion: I am a Christian, therefore I have the moral standing to be President. This is pandering. It is not a choice of one style over another. A President's first moral obligation is to be a humble servant of the Constitution and the People.
Having said that, I also don't care for pundits who express religious intolerance toward candidates. I recall Alan Dershowitz recently saying that he doesn't want a President who believes in reincarnation. This was totally asinine, as such a belief is no more indicative of personal instability as the belief that a hippie in a dress rose from the dead and went to heaven in physical form.
Ace,
Northside Christian High School. St. Pete, Florida. It was about as Bible-thumping a school as there is.
Spuds does not answer questions unless they are easy.
Shallow minds stick to the shallows.
Spuddy Boy ignores any question which will
1) Expose a rather obvious inconsistency/bigotry in his thinking or
2) Would take a lot of explanation to show why he isn't being inconsistent or bigoted, and that explanation would probably be more or less laughable, anyway.
Niner, why do you think Spuddy Boy does this?
Yes. That is what I think Spud thinks.
Lady
"I do have a problem with the implied assertion: I am a Christian, therefore I have the moral standing to be President. This is pandering."
He was asked the philosopher/thinker who most influenced him. He answered and tried to leave it at that. He was then pressed, and even then, he basically demurred, saying he couldn't really articulate it. Was he to say 'Teddy Roosevelt" even if his answer was "Jesus Christ" just to innoculate himself from charges of pandering?
Actually, it's technically okay with me, too. I say that because it violates my preferences, but I recognize that anyone has the right to reorganize reality based on a false premise. And since reality is relative, who's to say they aren't right in doing so?
The problem comes in when you have a real Christianity that is rigid and rules-oriented, coupled with a faux Christianity that is Warm Fuzzy Pink Blanket--and the census tells politicians that Christianity is the dominant US religion. Which one?
And then, the faux Christians will periodically use some of the old doctrine when it's convenient to explain something they jes don't like. Homosexual marriage being a prime example.
I am not saying this is a problem in the sense that someone must fix it. Rather that it is a mixing and matching that makes me crinkle my nose in distaste.
Precisely. This is a statement of humility and of faith. It is a far cry from pandering.
Bush should simply answer as he does on the cocaine question: "It's none of your business."
Good question.
I do have a problem with the implied assertion: I am a Christian, therefore I have the moral standing to be President.
It's fun to ascribe "implied assertions" to people and then tear them down for words you put in their mouths.
Bush was asked a question. He answered it-- briefly. He did not dwell on it, and he only offered MINIMUM elaboration when the questioner demanded it.
He never connected his faith in God to his qualifications for the Presidency. He's had plenty of chances to do so explicitly and never has.
Meanwhile, Cocksucker Clinton drags Jesus' reputation through the shit every chance he gets, solemnly weeping "Jesus, oh Jesus" every time he's caught with his cigar up someone's cunt.
Now THAT'S a public pandering of religion for political purposes.
Didn't hear much about that from the Addled Atheists, though.
Really? Today, you have given us insight into your religious practices in a public policy debate, and no one asked. Why? Because you thought it aided your position and helped in communictaion. Perfectly understandable.
Yet, somehow, for a person who runs for president, it is verboten, and evil, a place no man should reveal to the voters.
Still waiting on:
--Are Religious Jews allowed to mention their beliefs when running for office/serving in office?
--What other paths to Christ do YOU know of, or do YOU believe in?
Truly stupid and irrelevant questions.
But, lest I be accused of running from them, I'll answer:
1. Of course they can. Don't be ridiculous. But my vote for or against them may hinge on what they say and how they say it.
2. Actually, Christ is the path to God. Other paths to God? Well, I believe Buddhism is the path to God for the millions of people who live in China and India and who have no exposure to Jesus' teachings. I believe the same of Hinduism. Or Islam.
He should say "It's none of your business."
That despite the fact that Evangelical Christianity preaches that you should Spread the Word as often, and as loudly, as possible.
You've heard "Spread the Word," right, Spuddy? What do you think it means? What "Word" are they talking about?
Why do you believe you have the right to rewrite other people's religions for them?
Are you not-- gasp!-- imposing your own nicely-meaningless religious beliefs on other people when you insist their religion comport itself to yours?
Niner:
Good point. Spuddy-Boy trotted out his religious bona-fides-- "I go to church every Sunday!"-- long before anyone asked about them.
Remember the Pharisee, dude.
Spuddy-Boy's BIGGEST problem-- even bigger than constantly ducking questions-- is arguing from authority. Like so:
"I go to church every Sunday!"
"I'm a REPORTER!"
"I once had a breakfast with someone whose opinion might be relevant to this discussion!"
Remember the Pharisee.
"Well, I believe Buddhism is the path to God for the millions of people who live in China and India and who have no exposure to Jesus' teachings. I believe the same of Hinduism. Or Islam."
What about angel five? He has exposure. He rejects Jesus.
What happens to him?
But my vote for or against them may hinge on what they say and how they say it.
How about this?
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God, as revealed in the Torah, into your life, it changes your heart."
Can a Jew say that without Spuddy-Boy having a frothing conniption about it?
And let's repeat:
"Meanwhile, Cocksucker Clinton drags Jesus' reputation through the shit every chance he gets, solemnly weeping "Jesus, oh Jesus" every time he's caught with his cigar up someone's cunt.
"Now THAT'S a public pandering of religion for political purposes.
"Didn't hear much about that from the Addled Atheists, though."
How come the differing standards?
Spuddy-Boy:
I don't need to say things like that. I'm a CITIZEN-REPORTER, and therefore I know what I'm talking about.
About everything.
You know what it's like.
Answer the question about a religious Jew.
I suggest, "God decides."
You've heard "Spread the Word," right, Spuddy? What do you think it means? What "Word" are they talking about?
Reading comprehension problem? I answered this in #10508. As well as I could, anyway, since "Spread the Word" doesn't appear anywhere in the Bible.
Also waiting for an answer on 10527.
Spuddy:
YOU don't believe in Spreading the Word. Evangelical Christians DO.
Why do you claim YOUR beliefs are superior, and demand that Evangelical Christians abandon their own doctrine in favor of your interpretation?
This point is fairly obvious. Your efforts to avoid it are transparent, and you're fooling nobody.
Answer the fucking question.
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God, as revealed in the Torah, into your life, it changes your heart."
Can a Jew say that without Spuddy-Boy having a frothing conniption about it?
Your answer to the religious Jew question was an evasion. Yes, of course they can. And yes, it would affect how you viewed them. Blah, blah, blah.
While this may be painful, we are asking standard questions that go to the heart of consistency in your argument vis-a-vis Bush.
I second. Problem?
I firmly believe that the final judgment about one's soul is in God's hands and no one else's. I'm not in the position of being able to say that non-believers -- or even hellish believers like the Rev. Fred Phelps -- are going to hell. Otherwise, I'm presuming to possess the understanding and wisdom of God himself. That's one of the worst forms of spiritual pride.
"That's one of the worst forms of spiritual pride."
I'm glad there's *one* moral or intellectual vanity you're not guilty of. Kudos.
"Well, Ace, non-believers like angel five and yourself get to discover their fate when they die. As do the rest of us."
Bush - "God decides."
So Bush went wrong where? When he properly had the stones -and foolishly lacked the political forewight - to state several years ago that Ace was frying, because that is what Christian doctrine says at bare minimum.
Spud, however, cannot say, which makes him 1) an agnostic with a jersey or 2) a Christian with a new, independent view on the role and importance of accepting Jesus.
Lollypop Lane (heaven) and Baltic Avenue (hell), but no amnatio-day.
I'll just keep posting the question, then:
Spuddy:
YOU don't believe in Spreading the Word. Evangelical Christians DO.
Why do you claim YOUR beliefs are superior, and demand that Evangelical Christians abandon their own doctrine in favor of your interpretation?
George Bush is an Evangelical Christian. Evangelical Christianity urges constant proselytization. Constant. I know. A bunch of Evangelicals were forever trying to convert me in high school.
This point is fairly obvious: George Bush did what was right according to HIS beliefs. Why do you believe he should obey YOUR beliefs, rather than his own?
Your efforts to avoid it are transparent, and you're fooling nobody.
Answer the fucking question.
But then, I've pretty much made it clear I won't vote for Bush in any case, so he's not exactly losing my vote with those remarks.
Still waiting on the Religious Jew question.
Posted three times, seconded by Niner.
Spuddy:
If a Religious Jew said:
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God, as revealed in the Torah, into your life, it changes your heart."
would he be "indicating he'll be a President only for Religious Jews," and not a "leader for us all"?
Divided Loyalties, anyone?
Why do you believe he should obey YOUR beliefs, rather than his own?
Where did I ever indicate I thought he should follow my beliefs, you moron?
My vote (and many others') will depend on how he expresses those beliefs in public, particularly in settings where it's clear he's running for president.
That's all.
That sounds perilously like a vote for hypocrisy. Form over function. Hey, just don't be honest about the fact that you think all the atheists are going to hell.
"Where did I ever indicate I thought he should follow my beliefs, you moron?"
Oh, for god's sakes. You said he should REFUSE TO ANSWER the question about religion, because that's what YOUR INTERPRETATION of "showing the light" is.
When I informed you that Evangelical Christians believing in TRUMPETING the Word of God, you referred me back to YOUR religious beliefs again, stating that your previous answer reconciled a Christian's obligation to "not be holier than though" with his obligation to show the light.
I told you AGAIN that Evangelicals DON'T believe that, even if you do.
And I'm still waiting on your answer. Why should an Evangelical, whose beliefs impel him to spread the word, defer YOUR religious beliefs, which say "Keep Quiet about the Big J.C."?
Spud relies on the 1993 Bush articulation that "heaven is open only to
those who accept Jesus Christ." Not his later, politic pronouncements.
I don't know if this means that all others go into a burning pit.
What spuds wants is a scotch and soda, hold the scotch.
Of course, the logical connection is as follows:
Spuds cannot say what will happen to you. Thus, you could accept Jesus and get into heaven, or you could shit on an altar and kill nuns and get into heaven. It is not for spuds to say.
And dammit, it shouldn't be for Bush to say.
Bush has heard, learned, and now, he says what spuds says.
"God decides."
Niner:
I know all that. I'm just waiting around for answers to the questions I asked.
Like:
If a Religious Jew said:
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God, as revealed in the Torah, into your life, it changes your heart."
would he be "indicating he'll be a President only for Religious Jews," and not a "leader for us all"?
Is that fair game? If he isn't completely truthful, should that affect your vote.
Isn't marriage a sacrament?
Niner:
Incidentally, did you notice Spuds was a tad *gleeful* when he informed me he "couldn't say what would await [me] in the afterlife"?
I don't think he was hinting at Heaven. Do you?
I feel *judged.*
If a Religious Jew said:
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God, as revealed in the Torah, into your life, it changes your heart."
would he be "indicating he'll be a President only for Religious Jews," and not a "leader for us all"?
Andre Dworkin, a six of Mickey's big mouth, and a closet full of Renny Harlin flicks.
Adios.
Niner:
Adios. And contemplate this on your way home:
If a Religious Jew said:
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God as revealed in the Torah into your life, it changes your heart."
would he be "indicating he'll be a President only for Religious Jews," and not a "leader for us all"?
Thanks for posting the words of Lincoln. Like I said, he was for me an ideal Christian President, because he subsumed his religious beliefs and his ego in service of the Constitution and in the ideals contained in the Declaration of Independence.
I don't believe for a second that Bush's response at the debate was without guile.
Ace,
Once you've finished frothing at the mouth, you might perchance notice that you have completely misinterpreted what I said.
If evangelicals can't contain their religious beliefs, even when they're running for a secular public office, then why should I trust them not to force their religious beliefs down our throats when they hold positions of secular public power? Especially in a nation where there is a firm separation of church and state?
That certainly was the chief reason not to vote for Pat Robertson. He made it quite plain he intended to "make this a Christian nation again." And when I hear G.W. Bush natter about his faith in that mindless parroting fashion to which all evangelicals are prone, I rather suspect he'll go down the same path.
No, Lady, I interpreted you perfectly correctly. You have both a self-serving bias against George Bush as well as inconsistent bias against Christianity-- or at least any brand of Christianity which doesn't agree with yours.
I underscored your biases and inconsistencies and made them plain. You don't like the way they looks, so you claim I "misinterpreted" you. I did no such thing.
Actually, Ace, your argument militates against ever voting for an evangelical Christian at all.
Laugh. Like you needed one, right.
But seriously. This might be an interesting little diversion (why not declare Jews unfit for public service, if we're going to be declaring other religions unfit), but I really must insist we conclude Old Business-- the outstanding questions on the table-- before we proceed to New Buisness.
I have asked you direct questions, Spuddy. I have asked then ten times. That's not much of an exaggeration-- I've asked the exact same question six or seven times and you refuse to answer. You're HERE, so I know you have the time to answer it.
Just humor me. Answer the questions:
If a Religious Jew said:
"I believe in the God revealed in the Torah. When you accept God as revealed in the Torah into your life, it changes your heart."
would he be "indicating he'll be a President only for Religious Jews," and not a "leader for us all"?
(You said an Evangelical Christian would indicate he would be a President ONLY for Evangelical Christians if he made a similar remark; does it apply only to Christians?)
AND:
YOU don't believe in Spreading the Word. Evangelical Christians DO.
Why do you claim YOUR beliefs are superior, and demand that Evangelical Christians abandon their own doctrine in favor of your interpretation?
George Bush is an Evangelical Christian. Evangelical Christianity urges constant proselytization. George Bush thus did what was right according to HIS beliefs. Why do you believe he should obey YOUR beliefs, rather than his own?
Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
"If evangelicals can't contain their religious beliefs, even when they're running for a secular public office, then why should I trust them not to force their religious beliefs down our throats when they hold positions of secular public power?"
Let's restate:
"If a public official can't just LIE or REFUSE TO ANSWER direct questions about his religious beliefs-- his beliefs SOUGHT by reporters, not offered spontaneously, sua sponte-- why can't I trust him not to force his religion down my throat when he gets into office?"
Clinton is never hesitant to speak all about Jesus, Jesus, Jesus, especially when his cigar is discovered in a woman's cunt. Yet you seem to trust him not to "force his religion" down your throat.
So perhaps there is no connection between the two, except in your bigoted imagination?
Let's restate again:
"If JEWS can't contain their religious beliefs when asked about them directly, even when they're running for a secular public office, then why should I trust them not to force their religious beliefs down our throats when they hold positions of secular public power?"
Looks pretty ugly, doesn't it, Spud-Boy?
You see, Spud-Boy, tolerance applies to all. Judging people according to what they do or say, rather than according to the attributes you ascribe to their race, religion, or sex applies to all.
Not just towards the groups and tribes you *like*.
KKK guys are a lot like you. They've got a million predjudices. When you point out their predjudice, they'll tell you: "But there are RATIONAL REASONS for this predjudice. This predjudice/generalization is borne of experience and logic."
Yes, you hate different religious groups. They hate Jews and Catholics; you hate Evangelical Protestants.
And you've all got your reasons for your hatred.
...good reasons, I'm sure.
Why, if we ask you your reasons, you'll tell us all about them.
Your predjudice and hatred is good--because it's RIGHT.
So's theirs, Spuddy Boy. So's theirs.
Here's a game:
WHO SAID THIS?: (very recently)
"Uh, my philosophy, since you asked about my religious faith, I'm taught in my religious tradition to hate the sin but love the sinner. I'm taught that, um, all of us are heirs to the, uh, mistakes that, uh, are prone to the mistakes that flesh is heir to."
(NOTE: This is a man running for high public office. The question did not *require* a mention of religion in the answer; while the question mentioned religion as a tangential predicate, the main question was not about that, and the topic of religion could easily have been avoided. And yet the person in question could not "contain" himself.)
Asshole.
You can't play if you've READ the article!
(Just kidding about "asshole.")
(Sort of.)
Indy --
Ace would never go for something that easy.
I'm betting on Tom Delay, defending Newt Gingrich, Bob Livingstone, and Henry Hyde.
Here's "Super Debater," "Super Eloquent," "Super Smart," "Super Well-Informed," "Super Quick on his Feet" Al "Rambo Gore in action:
GORE ADDRESSES BROADDRICK RAPE ALLEGATIONS
Vice President Al Gore told a town hall audience in Derry, New Hampshire last night that he was not familiar with the details of a woman's rape allegation against Bill Clinton.
Gore laughed, sputtered and stammered when he was asked about charges made by Juanita Broaddrick earlier this year during a nationally televised interview with NBC NEWS.
The DRUDGE REPORT presents a transcript of Gore's response:.
Hostess: Our next question comes from a voter who lives right here in Derry. Your name and question please?
Q: My name is . I'm from Derry, I'm also an American of French Canadian descent.
GORE: I noticed, from your name. Bon soir...
Q: After seeing scandals in Washington, my question to you is not a question about the man, or the Presidential candidate, but a question to you as a husband -
GORE: Hmmm...
Q: -- as a father....
GORE: Mmmm... Hmmm...
Q: -- and as a student of Christianity.
GORE: Mmmm.
Q: When Juanita Broaddrick made the claim, that I felt quite credible, that she was raped by Bill Clinton, did that change your opinion about him being one of the best Presidents in history? And do you believe Juanita Broaddrick's claim? And what did you tell your son about this?
GORE: (laughs) Well, I don't know what to make of her claim, because I don't know how to evaluate that story, I really don't. [LAUGHS??!!?]
Q: Did you watch it?
GORE: No, I didn't see the interview. No. Uh-Uh.
Q: I'm surprised that you didn't watch it.
GORE: Well, uh, which, what show was it on?... I didn't see it. There have been so many personal allegations and such a non-stop series of attacks, I guess I'm like a lot of people, uh, in that, uh, I think that, uh, enough is enough. I do not know how to evaluate each one of these individual stories. I just don't know, uh, I would never violate the privacy of my communications with, uh, uh, one of my, my children, a member of my family, as for that part of your question. But, uh-
Q:
GORE: No, I didn't say that. I think I said I don't know how to evaluate that, and I didn't see, uh, the interview. Uh, but I must say something else to you about this. Why don't you just stand back up and I'd like to look you in the eye?
Uh, I think that, uh, I think that whatever mistakes he made in his personal life are in the minds of most Americans balanced against what he has done in his personal life as President.
Uh, my philosophy, since you asked about my religious faith, I'm taught in my religious tradition to hate the sin but love the sinner. I'm taught that, um, all of us are heirs to the, uh, mistakes that, uh, are prone to the mistakes that flesh is heir to.
And I think that, uh, in judging his performance as a President, I think that most people are anxious to, to stop talking about all the personal attacks against him. They're trying to sort out, uh, uh, all of the allegations, and want to, instead, uh, move on, and focus on the future. Now, I'll say this to you, he is my friend, and that friendship, uh, is important and if you've ever had a friend who made a serious mistake and then you repaired the friendship and moved on, then you know what that relationship has been like for me.
Secondly, I felt the same disappointment and anger at him during the period when all this was going on that most people did. You may have, have felt, uh, a different kind of emotion, I don't know. I sense that you did. I, I, I certainly felt what most Americans did.
Third, I have been involved in a lot of battles where he and I have fought together on behalf of the American people, and I think we've made a good, positive difference for this country.
Number four, I'm running for President on my own. I want to take my own, I want to take my own values of faith and family to the Presidency, and I want you to evaluate me on the basis of who I am and what you believe I can do for this country as President. Thank you.
Are only Democrats allowed to invoke religion, to trot it out whenever they're confronted with questions about their/their boss's morality in order to say, "I'm religious; ergo I'm good"?
Situation: Democrat discovered with cigar inside intern's cunt
Response: Pandering display of rather lurid religious flagellation; lots of crying; lots of tearful "spiritual advisors"; Jesus' name and his parables invoked nauseating number of times to justify/excuse/gain sympathy for philandering, perjuring man
Liberals' Response: None. He's a Democrat. He's allowed to. That's not "forcing religion down your throat"; that's just good politics.
Situation: Democrat asked about his feelings on allegations of brutal rape against a higher-ranking Democrat
Response: After hemming and hawing, trot out religion; note Christianity teaches to "hate the sin but love the sinnner"
Liberals' Response: Yawn
Situation: Republican is asked which philosopher most influenced him
Response: Republican says, "Christ. Because he changed my heart."
Liberals' Response: "He's obviously a demented theocrat determined to force his religious views on everybody."
Situation: Republican asked, directly, what gets you into heaven
Response: Republican answers with the conventional, 100% right (ecclesiastically) answer: "Heaven is open to those who accept Jesus Christ."
Liberals' Response: "Filthy pandering judgemental dishonest zealot maniac!"
Please, Liberals:
Please explain how it is that Democrats can constantly trot out their holier thou "I Love Jesus More than Anybody" credentials, can put on shamefully lurid public flagellation sessions, etc., but when a Republican does it, it's dangerous.
Why is the first never commented upon, but the latter is seized upon a "hot issue"?
Gore's newfound evangelism is equally tiresome. Maybe more so, since it seems rather an affectation.
Rest assured, though, were a candidate from a major party, in a front-runner position, to explain his atheist philosophy in public, even as tacitly and concisely as Bush explained his relationship with Christ, you'd hear no end of rumbling and rattling from the Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons. Which, crackpots though they are, have pretty deep support from their flocks.
So it's not just a case of "addled atheists" yammering about evangelicals. It's people looking at the very concrete possibility of fundamentalists acquiring the political power to impose their religious doctrine on all of us. It's more serious than chasing Jehovah's Witnesses off your front porch on Saturday mornings, it's these lunatics who can't even cope with the notion that their kids might get taught evolution in fucking science class.
Sorry if I don't respond till later; I used up most of my lunch hour catching up on back posts. I find this topic fascinating though, so I will return to it later tonight.
If you will look back at my posts, you will notice that I began the discussion with a reference to today's Maureen Dowd piece in the NY Times. In that article, Dowd was just as critical of Gore as she was of Bush, and I have repeatedly stated that I do not trust Gore's affectations, whether they are about his professed faith or about his reasons for moving his campaign HQ to Nashville.
You'll have to find another straw man to beat up on, Ace.
John McCain has wisely chosen not to harp on religion, and for that I hold him in high regard. I think that he understands the danger of being accused of hypocrisy, and has decided not to make his faith an issue.
By contrast, Gary Bauer cites his beliefs as a warning bell: Elect me and I will take that as a mandate to do all in my power to impose my beliefs on you. I respect his intelligence and his philosophical consistency, but his poll numbers demonstrate that even most Republicans are shying away from electing a man whose religious beliefs would be so closely tied to his actions in office.
G.W.'s comments in the debate the other night were nothing but an opportunist's pandering, and especially shallow at that. By saying what he said, the way that he said it, he made his faith an issue in the campaign. But he didn't even respect our intelligence enough to elaborate on what it means to him. All he could say was, You can't understand it until you've tried it. This was a wink and a nudge at the religious right which I find troubling.
You'll find that I began my discussion with this post referring to Maureen Dowd's column.
And from my own message number 10393:
"I don't see how anybody who is truly familiar with the Christian faith could look at G.W.'s smirking face the other night and actually believe that is is sincere in his declarations of faith.
Of course, Clinton walking out of church with a Bible in his hand was at least as laughable, just in case anybody wants to accuse me of being unfair. Gore's reference to WWJD made me want to puke. Christ as a fashion statement - yuck!"
There you go, Ace. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
LIBERAL BAD. CONSERVATIVE GOOD.
Like what, bigot?
It's time to start calling you people what you actually are. You are my friend. You are also a bigot, and an utterly unashamed once.
Think fast, Cart:
I am an atheist. I support restrictions on third trimester abortion.
Bush is an Evangelical Christian. He also supports restrictions on third trimester abortions.
Rask seems non-religious as well, though I'm guessing he attends church. He also supports restrictions on third trimester abortions.
What's the difference, cart? Is it okay for me and rask to force my "secular, atheist agenda" re: abortion on you, but not okay for Bush to force his "religious, intolerant" agenda re: abortion on you?
What precisely makes Bush's position illegitimate? It's IDENTICAL to mine and Rask's.
Next:
I am an atheist. I believe, however, that religion is discriminated AGAINST in this country, which was never the Founders' intention, and which is certainly not hinted at at the Constitution. For this reason, I support modest efforts to bring religion back into the public sphere, such as in school.
Bush is an Evangelical Christian. He believes that religion is discriminated AGAINST in this country, which was never the Founders' intention, and which is certainly not hinted at at the Constitution. For this reason, I support modest efforts to bring religion back into the public sphere, such as in school.
YOU are an atheist. You stated yesterday that you believe that religion is discriminated AGAINST in this country, which was never the Founders' intention, and which is certainly not hinted at at the Constitution. For this reason, I support modest efforts to bring religion back into the public sphere, such as in school.
Quick, Cartman: Why is Bush's view illegitimate, except that you deem it motivated by the filthy gutter religion which is Christianity?
His position is mine; it is also yours.
So-- we atheists get to have views on things; but if a Christian disagrees with us, or even AGREES with us, his view is illegitimate, as it is "forcing his religious agenda down our throats"?
Answers. Now.
Next:
Niner is a lapsed, not-really-believing Catholic. He is against Homosexuals serving openly in the military.
I am an atheist. I am against Homosexuals serving openly in the military.
Bush is a Christian. He is against Homosexuals serving openly in the military.
Once again:
As an Atheist, I presume I am not "forcing my religion down your throat" with my view.
And yet Bush, who shares my view completely, is. Why? Because he is a Christian, believing in a bunch of nonsensical hokum and Medieval superstition. His view is illegitimate-- although he shares my (and Niner's) view completely, he is "forcing his religion down your throat" because he is a Christian.
Let's start the camps. Let's just kill these fucking people already, huh, Cartman?
Various factions want to deny Christians political rights; if they are indeed "forcing religion down your throats," perhaps we should take away their voting rights, too.
Fuck. Take their lives. Sieg Heil.
And now for the piece de resistance:
Spudboy, LadyChaos, Cartman, and various other cranks in the Addled Atheists Auxilliary feel:
1) It is quite fine to suggest someone is not fit to hold public office based on their RELIGION.
2) The political views of a minority group are ILLEGITIMATE because of that minority's religion.
3) All people should take religion as seriously as LadyChaos, SPuddy, and Cartman, which is to say, not seriously at all. Deviations from their personal standard of disinterest will be declared dangerous, deviant, and illegitimate.
And the kicker:
It's THEY-- the religious-- who are forcing THEIR religious beliefs down people's throats!
hahahahahahahahahahahaha...!
Hilarious! Those Polish Jews sure rammed their Torahs up Hitler's ass, too, didn't they?
hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
"It's people looking at the very concrete possibility of fundamentalists acquiring the political power to impose their religious doctrine on all of us."
Make sure you keep Jews away from the banks, Cartman.
I hear they have a plan for controlling the world's economy when they get control of the banks.
And, hey, there ARE lots of Jews in banking.
QED.
"This was a wink and a nudge at the religious right which I find troubling."
But of course you find it troubling, dear. Gore can trot out "What Would Jesus Do?" in a shameless attempt to convince a skeptical electorate that he is a moral man; Clinton can hold ten public "Praise Jesus, cast out the Demon within me!" sessions to convince a skeptical electorate that he isn't a rapist and a felon.
But if Bush drops a one-sentence contemporaneous answer to question: Verrrrry troubling.
Good gosh, it's sooooo troubling.
He believes in Christ! Kill the Infidel!!!!
Lesson: It's all right to talk about Jesus and use him for rank political opportunism as long as we know you're not serious about it (like Gore and Clinton).
But if a sincere man professes his religion: Verrrrry troubling.
It's obvious that you're a deeply committed Christian.
Now say 10 Hail Marys and make a good Act of Contrition.
But of course you find it troubling, dear. Gore can trot out "What Would Jesus Do?" in a shameless attempt to convince a skeptical electorate that he is a moral man; Clinton can hold ten public "Praise Jesus, cast out the Demon within me!" sessions to convince a skeptical electorate that he isn't a rapist and a felon.
Are you and I reading the same fucking thread? Did you even bother to read the links and quotes from my earlier posts, which I specifically directed at you to show that I am just as peeved at Clinton and Gore for trotting out religion to score political points? No, of course not, because to acknowledge that we agree on that point would invalidate that last one hundred fifty spittle-filled posts of yours.
All people should take religion as seriously as LadyChaos, SPuddy, and Cartman, which is to say, not seriously at all. Deviations from their personal standard of disinterest will be declared dangerous, deviant, and illegitimate.
Where do you get this stuff?
- I am not an atheist. What am I? I can't put a label on it. I believe in love, tolerance, humility, that God is active in our lives, that we are surrounded by spirits who seek to help us, and I believe in the reincarnation of the spirit. I believe that we have soulmates with whom we have shared many lives.
- I believe that Jesus provided a great example of how to live, but I don't go around preaching at others about it because it is an unattainable ideal, and what Jesus hated more than anything was hypocrisy. I only brought it up in the context of this discussion because I see a necessary dissonance between seeking power and proclaiming that Jesus was the greatest philosopher of all time. An unworkable catch-22? Not really. The trap can be avoided by not pandering, by keeping one's religious beliefs as much in the private sphere as is reasonably possible.
- I take religion very seriously. So seriously, in fact, that I believe that trotting out one's religious beliefs in order to score a few political points only cheapens religion. G.W.'s smug little "wink-wink-nudge-nudge" to the religious right was troubling to me because, while it indicated that he's probably just throwing out a bone to cover his right flank, it also indicated that, like Clinton, he probably lacks a genuine philosophical anchor. He is triangulating. I frankly don't want another President whose coat just blows with the wind, or worse, one who tells us as little as possible about himself then, once in office, turns into a drooling bomb thrower.
Ace- as for the liberals blindly hating evangelicals- well we elected one president before you did. I would hope that presidential candidates are driven by their philosophy and not merely their ego. Since we haven't ever elected an atheist, and damn few religiously unconventional presidents since Jefferson, at least as far as their public professions are concerned, the real issue is what role religion plays in public life. Is it assumed to be an internal driving force in individuals, or is it something to be applied to individuals by the state?
The fish story from the Veep this time is that he styles himself the 'author' of and that he 'wrote' the EITC, as 'Alfalfa' put it to Time Magazine last month. Bradley publicly exposed Bore's lie, pointing out that the EITC became law in 1975, a year before Tobacco Bore began occupying a Senate seat. The concept of the EITC is based on an older conservative idea from the '60's of a 'reverse income tax'.
'Love Story', or is it 'Love Canal' or is it 'Information Bike Path Road Kill' Bore would be a real Baron Von Munchausen of American Politics, except for the fact that Bore is seriously attempting to deceive us into believing these and other self serving lies that he tells.
Hope you ate your Wheaties, Ace, 'cause this is one of the longest responses I've written on any topic.
I guess I believe you when you say you're an atheist, but I admit to sharing some of Cellar's skepticism about it, because of the earnest high dudgeon with which you go after anyone who dares speak up against the Invisible Army.
And I don't particularly mind that you call me a bigot. I really don't think I am. But if you're going to call a spade a spade, you should save that term for Niner as well. In Message # 10390 he says:
....I admit to a certain leeriness as to a president who does not believe in God.
In subsequent posts, he also mentions that a candidate professing atheism would be "a strike against him", in terms of getting Niner's vote. Now, that's not exactly burning crosses on someone's lawn, but it's drawing a fairly distinct line, at least as distinct as the one that I drew.
But let me be more specific here. What I have a problem with is not Christianity in particular, or even organized religion in general (though I personally find them of dubious value). What I specifically dislike is any religion attempting to get its specific tenets and beliefs legislated as public policy, or law. And I am especially leery of people who insist that the only proper form of spiritual expression is in public ritual.
Spirituality requires contemplation. After all, it asks all the really big existential questions, questions which have no simple answers, which definitely cannot be answered fairly by mass prayers and public displays of sectarian artifacts. So when people, political or otherwise, start trumpeting what should be their most private feelings about themselves and their relationship to the rest of the world, I am suspicious. Generally, desires of influence or money are in the vicinity.
Life is not always easy, and everyone has different ways of coping with this reality. For some it's sex, for some it's drugs, for some it's reruns on TVLand. For many, it's pleading deference to the moody sky-god, and abiding by certain deprivations, like eating fish instead of meat on Friday (like fish isn't meat). Fine, I say. Good for them. If it makes them happy, helps them get through life, good.
The problem arises with the ones who are so convinced that they've found the One True Way, everyone else is by definition wrong. So they canvass neighborhoods, annoying innocent citizens with their versions of Truth, or worse -- they run for school boards and legislatures, and force us to deal with their moral certitude. This pisses me off.
The difference you consistently ignore, between evangelicals and "addled atheists" is this -- atheists do not insist that atheism is the One True Way. In fact, it's generally an assertion that there is no True Way. Either way, because of the myriad permutations of the various religions out there, it is important that religion in general not have too much standing in gov't, lest it get tempted to throw its True Weight around. Best for politics to remain spiritually neutral.
As for my bigotry, all I can say is that I don't hate anyone. But I distrust people with an exclusionary agenda, especially when it's based on arguments that do not stand up to logical questioning. And anyone with a lick of sense should resist the attempt to implement legislature merely on conviction of faith. Prove to me logically and factually why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, and I'll listen. "Because the Bible says so" is not a reason, it's a cry for help.
Message # 10590:
I would categorize myself as an agnostic, personally, rather than a true atheist. And I also support restrictions on 3rd trimester abortions. My position on that issue has nothing to do with my spiritual beliefs. Neither does yours. Probably same for Rask.
Bush's position, OTOH, most likely is dictated by his religion. More importantly, I am unaware as to what his precise stance on abortion is, but if he's a true evangelical, he has to be dead set against it. Is he going to compromise his deeply held personal beliefs for that, if elected? I don't know. Nor, I suspect, do you, since Bush hasn't really said much of anything on that subject, as far as I know. Unless he becomes clear on such an issue, one has to assume he's toeing the doctrinal line.
Message # 10591:
You stated yesterday that you believe that religion is discriminated AGAINST in this country, which was never the Founders' intention, and which is certainly not hinted at at the Constitution.
I did? I made a comment in that general vein yesterday, that I have little patience with atheist or secular groups going apeshit over public Nativity scenes or creches. That's about it. I don't think there's any undue discrimination against religion. In fact, I think there's far too much deference paid to it. But am I in a lather over Congress opening its sessions with prayers, or "In God We Trust" on every piece of currency? No. I think it's silly, but people are entitled to silliness once in a while. It doesn't hurt anyone.
OK, here's where reasons for positions again become relevant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you & Niner have the same reason for opposing homosexuals in the military -- because the military insists it affects troop morale and cohesiveness. This is misguided, imho (after all, the military claimed the exact same thing when the gov't wanted to racially integrate the military), but there is a marginally logical basis to defend the position here.
But is Bush's position that way because of the "military readiness" argument, or is it because God Hates Fags, as his religion militates? And don't give me that "love the sinner, hate the sin" shit, either. It takes a lot of fucking nerve, imho, to institutionally declare someone's lifestyle as a "sin". At any rate, it makes a real difference if Bush is arriving at this policy decision by way of (supposedly) practical military advice, or possibly mis-translated Levantine mythos. Do you see the distinction?
Message # 10593:
1) It is quite fine to suggest someone is not fit to hold public office based on their RELIGION.
No, unless that person is attempting to impose the religious beliefs of his sect as official law. This is not a theocracy, Ace. Law must remain secular. One look at the history of the Catholic Church, in its capacity as political power, should clearly illustrate why.
2) The political views of a minority group are ILLEGITIMATE because of that minority's religion.
It depends on what informs their political views. Are they looking at the world around them, and drawing from real life experience, and using that knowledge to improve the lot of their constituency? Or are they determining that because the Bible says such-and-such, modern day Americans must do such-and-such as well?
It's THEY-- the religious-- who are forcing THEIR religious beliefs down people's throats!
Well, yes. Atheists don't proselytize. Nor do Jews. Nor do most Eastern religions. But evangelical Protestants seem to think that we all should live under the rules of their little club, whether we want to join or not. Sorry, but that's bullshit. It's about time this country outgrew this bluenose prudery over sex and clothing and entertainment and personal freedom in general, and it's mostly the hardcore God Squad that's keeping us there.
Premarital sex will not send you to Hell. Pornos are not the work of the Devil. Marilyn Manson is not the Anti-Christ. Beer is good, when used in moderation. Getting blowjobs is even better. Violent movies can be fun, as long as you can handle them without flipping out like a dipshit.
But try telling any of that to an evangelical. They'll just look at you with that look of pity, like you're a lost lamb or something. Because God says they're right. And you're not nervous when one of these guys wants to run for a position of power? I wonder if you'd be so deferential if, say, a Wiccan were running for office.
"That certainly was the chief reason not to vote for Pat Robertson. He made it quite plain he intended to "make this a Christian nation again." And when I hear G.W. Bush natter about his faith in that mindless parroting fashion to which all evangelicals are prone, I rather suspect he'll go down the same path."
Now, here's a case of going out looking for a reason to dislike GWB. Bush *does* have a gubernatorial record, you know. You might try consulting it on this issue before wandering off into the uncharted reaches of speculation.
I guess I believe you when you say you're an atheist, but I admit to sharing some of Cellar's skepticism about it, because of the earnest high dudgeon with which you go after anyone who dares speak up against the Invisible Army.
Oh really? And anyone who speaks passionately against racism about blacks must therefore be black then, I suppose?
This is "you people's" strategy (and yes, Cartman, you are one of "you people" on this count):
1) Refuse to accept someone's stated reasons for supporting a position. Usually those reasons are fairly strong and are difficult to argue against.
2) Instead, assign them reasoning of your own invention. Example: "You're not against Affirmative Action for all the strong reasons you stated, which would be hellaciously difficult to argue against; you're against Affirmative Action because you're a racist. Racism is bad, and QED your position must be bad, too."
Or:
"I am 'skeptical' about all the arguments about fairness and tolerance you suggest. Since I have no good answer for them, I will suggest that you are indeed a Stealth Religioso, and that you argue in order to 'impose you religious beliefs down my throat.' Since 'imposing your beliefs down my throat' is bad, your position is bad too. QED."
wonder if you'd be so deferential if, say, a Wiccan were running for office.
I would be irrationally predjudiced against such a person. Unlike you people and the KKK, however, I would not attempt to argue my irrational predjudices were rational and proven by logic, experience, or history.
As I would know that I was being bigoted (see, some people can admit this; other people deny it to themselves, and then are of course to explain away their bigotry as being "rational, GOOD bigotry), I would be *ashamed* to press the point which much vigor.
People who realize their own bigotries, and recognize them as such, have a bit of shame about urging them on others.
People who *aren't* self-aware enough to realize this-- who are much like four or five year olds, believing every shit they take is wonderful and perfect-- have no such shame about dressing up hatreds and tribalism as "rational," "justified," "warranted," and "good."
My girlfriend, by the way, is bigoted against Evangelical Christians. She admits this. She'll cut them down any chance she gets, but she *recognizes* what she's doing as bigotry and predjudice, and makes no bones about it.
I, too, share in this bigotry. I too wish Evangelical Christians would stop being so fucking *weird* and just be like the rest of us. (And no, I am not kidding to make an ironic point; I really do think they're a little weird. They annoy me.)
But I have a bit of *shame* about demanding that Evangelical Christians just abandon their faith and be more like me, just like I have a bit of shame about making similar demands of Hasidic Jews (weirdoes), devout Moslems (violent, murdering, crazy weirdoes), and Jehova's Witnesses (annoying, pestillent weirdoes).
I'm no better than you guys in that respect. Shit, I hate people for being different, too. It's an all-too-human weakness.
But I do diverge from you in one respect: I don't try to "prove" or "defend" my own bigotry. I recognize it as ugly and irrational and not really worth defending.
And the pattern continues:
Eric, like those who have gone before him, conveniently "forgets" to answer all the difficult questions asked of him, preferring to answer easier questions which weren't asked, or change the subject, or suggest that the questioner's opinion might be illegitimate due to a secret religiosity which he has somehow kept secret for the past year.
This is all part and parcel of the extreme moral vanity many people are guilty of.
Since Liberals have elevated "tolerance" to the highest of all civic virtues (I don't quibble that it's a vital civic virtue, but I might argue it's the single most important civic virtue, and I also wouldn't impose the death penalty on people who sometimes fail to be 100% tolerant), and because MANY (but not all, certainly) Liberals cannot BEAR to think they are deficient, morally, in any way whatsoever (they are God's Handmaidens on Earth), they must reject the possibility that they are less than perfectly tolerant of all races, creeds, religions, and sexual orientation.
And thus, when you point out they're making bigoted, hateful generalizations-- they must respond that that's NOT bigotry, that's just logic, experience, history, and common sense. (Otherwise, they wouldn't be perfect, and we know damn well they are.)
And as I keep pointing out: That's precisely what the KKK does. They make bigoted, hateful generalizations. They despise certain religions.
And when you ask them their reasons? They've got lots of rational, logical, GOOD reasons. "It's not bigotry," they'll tell you. "Jews are just *different.* It's okay to hate *them.*"
Just ask them.
They spin all sorts of theories about Jews not being loyal to this country (their true allegiance is to the Gutter Nation of Israeal), so you certainly can't trust a Jew in public office.
And Jews, of course, really ARE trying to control this country. Can YOU explain why so many Jews are in banking or Hollywood? Obviously, they want to impose their Satanic worldview on our country by controlling the economy and by controlling the nation's chief propaganda organ, Hollywood.
Do you all support the Jews' attempt to impose their secular/Satanic/materialist/Marxist gutter religion on us all?
And before this goes any further:
I implore you all to edit your next bit of bigotry and see what it might look like if you substitute "Jews," "Catholics," or "blacks" for "Christians."
Take a look at what you're writing. Substitue the name of a group you think it's BAD to discriminate against in place of the name of a group you think it's GOOD to discriminate against.
Try it. You tell me if you like what you see or not.
PS:
There are lots of LIBERAL religious people. Very liberal, very religious. They will often cite Jesus' parables (as Spudboy did) in service of proving a POLITICAL point.
How come it's not dangerous for liberals to use their interpretation of religion in service of secular, religious goals?
Why does this "rule" only seem to apply when a political opponent is using this age-old and perfectly legitimate form of reasoning?
"Take away all the muffling... and the words of Jesus Christ represent the most powerful, most perfect statement of moral and political philosophy capable of being distilled into words."
-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison
Illegitimate? Fanatical? "Forcing his gutter religion down the nation's throat?"
PS: Thomas Jefferson wrote the Separation of Church and State clause.
"How come it's not dangerous for liberals to use their interpretation of religion in service of secular, religious goals?"
I meant:
"How come it's not dangerous for liberals to use their interpretation of religion in service of secular, political goals?"
BW: What would the main foreign policy goals of the Gore administration be?
Gore: The Gore administration will take a strong stand against the New Isolationism. The United States should take an active role as a world leader. I shall lead the forces of Gog in the final apocalyptic battle with the forces of MaGog. Upon the breaking of the seventh seal, I shall unleash my demonic legions upon the Earth. I shall ride at the head of the host of the wicked against the hosts of the returned Lamb. 6 out of 8 new jobs depend on exports and economists agree that the rapture will be good for international trade.
I think I might go as high as 3%.
But I'd go up to five percent, maybe.
In 10612, you said you would feel a bit of shame about demanding that Evangelical Christians abandon their faith and start believing as you do....I wish they would do the same but they seem quite content to demand we believe as they do or be responsible for damning the entire country to hell.
We could probably sell polished turds on eBay, were we so inclined.
I know you hate me hyping other sites but since Salon's TT political folder is falling apart (big time), I'm finding the best ones are at the Opinion/Editorial threads in the New York Times.
Each of their columnists has his/her own thread and I just got permission from Fred Sedam (nowayoyos1) to reprint his hilarious parody of Maureen Dowd's most recent attack column on George W Bush and his "Jesus" comments.
Incoming...
Let me be straight right off the bat: I am an atheist and I hate conservatives.
So it is hardly any wonder that the Iowa debate the other night left me a bit queasy.
George W. Bush finally scored some debate points on Monday night by supporting the holy trinity of ethanol, Jesus and soft money (real cute turn of phrase, huh?). (And didn't Jesus throw those soft-money changers out of the temple? Please excuse the non-sequitor here. Being an atheist I don't really know the Bible. Heck, I even agree with Hillary that Jesus was born homeless, although I don't know a whit about it.)
When the Republican candidates were asked to name their favorite political philosophers, Mr. Bush replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart."
Jesus, that just makes me sick! What atheist can sit back and take religious principles like that? I sure can't.
Pressed to elaborate, the Texas governor again showed his inability to go deep. His mouth curled down into that famous smirky look. (Note to Hillary and Al: I'm being a good team player here and spreading this smear every chance I get!)
"Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain," he said. "When you turn your heart and your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your life. And that's what happened to me."
(to be continued)
I mean, we can't all be the brightest bulb, and we can't all think that everyone deserves to be treated equally under the Constitution without regard for characteristics related to private, personal, adult consensual commitments that have nothing to do with abilility and shouldn't be anybody's business in the first place, can we now?
Translation: You're either in the Christ club or out of it, on the J.C. team or off. Of course, me being an atheist and all, I'm definitely off the J.C. team. Heck, I even feel free to slam ol' J.C. by demeaning using his initials like he's some ol' chum of mine, even though I'm an atheist who simply hates Christ and all he stand for.
This is the era of niche marketing, and Jesus is a niche. Why not use the son of God to help the son of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus's numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ, the new wedge issue. And since I hate Christ and conservatives, this give me a big chance to slam both. Jesus, I love my job!
When you take something deeply personal and parade it for political gain, you are guilty either of cynicism or exhibitionism. Being an avowed atheist I am sure Bush cannot be since about his lofe of Christ, because I just don't get it.
Nor do I want to get it. I just want Jesus out of here! And conservatives, too. Get thee behind me, or something like that.
I don't believe it is bigotry to vote against a candidate because you believe they are beholden to their religion in a manner that makes you uncomfortable. Indeed, as you correctly point out, were I to hold this view, I would be a hypocrite, for I am similarly uncomfortable with voting for someone who does not believe in God.
But Ace's issue is different. It speaks to the irrational prejudice against those of religious faith, generally leveled by a small minority (in that most folks are of religious faith), a higher bar that discredits their position, while those coming to similar public policy conclusions based on "reason" and "intellect" are given no similar scrutiny. And Jones is correct. The "assault" on religion is minimal, though it is disproportionate when you look at the chattering class (of which we are members).
Leading me to one conclusion. The chattering class accepts the religiosity of Gore and Clinton because, at heart, they believe Gore and Clinton are lying about it, as they have effectively lied about much else during their public lives. So, when they invoke Jesus, their is little protest, save for an occasional embarrassed roll of the eyes ("Why must we attract the rubes?") But this is the game, nod and wink, and so it is acceptable when practiced by hucksters.
When Bush responds to a question honestly and then demurs upon further inquiry, basically saying that he couldn't really explain his relationship with Christ, the same chattering class becomes alarmed because they fear Bush IS ACTUALLY SINCERE. So, he is tarred on the one hand for abusing his religious convictions (though he merely answered a question). And then he is tarred further, as we are transported to 1960, John Kennedy, and the papist menace.
Here, a proper piece of baggage who tried to steal the President of the United States away from the First Lady of the United States, as she had previously tried to steal a married man away from his wife, and who managed to divert the attention of Congress away from its business for months (the one thing we should thank her for), all the while worrying that the leader of the entity-formerly-known-as-the-Free-World wasn't devoting enough time to her own search for a high-pay, no-work job, was upset. She was upset.
Can you say borderline personality?
I don't worry whether Bush believes one religious doctrine or another, or none. I worry he doesn't believe in the right to be left alone.
Ambassador Richard Fisher,
Deputy United States Trade Representative
At any rate, rosettaStone, perhaps you could post my parody again, in its entirety?
After all, it does read better when Ronskiattacks are not inserted.
Thanks,
nowayoyos1
nowayoyos1,
Pat Buchanan? That is truly to laugh.
his adultry. Now that she's taking issue with a republican she's a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat per the repubs. Which just goes to show a "yer either for us or agin us" mentality of those who can't seem to think for themselves.
Yeah, god forbid she might be unbiased, being in the media and all...
Rather, we proudly point to where Democrats agree with us (if only half-heartedly) and where Republicans agree with us (if only half-heartedly), and claim victory.
I now return control of the Room back to y'all.
I do. But I'm not sure it matters for purposes of this discussion. If he is sincere in his faith and his expression that Jesus changed his heart, to the literati, he is dangerous. If he is insincere, then he is pernicious and dishonest, in a way somehow different than the man who will respond to every issue with the query, "What would Jesus do?"
Interestingly, Bush's rather tame expression of faith, in response to questions, brings about a fear for the Republic and a discussion of church/state separation. The thread is abuzz. Gore's admission that one very issue he will first ask 'What would Jesus do?" is, however, ho hum.
Ronski is a freaking libertarian. So ugly, no woman will date him and when he playing football in high school, his team lost 21 out of 22 games. He likes to talk about cooking, plants and flowers in another thread here and is way over his head in politics.
I typed your brilliant parody out and didn't make a file. If you have it, download here.
Who Will Jesus Debate?
Whither Wanders Jesus's Dad?
Rosie,
Shows how much you know. It was 22 out of 24.
Judith,
No, but I admire two-stepping.
LIBERTINES By MO DOWD -Just Go Away, Jesus
Let me be straight right off the bat: I am an atheist and I hate conservatives.
So it is hardly any wonder that the Iowa debate the other night left me a bit queasy.
George W. Bush finally scored some debate points on Monday night by supporting the holy trinity of
ethanol, Jesus and soft money (real cute turn of phrase, huh?). (And didn't Jesus throw those
soft-money changers out of the temple? Please excuse the non-sequitor here. Being an atheist I don't
really know the Bible. Heck, I even agree with Hillary that Jesus was born homeless, although I don't
know a whit about it.)
When the Republican candidates were asked to name their favorite political philosophers, Mr. Bush
replied: "Christ, because he changed my heart."
Jesus, that just makes me sick! What atheist can sit back and take religious principles like that? I
sure can't.
Pressed to elaborate, the Texas governor again showed his inability to go deep. His mouth curled
down into that famous smirky look. (Note to Hillary and Al: I'm being a good team player here and
spreading this smear every chance I get!).
"Well, if they don't know, it's going to be hard to explain," he said. "When you turn your heart and
your life over to Christ, when you accept Christ as the Savior, it changes your heart. It changes your
life. And that's what happened to me."
Translation: You're either in the Christ club or out of it, on the J.C. team or off. Of course, me being
an atheist and all, I'm definitely off the J.C. team. Heck, I even feel free to slam ol' J.C. by
demeaningly using his initials like he's some ol' chum of mine, even though I'm an atheist who
simply hates Christ and all he stands for.
This is the era of niche marketing, and Jesus is a niche. Why not use the son of God to help the son
of Bush appeal to voters? W. is checking Jesus' numbers, and Jesus is polling well in Iowa. Christ,
the new wedge issue. And since I hate Christ and conservatives, this gives me a big chance to slam
both. Jesus, I love my job!
When you take something deeply personal and parade it for political gain, you are guilty either of
cynicism or exhibitionism. Being an avowed atheist, I am sure Bush cannot be sincere about his love
for Christ, because I just don't get it.
Nor do I want to get it. I just want Jesus out of here! And conservatives, too. Get me behind thee,
or something like that.
nowayoyos1,
I, a Buchananite?
No way, so to speak.
More like the opposite of a Buchananite. Buchanan is a an authoritarian, I am a libertarian, as RosettaStone correctly asserts.
Now, the moniker has been etched in stone, as they say, and so many people know me as nowayoyos that I have become NOWAYOYOS! (And 'nowayoyos1' because I switched computers a while back the the NY Slimes thought I was someone else, so I had to put a 1 at the end of my name).
THAT'S MY STORY, AND I'M STICKING TO IT!
P.S. Nice to be here, and thanks for the invite. Now, must go to lunch. C U L8r...
Cartman, way back you made a comment:
"Gore's newfound evangelism is equally tiresome. Maybe more so, since it seems rather an affectation. "
He went to Divinity school about a kajillion years ago, so I'm guessing his interest in things spiritual isn't exactly "newfound." The WWJD reference was sick making, I agree.
I think Bush's answer to the "political philospher" question was so offensive because it was
1)(to me) obvious that he was taking advantage of a dubious opportunity to slip in the big "J" - I mean, what kind of answer is that to the question as posed and
2) nonsensical...am I the only one who thinks he answered that way at least in part because he doesn't know of any "political philosphers"?
3) Whorish. Unlike Carter (who has been brought up here) Bush hasn't spent the majority of his life proclaiming his faith, working within it and contributing to it. Carter's christianity didn't need to be proclaimed in a sound bite, it was there in full evidence throughout his life. It was an ill-thought out sop to the religious right, and an embarrassingly blatant one - which is why he's getting grief for it.
PS - Gore's not getting as much grief, imo, because he also has a well-documented connection to his faith and church. But they should slam him for the WWJD comment - commercializing Christianity is nasty, no matter who's doing it.
(Why Was Joseph Dumbfounded?)
Who Were Jesus's Disciples?
What Were Jesus's Desserts?
Do you know that you aren't the only gay libertarian? There's one at TableTalk, too!
Maybe you should form a club!
A triple toe-loop followed by a triple Boitano twist. I absolutely love him, he is my all-time favorite figure skater.
Carry on.
Cal,
Actually, there are several clubs for gay libertarians (isn't pluralism wonderful?).
I couldn't agree more completely.
#10672
'No way' what?
I liked Wylie, too.
Although he's a little bit on the fem side. (Not that there's anything wrong with that.)
"What would Brian Boitano do?"
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Go ahead and laugh. Can YOU do a triple toe loop? HUH????
Btw, I should point out that while there are not a whole lot of gay libertarians, as there are not a lot of libertarians of any orientation, they have been around for some time, and are known as laissez-fairies.
I just found out this guy is from New York, too. Are you sure you're not the same person? Hmmmmm. I am peering at you suspiciously.
Wylie is quite fem, but that was what made it wonderful. 92 was the year Bowman the Showman was supposed to kick ass and get his medal. Wylie always skated below par in championships because they interfered with Harvard exam time, and had just barely made the Olympic team. But he'd been in the top three or four American skaters for a long time, so I was pulling for him going in.
So all the attention is on Bowman, and I can still remember the shock in Buttons' voice, halfway through Wylie's program. "Actually, Paul is skating phenomenally well."
No way is Bowman the all time best figure skater. But I will allow you to have him as your favorite.
I have a friend who knows him, btw.
Hahahahahahahahahaha.
Ah, your passion for Latins. It is tres charmante!
I didn't say he was the best, I said he was my favorite. 'Best', when applied to figure skaters, jazz albums, and like artistry, is a largely worthless adjective, IMHO.
Ronski
He is quite luscious, ne c'est pas?
Phillipe all the way....
CalGal:
I am or was addicted to Figure Shating but I like the weird ones...Gary ? from Canada and Joseph with the long blond hair and the super high jumps. I've always liked Wylie, too but can not stand Boitano and .....jeez, the names escape me....the guy who does all the Gene Kelly stuff and has taken the "arrogant mantle" from Boitano.
Anyone see the 6'4" French guy Saturday; Laurent Tobel or something like that? Pretty weird. He looks like John Turturro in blue velvet and lace.
Oh man...did you see the thing he did about a month ago on that Ice Wars special? The Braveheart thing. You don't know how much I longed for that kilt to fly up.
Diva,
Mais oui. O, la-la!
I quit watching figure skating after 92, for three reasons.
One, I had an utterly irrational objection to the move of the Winter Olympics to a different 4-year cycle.
Two, letting the pros back in really seemed to ruin the quality of the skating.
Three, you can't turn on the TV without seeing some damn competition or show. What I liked about figure skating was the fact that it was special, something you didn't see every day. 
my nerves......
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
Why, Rosetta, must you constantly drag in these half-brained cretins from the NY Times threads?
And whatever happened to my whipping boy, Gram2? I'm in the mood the spank his jellied ass. Tell him to get back over here.
Be nice. I have to suffer Diva questioning my physical agility. You can suffer newcomers.
Diva!!!!
I loved that routine...the time I saw it, he actually flipped his kilt once after a tumble. I just love watching him clothed but now that I've see his legs, I hope he tries Afternoon of a Faun or some Aztec God On Skates or anything that shows his legs to great advantage. Although they didn't look too bad in that white disco suit....naw, it's Incan Fire God Sacrifice for me!
Kurt Browning, yeah...false modesty himself.
And it was Gary Becomb.
Lo siento, mi vida! Tu es muy, muy agile where and when it counts, mi peludo toro!
Judith
Oh, God, yes! Now I remember...be still, my beating heart.
Actually, I appreciate Stone's dragging, and I welcome all newbies. But then, I am only operating on one-sixteenth of a brain.
I don't mind newcomers, just as long as they stick around to take their medicine instead of pasting and running.
Ace,
How come it's not dangerous for liberals to use their interpretation of religion in service of secular, political goals?
It depends on the context. As Adrianne points out, Carter's faith infuses his character through and through. It shows in his commitment to human dignity, nonviolence, and respect for human rights. The type of religiousity most often invoked by conservatives, otoh, is that of the judgmental, hellfire and brimstone God of 19th Century tent revivals. It appeals to a negative impulse in people, pandering to their most reactionary instincts.
By the way, have you read Safire, today? He said in particular:
"[Bush's] injection of his religious awakening into the debate in Iowa this week -- causing a couple of minor candidates to join in displaying their faith on their sleeves -- was dismaying."
There goes Safire, that reactionary liberal, complaining about Bush's invocation of his newfound faith.
No offense, LadyC, but you just decimated your argument with that response.
What would Brian Boitano do
If he was here today
I'm sure he'd kick an ass or two
That's what Brian Boitano would do.
Don't think I'll be doing that anytime soon, but thanks for the rec, dear.
"Carter's faith infuses his character through and through. It shows in his commitment to human dignity, nonviolence, and respect for human rights. The type of religiousity most often invoked by conservatives, otoh, is that of the judgmental, hellfire and brimstone God of 19th Century tent revivals. It appeals to a negative impulse in people, pandering to their most reactionary instincts."
Lord on high. You are a contortionist. But I now see the distinction between Gore's need to ask what Jesus would do every time he thinks he has to go to the bathroom and Bush's rather mild admission that Jesus changed his heart.
Gore is feeding the hungry and clothing the naked.
Bush is stoning the pillar of salt that used to be Lot's wife.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
You didn't like my satire?
Why, thank you very much!
I consider that a badge of honor. I love getting mini-slammed by libs because it shows just how much the truth bugs them.
P.S. Lemme guess, AND YOU'RE AN ATHEIST, TOO. Right?!
"Adrianne points out, Carter's faith infuses his character through and through. It shows in his commitment to human dignity, nonviolence, and respect for human rights. The type of religiousity most often invoked by conservatives, otoh, is that of the judgmental, hellfire and brimstone God of 19th Century tent revivals. It appeals to a negative impulse in people, pandering to their most reactionary instincts."
If that's what my post read like, apologies, because that's not what I meant (although I agree with it).
I was remarking purely on the public reception of statements about religiosity - the thread is full of complaints that Gore and Carter hadn't had the sincerity of their faith adequately, or "fairly" questioned. I was pointing out why, imo.
I have no idea why you would say that I just "decimated" my arguments. I have consistently said that I fear politicians who invoke their religious beliefs in a pandering appeal for conservative votes. For example, I worry mightily about a politician who fights against gay rights on Biblical grounds. I have no problem with a politician whose faith informs his commitment to human rights. Carter's reflects a deeper understanding of the nature of faith and how it informs matters of public service. It is not even in the same ballpark as the sort of pandering that Gore and Bush have engaged in.
The overarching principle is freedom. Those who wish to limit freedom in the name of God are, imo, no different from the Taliban. They are appealing to the worst instincts in people.
If you think that this has "decimated" my argument, then you haven't been reading my posts very closely.
109,
I have been clear in my opinion of Gore and WWJD. You can go back and read, if you're unclear on the concept.
...and of course, there's this wee snag...
Gore was asked, specifically, about his faith. Carter made his life his faith, and was asked about it constantly.
Bush barked a !Jesus Saves! slogan in response to a political philosophy question.
That might also have a bit to do with the differing perceptions of the gents.
You seem bent on convincing me that you are as contemptuous of Gore as of Bush. I accept it, though "WWJD?" (which is really great fodder for monstrous chuckles) went by largely unnoticed by Bush's response to questions (halting, rather deferential and minimalist responses) have brought enormous damnation from you, based mainly on his smirk and the excesses of his party.
Take out Gore and supplant him with Carter. Really, all you are saying is that you like Christian politicians as long as they are your kind of Christian politician. If they are, no problema. If they are not, they are a menace, it is Kennedy and papism all over again, and you'll feel free to warn us of the impending "The Handmaid's Tale" that awaits.
Exactly. Conservative votes. Or "it depends on the context".
I mean, why bother going any further with it?
"Gore was asked, specifically, about his faith. Carter made his life his faith, and was asked about it constantly. Bush barked a !Jesus Saves! slogan in response to a political philosophy question."
He was asked as to a political philosopher. He answered as Jefferson or Lincoln might, as was demonstrated with excerpts provided by Ace and myself yesterday.
Indeed, let us go to the videotape.
"Take away all the muffling... and the words of Jesus Christ represent the most powerful, most perfect statement of moral and political philosophy capable of being distilled into words."
-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison.
Jefferson was such a whore.
To use Ace's example: A Jew pronouncing his faith as a key component of his political behavior may be annoying, just as it is with Gore, but it's not problematic in the same sense as it is with evangelical Christians because of the context that such fundamentalists have created.
That context includes a history of declaring the United States a "Christian nation" and urging the institutionalization of Christian beliefs in the system; of demanding a return of prayer to schools; outlawing abortion; of warning that we are on the verge of takeover by a "New World Order" dominated by "international bankers"; of declaring that the separation of church and state is a "myth." It includes a record of electing "stealth" candidates to school boards, county councils and state legislatures. It includes a long history of rhetoric indicating an extreme intolerance to people different from them, notably eeevil liberals and gays and lesbians out to promote a "homosexual agenda."
I haven't heard anything like that coming from Jews or mainstream, non-evangelical Christians (who comprise, I might add, considerably more than 10 percent of American Christianity). You haven't heard anyone declaring this a "Jewish nation." You don't hear demands to bring the nation's laws into line with their religious beliefs. What you *have* heard is a consistent demand that the separation of church and state remain intact, to protect their beliefs and those of every citizen in the country from being bulldozed by a self-righteous faction that believes in forcing its theology on everyone else.
As I told Ace, I take religion very seriously, and I don't think that Gore and Carter are interchangeable. Gore's WWJD comment was just as cheap and pandering as Bush's opportunistic (and completely unnecessary) remark. Bush doesn't cause me to worry about a "Handmaid's Tale" sort of apocalypse (I'll leave that to Bauer). It does, however, make me question whether or not he is a serious-minded person.
Now, unlike Ace or his girlfriend, I don't hate evangelical Christians. I don't hate Mormons (a more significant conservative political faction in my upbringing) either. Indeed, I count a number of them as my good friends. But I don’t agree with them or trust them politically -- though even then, I have, in my role of setting editorial endorsements at the newspapers where I've worked, in fact endorsed some evangelical Christians because I believed their sincere claims that they had no intention of being fundamentalists first in their roles as secular public servants. However, I don't believe Bush's protests on this score, at least not anymore.
Finally, let's not get shrill here. The ultimate point here is not that I think Bush's beliefs disqualify him from public office. It's just that, in the context of the political environment, they ensure that I won't be voting for him. This hardly strikes me as threatening or bigoted.
First, it is ridiculous to say that consideration of organized religion in valuing public policy is undesirable - since all public policy evaluations have a moral component, it is incoherent to privilege "non-religious" moral systems (which I am pretty sure doesn't exist) over "religious" ones.
Second, "civic virtue," by which I mean the ability and willingness to compromise (traditionally, "for the good of the community" is attached here, but that puts the rabbit into the hat, so to speak), is a public norm which occasionally conflicts with the moral traditions of some brands of organized religion.
Third, because I prefer a system in which there is a high willingness to compromise, I frown upon the invocation of more rigid religious doctrine. Basically, any religious tradition which posits a clear black and white, wrong and right, approach to life makes me uncomfortable.
Fourth, the "liberal" approach to society has its origin in English deism: the exclusive focus on rationality, the strict separation between public and private (and religious and secular) realms and interests, and the particular purpose of government endorsed etc. Locke and Hobbes, for instance, were both English Deists in the Herbertian tradition. To say that secular/religious is a strict dichotomy is to endorse a particular religious perspective.
If Bush had given as eloquent an answer as Jefferson, I could deal with it. Unfortunately, Bush and his ilk would rather resort to the "muffling" to which Jefferson referred.
Your quotes of Lincoln did not make your point as clearly as you might think. It is clear from all of those speeches that Lincoln's overarching moral philosophy was that espoused in the Declaration of Independence.
"If Bush had given as eloquent an answer as Jefferson, I could deal with it. Unfortunately, Bush and his ilk would rather resort to the "muffling" to which Jefferson referred."
So now we are down to smirk and eloquence. Cal is correct. Your hand is played.
Spud
"that is the lingering question of just how captive Bush is to this faction of evangelical Christians."
I never realized there were still old Hubert Humphrey speechwriters from the 1960 West Virginia primary around?
It really is quite unbelievable. One candidate is on the record as stating that prior to every decision he would ask "What would Jesus do?" Magically, he is hunky-dory. The other gets a 6 year old quote hung up on him, and voila' - he is an enemy of the state, a pawn of the evangelicals.
Harry Browne Essay
I only said I won't vote for him. Bet a bunch of other people won't either. And I bet this bit of pandering helped them make up their minds, as it did for me.
As for Gore's remark: Again, it's equivalent only if stripped of the context.
If it helped them make up their minds, it's because they don't like a particular religion. Not because of some all-encompassing theory about the place of religion in politics, which is the nonsense that a good many of you try to wrap your garbage in.
...as it did for me.
Well, sure. I mean, we all know you were seriously considering giving your vote to Bush.
No, it just gave you--and a good many others--the illusion that you had something you could nail a Republican on. Show the danger of religious fanatics in politics!
Please.
Not that I'm aware of. Last I checked, those were the folks working most furiously to defeat him.
OTOH, there's Bush.
But please, continue pretending that the context is meaningless.
Spudboy says, "Big deal. What is important is his statement from 1993."
That is what makes him "captive" to the evangelicals.
Meanwhile, Gore says that on every decision, he will ask "What would Jesus do?"
Spudboy says, "Oh. That was taken out of context."
Exactly. It's not Bush's use of religion, it's the specific religion.
At which point, you aren't much different from someone who says, "I can stand that damn Jew candidate."
No. Meanwhile, a person who declares he won't vote for someone who's Jewish is announcing that they've bought into a whole raft of anti-Semitic propaganda, including the old sawhorse about Jews conspiring to control the world.
Jews have never made such declarations. Evangelical Christians have.
And having legitimate concerns about that rather explicit agenda is rather different than simple bigotry.
Not that I would expect you, with your addled, hand-wringing approach to a "balanced" view of the real world, to discern the difference.
Cal (and Ace before her) nailed it. You make your own hobgoblins and spooks to support your preconceptions. You hide your bigotry under the icing of reason and fairness.
In the end, Gore is good because, while he will check in with Jesus on everything, he does not espouse much of the evangelical agenda. Bush, on the other hand, is baaaaaaaaaaad because he agrees with some of the agenda. You are free to choose your candidate on the agenda you prefer. But to insist that one is "captive" and the other is lacking mere "context" is hopelessly transparent.
But as long as you've fooled yourself, I guess that is all that matters.
Otherwise, let's just stick to reason and arguments as I've written them, shall we?
Spuds knows who the good guys are, and who the bad guys are, Cal. Don't you? Stop wringing your hands and dabbling in fairness.
You closet crypto-fascist.
Your reasons don't follow, your arguments fail, your bigotry is not very well hidden, and to the extent you make personal attacks, I feel unencumbered.
(I saw that footage, by the way, on Nightline as they celebrated the end of Buckley's "Firing Line." Priceless)
But then, cheap shots and ridiculous presumption have become your forte.
See ya.
I never mind when you leave. I do prefer the heartfelt, flowery, "Friends, Romans, countrymen, my feelings are hurt, I have been wronged" exits, but that's just me.
I think that the more important distinction is that Jefferson's remarks to Madison were contained in a personal correspondence. They were not aimed at a particular faction in a vote-getting context. There is a world of difference between noting one's beliefs in such a personal context and pandering. Bush is pandering, but if you have fallen for it, then I don't know what else I can say.
I don't understand why it is so difficult for you (and CalGal) to grasp that there are very different approaches to how one interweaves his faith with public service. ML King, Jr. was one whose religious conscience guided him to take on enormous tasks to overcome humanity's baser instincts. He did not seek power for himself; he subsumed his ego in a cause for justice. This was much more Christ-like than anything G.W. will ever achieve, yet it was accomplished not by using religion as a blunt instrument with which to beat whites over their heads or to incite faction against faction. He refused to appeal to fear; rather, his faith guided him to appeal to the better nature in all of us. His faith in his religion led him to have a faith in humanity which eventually achieved great things for the country.
No, not the Majority of hs life. Just the last thirteen years, since he discovered Christ.
Bush is famously willing to speak about religion at the drop of the hat. On the record or off. If a reporter asks him about Christ, he will discuss it for an hour.
You just don't know what you're talking about. Your positions are weak, so you butress them with "facts" you make up as you babble.
It is the context of this lunacy expressed by Bush that concerns me, and should be of concern to any decent human being. Either Bush is pandering to the religious right (and as such is not being "sincere"), or is simply not thinking things through and is indeed a dunce, or he is actually dangerous and a threat to essential freedoms. Take your pick, and report back.
First, your statement that LadyChaos "decimated" her argument by saying that the distinction between Bush and Gore is based on the context of their comments is laughable. Of course it does.
Second, your argument that there is hostility to the particular religion endorsed by Bush is (probably) nonsensical. First, "religion" has too many meanings; I assume that you are referring to particular Christian denominations, rather than to Christianity as a whole. Second, the particular relationship between Church and State can be considered a part of one's religious denomination. Any opposition to that denomination's understanding of the Church-State relationship can be characterized as hostility to that denomination. What do you think you are proving?
Third, your analogizing someone's opposition to explicit reliance on Christian ethics in politics to anti-Semitism is amusing. Aside from all of the contextual problems about power relationships etc., it ignores the uniquely pernicious quality of anti-Semitism. There is plenty of dispute about what that quality is - it could be the reinforcement of a particular invidious tradition, the arbitrary scapegoating, or whatever - but regardless, that same quality is almost definitely not applicable to George W. Bush.
What religion are you? Whatever religion you are (atheism included), I am sure that you "prefer" it over the alternatives - otherwise, it wouldn't be your religion, would it? Is that "preference" used in the same way as when someone "prefers" whites over blacks? Since one might prefer Christianity over Judaism, does that necessarily imply that one is an anti-Semite? Since someone prefers an English deist tradition over an evangelical Christian tradition (even if he or she bases their political opposition solely on that fact), is that akin to anti-Semitism?
Finally, I think Bush's answer (though I didn't see it live) is amusing. First, he probably should have taken that opportunity to do away with some of the accusations of stupidity -going off for a couple of minutes on a classical philosopher would have been useful to that end. Second, his answer was extremely vague - the nature of Christ's, or more accurately Christianity's (everyone knows Christ was a Marxist), political philosophy is, uh, pretty disputed, to say the least.
Ja sto procentne souhlasim. Diky.
"First, it is ridiculous to say that consideration of organized religion in valuing public policy is undesirable - since all public policy evaluations have a moral component, it is incoherent to privilege "non-religious" moral systems (which I am pretty sure doesn't exist) over "religious" ones."
This was on my checklist of points to make, but since DaveM made it so well, I don't have to.
I will add this: ALL political and moral judgement devolve ultimately to a purely *arbitrary* ranking of values. Liberals arbitrarily assign "equality" a higher value than "liberty"; when the two conflict, they will choose forced equality over liberty. Conservatives rank them the other way.
Quite frankly, I can't say I prefer Cartman's personal, idiosyncratic hierchcy of values more than a Christian's, simply because Cartman claims *his* hierarchy is based on reason (note to Cartman: No it's not) and the Christian's is based on the dogma of a gutter religion.
I really don't care HOW people come to their political beliefs. If I disagree with their political beliefs, I will argue on them on a POLITICAL level. I will not try to win the argument without arguing at all by merely crying "But your beliefs are based on DOGMA and are therefore wrong!"
Evangelical Christians are right about a good deal of political questions. Just as the fact that their beliefs are influenced by religion doesn't make those beliefs RIGHT, that same fact doesn't make those beliefs WRONG.
Abortion is either right or wrong, politically. We can argue about it. We HAVE argued about it.
But it is childish-- intellectually infantile-- to play the same old game of "Your opinion is influenced by religion, so it's wrong" in order to avoid confronting people's arguments and reasoning.
But a lot of you prefer doing so. Because it's easy. And because perhaps you don't have the intellect needed to actually engage in actual debate.
Oh, it's a pander--or, for all I know, it's genuine. But he's no more a threat than any other presidential candidate. If he can actually accomplish his agenda, it's because a majority supports him.
And it's no different than Gore's pandering. Apparently Gore panders to a superior class of people.
"Just the last thirteen years, since he discovered Christ."
I've always liked the phrase "discovered Christ." It makes it sound as though He were a new strain of virus brought out of the rain forest by a team of Stanford research scientists.
The distinctions that are important to you have been pretty much articulated. If the person is a "good guy" in your book, his Christianity is an asset, an incidental. Carter, for example, though you conveniently ignore his Playboy interview and his gratuitous (I suppose) discussion of his faith and how he had lusted in his heart (as if anyone asked). Still, he never pandered. Why? Because he is a "good" guy.
If he is a "bad Guy," the Christianity becomes an evil, spuds' laughable concerns about "captives" (in the tradition of the anti-Catholic bias asserted against Kennedy in 1960) becomes paramount, and it is evidence that he is pandering.
"i don't understand why it is so difficult for you (and CalGal) to grasp that there are very different approaches to how one interweaves his faith with public service"
But we DO understand, dearheart.
Liberals using religion = good
Conservatives using religion = bad
Not too, too difficult to fathom, O Eternally Shallow One.
Cut to the chase: You don't like Conservative POLITICS and POLICIES. That's fine. That's perfectly legitimate.
So restrain yourself to arguing about politics and policies. But don't claim it's wrong for religion to influence political thought. You LOVE when religion influences liberal thought. SO there's nothing per se wrong about such influence.
Since you simply object to the end product-- policy--and not the means of arriving thereupon -- religious/moral philosophy--criticize the former and stop pretending there's anything wrong with the latter.
"First, he probably should have taken that opportunity to do away with some of the accusations of stupidity - going off for a couple of minutes on a classical philosopher would have been useful to that end."
Yes. He should have lied and made up a name so DaveM would think he was smarter. Brilliant.
Niner --
"He should have lied and made up a name so DaveM would think he was smarter."
Why do you think Governor Bush would have had to resort to "making up" names?
????
Your long treatise generates a few fairly simple responses: 1) you're covering old ground, 2) no, it doesn't, and 3) you are missing the point.
Now that I think of it, 3 pretty much covers everything.
In one sense, I agree with you that Bush's pandering to homophobes is no more a threat than any other politician's pandering to whomever: you are right that it takes a lot to get something through Congress.
On the other hand, I disagree in this regard: There is a big difference between pandering over lowering or raising taxes, or raising Veterans' benefits, or hiring more school teachers and actually threatening to drag people out of their homes and toss them into jail (which is indeed what the Texas statute allows). A very big difference. It shows something positively vile about Bush's character.
"that it is perfectly okay to throw consulting adults into jail for what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms: he has said he supported the Texas (anti-)"sodomy" law that targets gays only"
Grow up. Name me the high-ranking Texas politicians who are agitating for a change, and who could only get their way if Bush got on board.
No politicians are trying to change the law, save one or two state representatives who are also marginalized on a raft of other issues. Blame Texas, blame people in general, but don't blame Bush for what 40 million people are doing collectively.
Does he strike you as the kind of guy that is familiar with classic philosophers? Not me.
And what Bush said was that it was what the majority wanted.
Majority rules, Ronski. Even in America.
And please explain how this is a "gays only" sodomy law.
Your citation of the Playboy interview is misguided. Carter invoked his faith in that interview as a way of explaining how he viewed his own weaknesses. This was perhaps a sort of personal revelation for which most of the public was not prepared. Unfortunately, most Americans seem to associate moral strength with the "terrible swift sword" of Reaganite conservatism.
Nowhere in that interview, at least to my recollection, did Carter invoke the Bible as grounds for limiting individual liberty.
Does he strike you as the kind of guy that is familiar with classic philosophers? Not me
Actually, he is. He majored in Philosophy at Yale, and averaged an 88 in his major.
The 78 average was his average for *all* courses, of course.
Niner --
He doesn't strike me as the kind of guy who'd cozy up to a biography of Dean Acheson, either, but if he says he has, I'll take him at his word.
It was in the eighties, at least. I THINK it was an 88, but I could be wrong.
I really don't care HOW people come to their political beliefs. If I disagree with their political beliefs, I will argue on them on a POLITICAL level. I will not try to win the argument without arguing at all by merely crying "But your beliefs are based on DOGMA and are therefore wrong!"
What if someone is unwilling to talk on a POLITICAL level? What if they believe that they have access to the TRUTH and are unwilling to compromise? It sounds as though you have a neo-republican tendency, which is funny, if you don't mind my saying, because of your "slightly" caustic discursive style.
Basically, I am just curious as to how you propose to convince anyone of anything - is it solely by showing them how to best maximize their own preferences (i.e. - showing that they would be better off even according to their own calculus in your world?) or does it involve challenging their moral baseline?
It shows something positively vile about Bush's character.
Actually, the scary part is that the need to pander on this issue demonstrates that same characteristic in the public. It's not really the Republicans' fault that it's successful. Were they to ignore the power of these beliefs, some other party would come along and take over.
Nonetheless, the fact that the Republicans have these folks in their ranks right now is the only reason I vote for Democrats.
And Ronski:
The Legislators can repeal the anti-sodomy law any time they like. That's what Legislators do-- write laws, change laws, repeal laws.
Funny that you blame Bush for not doing what he is constitutionally powerless to do. Unless you believe that perhaps one of the powers of the Executive branch is to rewrite laws.
Do you believe this?
"This was perhaps a sort of personal revelation for which most of the public was not prepared."
Much as you were not prepared for Bush's revelation as to an influential political philosopher. But the smirk just put it over the top, I'm guessing.
But again, you beat the same drum. Carter is a good guy. So his religion is AOK (ever check his position on gays in the military? Think he used his religion to come to any conclusions on that one?).
But Bush is a bad guy because he is religious and he opposed gays in the military. Indeed, you have gleaned that he does this based solely on his reading of the Bible.
No more. Please.
What a LIAR!
Christ had been discovered by others long before Bush came along.
What a LIAR!!!!
"Shallow One?" Excuse me, Ace, but what have I done to deserve that comment? Are you capable to making it through a day without stooping to such comments?
Now see--is he still missing the point, or am I just missing his?
"What if someone is unwilling to talk on a POLITICAL level? What if they believe that they have access to the TRUTH and are unwilling to compromise? It sounds as though you have a neo-republican tendency, which is funny, if you don't mind my saying, because of your "slightly" caustic discursive style."
Then they have not proven their argument. They have argued poorly and ineffectively and I have won the day.
The fact that they cannont advance good arguments, however, is distinct from whether the position they support is right or not.
Example: A Christian says "Pass the Death Penalty Law because the Bible supports capital punishment."
That's a bad argument--an appeal to authority, and a wholly ineffective appeal to authority to boot if you don't think much of the Bible.
That bad argument, however, does not change the fact that the Death Penalty is a good law for *other* reasons.
Maybe Calvin. Not Hobbes.
Ace
College grades are just that. I'm not sure they are windows into Bush's familiarity with political philosophy.
Trial
Indeed, I have no doubt he read it. He is on record as saying he's not gobbling down non-fiction. He eschewed DaveM's brilliant advice to chat up on some big thinker to attract the university tenured vote.
LC:
Because I get tired of the same shallow thinking from you on every issue.
Conservative = bad
Liberal = good
Conservative mentioning religion = bad, because of the context of conservatives being bad
Liberals mentioning religion = good, because of the context of liberals being good
You chase your tail with these sorts of tautological farts all day long. You might enjoy chasing your tail, but I get dizzy, and bored, watching you spin.
Are you capable to making it through a day without stooping to such comments?
I think history answers this quite definitively in the negative.
That's actually pretty funny - perhaps I just have a pro-intellectual bias (we always want what we can't have?) - but I would hope that anyone running for president would know a little bit about political philosophy.
Say something like Madison, Hamilton, Locke, Hobbes, de Tocqueville or whatever - I am sure that Bush has heard of some of these characters - even if he slept through every philosophy course he ever took.
If you meant that Bush would have been dishonest if he didn't say "Christ," then you have a different understanding of how people rank philosophers that have affected their life than me. The question was ambiguous enough that he could have honestly answered by stating which philosopher provided his preferred rationale for governance, the best theory of leigitimacy, or whatever. He even could have said something like, "Well aside from Christ, John Locke has had the most..." Hey - I'm just looking out for his best interest... he blew a nice opportunity.
DaveM makes an important point on religious conservatives. How does one engage them in a political argument when they are so full of self-righteousness?
I have to go. Please don't take my absence as acquiescence.
I wonder if Thomas Jefferson was a dolt for stating that Christ's words represented the "most powerful, most perfect distillation of moral and political philosophy capable of being expressed in words"?
Seems Thomas Jefferson thought of Christ as a Philosopher.
And yet DaveM would have preferred more predictable answers. "The Founding Fathers." "Locke." "deToqueville." "Madison."
Ho, hum. Collegiate Pap for $200, Alex.
Well, I do the same thing I do when faced with the much more common self-righteous liberal. I tell them they are full of shit.
Although I'm sure I see more self-righteous liberals because I'm a Californian.
And oh, my lord, TS. I just looked at the time. On my way.
DaveM makes an important point on religious conservatives. How does one engage them in a political argument when they are so full of self-righteousness?
Giggle.
Any takers?
We get tired of the same shallow thinking from you on every issue.
Conservative = good
Liberal = bad
Conservative mentioning religion = good, because of the context of conservatives being good
Liberals mentioning religion = bad, because of the context of liberals being bad
You chase your tail with these sorts of tautological farts all day long. You might enjoy chasing your tail, but we get dizzy, and bored, watching you spin.
DaveM makes an important point on religious conservatives. How does one engage them in a political argument when they are so full of self-righteousness?
I mean, is this a joke?
Does anybody really need to elaborate, or does the joke work well enough as is?
"Take away all the muffling... and the words of Jesus Christ represent the most powerful, most perfect statement of moral and political philosophy capable of being distilled into words."
-- Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison.
This pretty much makes Bush's answer something more than acceptable. Politically, it is also a bit more astute than yammering about Locke. Finally, even if he wanted to yammer about Locke, I'm still guessing he would have to prepare, much as I and all but a few esoteric politicians would. So, given that an ability to expound at heart and length on a political philosopher is a boon to you and absolutely nothing to me, Bush was kind enough to impart useful information to us both.
On that note, adios amigos.
Ace,
"Majority rules" hardly takes Bush, or any of the yahoos who voted for the sodomy law, off the moral hook. They are all foul. Your remark is like saying, "Since the Congress voted for tons of ridiculous, useless spending programs, that's fine with me" or "There was a certain consent-of-the-governed in the USSR so the massacre of the Kulaks must have been okay." Pitiful.
I think you are each missing each other's. The point that Spudboy et al. are trying to make is that evangelical Christians are bad not because they are conservative (contrary to Ace's constant foaming at the mouth), but because they are anti-democratic, in the sense that they do not accept the will of the people or our Constitutional limits as binding on them and want to reshape our country to meet their concept of Utopia, regardless of whether they are dragging others to that point kicking and screaming.
However, it is certainly a charge that liberal secular humanists are open too, as well.
You are welcome to ignore me. Did I ever tell you that you are an incorrigible asshole?
The fact that religious conservatives are by definition "conservative" probably never crossed your mind. As someone else already asked, how many times has Al Gore invoked the Bible as grounds for limiting personal freedom?
And talk about rhetorical farting, your comment that liberals prefer equality over freedom is laughable, as if the two concepts were mutually exclusive.
Since
"ALL political and moral judgement devolve ultimately to a purely *arbitrary* ranking of values. Liberals arbitrarily assign "equality" a higher value than "liberty"; when the two conflict, they will choose forced equality over liberty. Conservatives rank them the other way."
it appears that convincing someone is impossible. I think the death penalty is wrong. To fit the norm of what I think is desirable (rationality) - I come up with a few policy arguments against it. If you refute my policy argument (say: "brutalization" - the death penalty actually increases violence by devaluing human life, blah blah blah), does that accomplish anything? Why bother with the search for policy arguments if they are only used to legitimate one's arbitrary preferences?
In short - why is it worse to justify something "because God told me so" than "because I arbitrarily think that it should be so?"
Spuddy:
No, dearest. I don't fault Gore for WWJD. I don't mind the man believes in Jesus, or even tries to conduct himself as he imagines Jesus might. Though what Jesus was doing in the Buddhist Temple taking $5000 a head from penniless nuns, I don't know.
It's called consistency. If I deem a practice "acceptable," I deem it acceptable for ALL, not just for my fave raves and boytoys, while self-righteously saying it's evil for my political opponents to do.
The Clinton Flagellation Tour was different, of course, because that was obviously false. That bothered me not due to the religious element, but the sheer counterfeitness of it. He could have been weeping like a pussy in front of atheists and it still would have been false, manipulative, and pussy-like.
But if Joe Lieberman mentions God, I don't mind. If Al Gore talks up Jesus and wonders, "Hmmmmm, What Would Jesus Do Here? Take the money. Yuhp," that's fine by me.
And when Bush does it, I don't mind either.
"Consistency."
Look into it.
The Texas law specifically outlaws gay (same-sex) "sodomy" but permits heterosexual sodomy. Have a good time there, on your next trip. Unlike you, I will defend anyone's right to do so.
"The point that Spudboy et al. are trying to make is that Jews are bad not because they are conservative (contrary to Ace's constant foaming at the mouth), but because they are anti-democratic and greedy and materialistic, in the sense that they prize wealth over the public welfare."
""The point that Spudboy et al. are trying to make is that blacks are bad not because they are lazy (contrary to Ace's constant foaming at the mouth), but because they are lawless and purely concerned with their own instant gratification and sexual pleasure."
""The point that Spudboy et al. are trying to make is that fags are bad not because they are vile and immoral (contrary to Ace's constant foaming at the mouth), but because they have declared war on nature and are determined to drag the public kicking and screaming into their own nightmare of sexual deviancy."
"In short - why is it worse to justify something "because God told me so" than "because I arbitrarily think that it should be so?"
It isn't. That's the point.
So did Keyes, for that matter - I thought that he would come up with some firey, esoteric philosopher that could shed light on his notion of "serfdom." Even Nozick would have been good - but the founding fathers? They would probably laugh at half of what he says.
Go back to abusing plaintiffs. It's more productive than trying to parody me.
"I think that the more important distinction is that Jefferson's remarks to Madison were contained in a personal correspondence. They were not aimed at a particular faction in a vote-getting context. There is a world of difference between noting one's beliefs in such a personal context and pandering. Bush is pandering, but if you have fallen for it, then I don't know what else I can say."
LC -
Your alleged distinction just doesn't work. Whether in personal correspondence or not Jefferson was explaining the basis of his political philosophy. Bush answered the question in a debate. Are you saying that it was OK for Jefferson to have that view because he kept it private, but that if he was asked the same question publicly in a debate that he would have lied about it?
Basically, what you're really doing is ascribing ulterior motives to what Bush said. I agree that there are several posible reasons Bush said what he did:
a) He believed it; b) The question threw him for a loop and he blurted out the first thing that came to mind; c) he was pandering to a particular group; d)
You have selected c) as Bush's reason. I've tried to find the factual basis for that assumption from your posts andit seems to arise from the fsact that you don't like his facial expressions. Basically, you don't likehim and you don't believe him. Fair enough?
"Take away all the muffling... and the words of Jesus Christ represent the most powerful, most perfect statement of moral and political philosophy capable of being distilled into words."
Is this a genuine quote? I know there have been bogus quotes of religiosity attributed to the founding fathers, so I looked for this in an internet search. However, I couldn't find it. (Of course, this may prove its genuineness; if it was phony, I'd find it dozens of times!)
Ace Message # 10609:
This is "you people's" strategy....
No, no strategy there, just a simple observation. I believe you're an atheist, I just don't recall ever having seen you take a hardline atheist tack, and defend that against proselytization. It seems that, more than just the absence of belief in God, atheism would also be the active feeling that religious expression would be a consummate waste of time and money. Maybe not.
Either way, that wasn't an attempt to discredit your previous arguments. I just found it a bit odd.
Message # 10611:
I too wish Evangelical Christians would stop being so fucking *weird* and just be like the rest of us.
So do I. If that's "bigotry", then fine, I'm a bigot. It has nothing to do with me "thinking every shit I take is perfect", it has to do with my feeling that some people make it clear that if elected, they will use their faith to determine what they do as a public office-holder. I don't necessarily think that Bush falls in that category. I do think Bauer and Keyes do.
Again, I don't hate anyone just for being different from me. Live and let live, I say. But that street runs both ways. If I see someone attempting to implement their brand of superstition as law, then I have a problem with it. Simple as that.
Message # 10613:
Eric, like those who have gone before him, conveniently "forgets" to answer all the difficult questions asked of him....
How so? I answered all your hypotheticals as best I could. If I "forgot" something, feel free to ask again. I don't duck anything. You should know that by now.
Message # 10614:
You're just being incredibly silly here. Comparing people who view the Gary Bauers of the world with a little trepidation, with the KKK? Seriously? I don't want to castrate Bauer, or lynch him, or rape his daughters and terrorize his family. Nor do I want to burn a cross on his lawn. I'd like for him, and religious demagogues like him, to understand that not everyone believes the way he does, but that they still have the same rights. Political evangelicals seem to believe otherwise.
At least you're honest about it -- you would have more of a prejudice against a Wiccan running for office, than against an Evangelical. Why? One chants to the "Goddess" in the forest, is non-violent, believes in earth magicks, yada yada. Perhaps it sounds silly, but harmless nonetheless. Certainly they don't attempt to convert, or dictate by political fiat what people (or school students) can or cannot read or watch.
The other (Evangelicals and Pentecostals) do equally odd things, like speak in tongues, lay on hands, and practice faith healing. And there's always money involved. Notice that you don't see any Wiccans on TV, in ugly blow-dried wigs and truckloads of make-up, swindling money out of addled, lonely elderly people. Doesn't happen.
So who's the charlatan between those two choices, Ace? I know, I know. It's the liberal one, as far as you're concerned. For you, this is not secularism vs. religion, it's damned liberals vs. holy conservatives.
Well, Ace has constructed a bit of a straw man there, imho. Because my original argument (and I stand by it) was that an atheist mainstream candidate would get raked over the coals, regardless of his actual policy positions. You said so yourself, you'd have trouble voting for such a man, and I think much of the electorate shares your sentiments in that regard.
Faith is a fine thing. I just would rather that the business of running the nation, and its states and municipalities, be conducted sensibly and rationally, not because Jehosophat 3:16 contains a relevant parable involving tent pegs and camel butter. That certainly doesn't disqualify religious people from holding public office, in my mind. It means that we're all better off when they leave their spiritual beliefs at home and in church, and not try to implement these beliefs as the law of the land.
Faith is a fine thing. I just would rather that the business of running the nation, and its states and municipalities, be conducted sensibly and rationally, not because Jehosophat 3:16 contains a relevant parable involving tent pegs and camel butter. That certainly doesn't disqualify religious people from holding public office, in my mind. It means that we're all better off when they leave their spiritual beliefs at home and in church, and not try to implement these beliefs as the law of the land.
Eric -
So you don't like "them" trying to implement theeir beliefs and the law of the land. Doesn't ANYONE who gets elected try to implement his/her beliefs as the law of the land?
You just don't like the particular belief. Fine say that.
P.S. Jehosophat 3:16 relates to goat chees, not camel butter.
http://www.aracnet.com/~atheism/tochjeff.htm
It contains several letters re: his view of Christ.
Doesn't ANYONE who gets elected try to implement his/her beliefs as the law of the land?
Well, yes, but those beliefs should 1) coincide with the majority of the constituency represented; 2) not impose any undue position upon those who do not share the candidate's particular brand of faith; 3) not conflict with the established principle of separation of church and state.
I don't buy the notion that this is a "Judeo-Christian" nation, personally. Which of the "Judeo-Christian" principles have we built on? "Do unto others...?" All religions have some form of that principle, it's not exclusive to Christianity. Furthermore, our application of even that simple premise has been pretty selective for most of our history.
Not that there aren't some valuable lessons in the Bible that can be applied to life. But some groups are content to focus on certain proscriptions, and feel that they have a god-given mission to apply those proscriptions to all, believer and non-believer alike.
Starr aides had hand in leaking Tripp tape
Gee, wonder if that means Starr committed perjury?
spud --
"Gee, wonder if that means Starr committed perjury?"
I doubt it. Although I don't recall exactly what he said (and don't have any inclination to search the record), I think Mr. Starr was careful to limit his denials to direct involvement with the Isikoff story.
109109
The last few times I've checked into this thread, I've had my fingers poised to ask you if you're channeling JJBeiner. Now, it's clear that you are. He used to be a fairly nice, reasonable person, too.
10715. "He answered as Jefferson or Lincoln might, as was demonstrated with excerpts provided by Ace and myself yesterday."
Oh really, fucking SNORE! Who do you think you're talking to? Are you pretending that there is no difference in what is said in private correspondence and what is said in front of mass media (of which, of course, Lincoln and Jefferson could never have conceived)? And do you think that a private conversation (letter) between two people equals a nonsequiteur as an answer in a nationally publicized "debate" (hahaha-sound-bite fight)?
Hey bud, get a clue - why do you think (gak) no one in the serious media is up in arms about Bauer's constant references to his religious beliefs?
BECAUSE HE WALKS THE WALK (odious though it may be) and TALKS THE TALK!! He has a freakin' background in the subject!
Sigh. Never mind.
Go ahead and BE a dishonest shill.
No, no strategy there, just a simple observation. I believe you're an atheist, I just don't recall ever having seen you take a hardline atheist tack, and defend that against proselytization. It seems that, more than just the absence of belief in God, atheism would also be the active feeling that religious expression would be a consummate waste of time and money. Maybe not.
Why, in God's name, should someone be called to task for not being a militant atheist? Is there some code of ethics that atheists must adhere to? Some Madelyn O'Murray guidelines that must be followed? Obviously, Ace lives a very dissolute and irreligious life. Isn't that enough?
BTW, Pincher, did you see the message from Elliot?
I share your frustration. Niner used to have an appreciation for nuance. It seems that today he cannot distinguish an apple from an orange.
This, after I'd torn apart CalGal's analogy by placing it in the appropriate context, which is far from irrelevant. The concerns people have about the religious right are not hobgoblins and spooks. I elucidated what those concerns are, and received no refutation WRT a single point. (However, I seem to hear frequently that I "refuse to answer ALL questions" -- a point I'll be sure to exploit to the fullest, considering how often I receive no answers to all of my questions or points here from both Ace and 109109.)
Perhaps if 109109 had actually demonstrated that those concerns are mere ephemera, he might have had a valid point. He might have been halfway to demonstrating that I'm a bigot, especially regarding evangelical Christians, rather than merely someone who has sharp and thoroughly reasoned doctrinal differences and political concerns about them. But he'd also have had a fact-laden argument, one he'd have difficulty winning. So it's just easier to go the shorthand, leap to the conclusion that he doesn't want to have to demonstrate, and cut me off at the knees at once, leaving me with the ridiculous and unnecessary chore of demonstrating that I'm not a bigot.
And then he wonders why I get annoyed with him.
The reason I didn't refute you is because Niner and Ace had pretty much covered every point I would have made. Why go through the same thing again?
Look. If you don't like the political aims of a religion, then focus on those. But when you make generic statements about a candidate's relationship with religion and then fuss when you are shown that the same behavior doesn't seem to bother you if the candidate and/or the religion changes, you look flat out ridiculous.
But I'm glad you all have a support group so you can share your pain.
Pincher,
Message # 10422
Message # 10438 was very well said.
Hahaha!
Please tell him the bigot says hello, and wishes he would show up and tell me about all those young boys he seduced on his trip to Southeast Asia.
Oh, never mind. Good night.
Now we have a right wing natural law critique of current law. The major difference is that both camps appeal to natural law theory. There are those in the current rightist critique who are anti-democratic or anti civil liberties. To say that one cannot criticize a religious right winger without being bigoted (as Ace seems to argue) is to eschew judgement for the hobgobblin of little minds. There is a difference between stating that the Taliban, or the Iranian Mullahs or the Algerian rebels are intolerant and anti-democratic and asserting that all Muslims are so. There is likewise a difference between asserting a dislike for Christians who profess that their faith extends beyond "Thou shalt not (insert sin)" to "Thou shall prevent others from (insert sin)" and disliking Christians in general. This distinction seems to fit WRT Carter and Bush.
Why, in God's name, should someone be called to task for not being a militant atheist?
I wasn't "calling [Ace] to task" for not being militant enough, Pincher, I merely stated that his ceaseless defense of conservative-approved religions seemed at odds with his oft-professed atheism. Naturally, you ignore the larger point I made at the end of the subsequent post -- that for Ace this is less about secularism vs. religion than liberal vs. conservative.
It was a joke.
Oh. Okay. After jousting with Ace over this for a couple of days, it wasn't quite obvious enough for me, I guess. My bad.
But you're right. Ace's potty mouth (heh heh -- like I can talk), and his constant masturbating put him squarely in the ranks of the irreligious.
I would agree with you if I had indeed made a generic statement about a candidate's relationship with religion. But I didn't, other than to say that generically I don't mind candidates being religious, though I'm annoyed when any of them make a big deal of it in public (and Gore's and Clinton's trumpeting of their beliefs is in fact annoying to me).
I *did* make very specific, non-generic statements about a specific candidate's (Bush's) relationship with a species of religion whose explicit political agenda I find troubling and with which I quite clearly disagree -- and for reasons based on facts, the candidate's known history, and reasoned doctrinal and political differences, not mere prejudices. Normally this wouldn't be grounds for being labeled a bigot. Obviously not here.
Who looks ridiculous? I would say that a dithering half-wit who suggests that principled, reasoned opposition to evangelical Christians' political agenda is somehow analogous to anti-Semitism fits the bill rather well. And sneering dismissals used to disguise flat-out evasions of logical arguments don't come off too well either.
I must thank you for the compliment. Earlier today I confessed that I only have, in fact, 1/16th of a brain. Realizing the pain this caused me, you rush to reassure me that my brain is eight times larger than I had ever given myself credit for.
Such manly sweetness. I'm all choked up.
But go ahead and complain about that, too, if it makes you feel better. I'm feeling magnanimous in my elevated, half-brained state.
Your 1) isn't religion-related at all, while 2) is just a more-vague version of 3). (Heck, what is an "undue [im]position," anyway?) I agree with 3), mind you, but:
Suppose the American Beef Council launches an extensive publicity campaign about how beef tastes great and is really good for you, while pork tastes like crap, clogs your arteries, and, besides, pigs are filthy and disgusting. As a result, 60% of Americans come to believe that pork sucks.
Now, candidates A and B run for president, on identical platforms -- including a ban on pork consumption. (Or, say, higher taxes on pork sales, or a cut in pig-farmers' subsidies, or no more bacon in gov't-funded school lunches, whatever.)
Candidate A is a Unitarian; candidate B is an Orthodox Jew.
Would you oppose one of them more than the other?
Ad:
(to 109) "Are you pretending that there is no difference in what is said in private correspondence and what is said in front of mass media ... ?"
If you believe there's a relevant difference, why not tell us what you think it is? Is it your theory that Jefferson was honest in his private letter, but would have (and should have) lied in a public debate? Or that he lied in the letter, but would've been honest in public? Or what?
"... why do you think (gak) no one in the serious media is up in arms about Bauer's constant references to his religious beliefs?"
Because he looks like a freak, and has no chance of winning. Hence, nobody takes him seriously. Were he the front-runner, his religious beliefs would be Issue One.
CG:
I'm guessing that Spuds was referring to Ace, not to you.
Besides--not even an idiot would say that Ace "dithers".
I agree completely....
(Incidently, you got the 3:16 right, but 'Jehosophat'?...:-)
Once more, with feeling...since you are emphatically missing the point.
"If you believe there's a relevant difference, why not tell us what you think it is?"
Sigh. The difference is: one is expressing personal beliefs that may or may not translate to campaign issues and the other is injecting a nonsequiteur into a public forum as a sop to a constituency percieved as teetering. One is a personal philosophy for which there is evidence showing life-long study, interest, and passion, the other is flashing a bit of upper thigh to the guys in the first row.
"Is it your theory that Jefferson was honest in his private letter, but would have (and should have) lied in a public debate? Or that he lied in the letter, but would've been honest in public? Or what?"
Are you high? The answer is "or what," lest I be accused of evading this pretty odd extrapolation formed as a question.
Because he looks like a freak, and has no chance of winning. Hence,
nobody takes him seriously. Were he the front-runner, his religious
beliefs would be Issue One."
Wrong. Carter was every bit as publically religious as Bauer, and he won. No one would dare mock or make "Issue One" out of a candidates beliefs (as long as they were ostensibly Christian) with that kind of demonstrated life-long committment. It would be political suicide. They'd be slamming him on the inevitable RESULTS of his religious convictions should his agenda succeed, but his "beliefs" would never be called into question.
But that's irrelevant to the discussion anyway. Bush isn't being slammed because he's a Christian, he's being slammed because he's whoring his (supposed) Christianity.
And 109109 knows that.
Thanks. I'm glad someone appreciates my contributions and thinks they're worth discussing.
Lincoln's reliance on Christ's teachings as a moral beacon in the formulation of policy, if you will, is quite different from touting one's faith as a vote-getter.
Point one. The above statement makes sense. As Adrianne said in #10838, Bush is getting slammed because people do not THINK he was sincere when he made the statement. I can understand that. I'm skeptical of the true sincerity of the statement myself, although I've got no cold, hard facts which tell me what Bush believes in his heart.
10438. LadyChaos - 12/15/99 6:21:36 PM (con't.)
But even Lincoln derived his primary moral guidance from the words of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.... Lincoln understood the dissonance between the majority faith of the Nation and the morality that was mandated by our founding documents. At the end of the day, he chose the latter for moral guidance.
The above statement, however, is where you lose me. I think that if you point me to any of the major premises in the founding documents that I can find you a Biblical teaching that supports the premise. Moreover, how can you even say that Lincoln saw any dissonance between the two? Can you point to anything Lincoln ever said or wrote that expressed any disagreement between the principles of government as he saw them and the Bible?
USA TODAY
One year after President Clinton's controversial impeachment by the House, half of all Americans say they approve of the action and 42% say the Senate should have removed him from office - a major shift in public attitude against the president.
Last December, when the House of representatives approved two articles of impeachment against Clinton for lying about his relationship with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky, only 35% of Americans said they agreed with the action while 63% said they opposed it, according to a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll taken at the time.
A survey conducted last Thursday through Sunday found that 50% of those interviewed now agree with the House decision to impeach Clinton, while 49% said they disapprove. The new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup poll also found that 42% of Americans said they disagree with the Senate decision to acquit and allow him to remain in office, compared to 29% who disapproved last December.
Aren't these polls the wackiest?
I saw 56%.
cite
Some of the analysis is different from Ace's story:
"One possible interpretation: a year ago, the public favored some form of punishment but did not want to see Clinton removed from office. Now, knowing that impeachment didn't lead to Clinton's ouster, more Americans support the House's decision because it was the only form of punishment Clinton suffered."
Also left out were other poll results which showed public felt Congress not fair and impartial 52-44, public against charging Clinton with a crime when he leaves office 62-35, public believing impeachment process was harmful to the country 64-35, and that the public's opinion of Clinton as a person did not change in the last year.
--Also left out were other poll results which showed public felt Congress not fair and impartial 52-44
Meaningless. Most pro-impeachment types believe this as well.
--public against charging Clinton with a crime when he leaves office 62-35
Irrelevant.
--public believing impeachment process was harmful to the country 64-35
Of course it was. That is uncontested. But, of course, Clinton was to blame for it.
--and that the public's opinion of Clinton as a person did not change in the last year.
Yes, it did. Clinton's already low personal approval ratings took a nosedive when the allegations came to light. You can't get too much lower than his 35% personal approval rating, or 25% honest and trustworthy rating, or "shares the same morals and ethics as you" rating in the teens.
Y'all left out the most important stat: 99.9% of those surveyed believe that William Jefferson Clinton is still President of the United States.
For the past several months, since August actually, I've been deeply involved in Willie Brown's successful re-election campaign for Mayor of SF. Somewhat unusual for me, battling a leftist and a gay opponent, I was a Precinct Captain and Election Day Precinct Leader for the Brown campaign. Down 'n dirty, street fighting, retail campaigning at its best.
From today's SF Comical: "As for the secret of [consultant Sado-Jack] Davis's success: 'The field operation. Slugging it out and walking every Saturday (PLUS!). THese new[campaign] consultants don't like it because they don't make any money off of it but it wins elections.' "
Yes a Willie-slide. Early on the campaign identified likely "occasional" Brown voters (1 or 2 votes cast over the past 4 elections). These votes were confirmed by precinct canvassing and phone banks. Over 90,000 were id'ed. On election day, squads of volunteers repeatedly walked precincts checking off those who voted against the list of Id'ed occasional voters. Regular voters were largely ignored on the theory that they vote anyway and are reflected in pre-election poll numbers.
Educated guess at the impact? Brown's vote % increased 5-9% over what it otherwise would have been.
(BTW, busy at work, but will come back later to see what you've done.)
Don't be a stranger here, mote's Clinton enablers are brain dead need your help.
Because I found wonderfully entertaining the past day's debate on whether discomfort over the invocation of God's name in political discourse is purely based on one's liberal or conservative leanings, here is an op-ed piece by Charles Krauthammer on the same topic. In pertinent part:
In Monday night's Iowa Republican debate, God (in his various incarnations) got 21 mentions. Al Gore got two.
This is odd. After all, the candidates on stage were not running for House chaplain. And they will most likely be running against Al Gore. (Bill Bradley, it might be noted, got precisely one mention.)
But it is more than odd. Such ostentatious religiosity is unseemly. Public religiosity is bad enough. Public religiosity in pursuit of political power is even worse.
For those who take religion seriously, it is sacrilegious. For those who are secular, it is scary. You watch these debates, brimming with God talk, and you catch a whiff of the Taliban.
And Willie Brown is not a leftist? And Ammiano isn't?
Anyway, jexster, congratulations on your man's victory.
"Such ostentatious religiosity is unseemly. Public religiosity is bad enough. Public religiosity in pursuit of political power is even worse.
For those who take religion seriously, it is sacrilegious."
THis is simply untrue, no matter how many times the atheists/agnostics/"I go to Church, sure, but I sure the hell don't *believe* in Jesus like those other freaks" crowd repeats it.
Morton Kondrackie stated the other day, as I have, that it is simply an Eastern/casual Christian belief that one should keep quiet about the Big J.C. Many, if not most, truly religious Christians believe in evangelizing-- which means spreading the word, for those of you who don't know.
...and it's odd that the same folks who believe in forgiving Clinton for the occasional rape wish to crucify George Bush for daring to mention Jesus Christ's power of salvation.
Ace --
"... it's odd that the same folks who believe in forgiving Clinton for the occasional rape wish to crucify George Bush for daring to mention Jesus Christ's power of salvation."
Perhaps those people are not convinced of either.
No.
Ace Message # 10852:
Morton Kondracke stated the other day, as I have, that it is simply an Eastern/casual Christian belief that one should keep quiet about the Big J.C. Many, if not most, truly religious Christians believe in evangelizing-- which means spreading the word, for those of you who don't know.
Fair enough. But there's a time and place for everything, isn't there? Krauthammer's right, they're not running for chaplain. Their moral convictions are important to know, sure, but evangelizing is unnecessary and irrelevant.
A certain amount of honesty about one's religious beliefs is more than acceptable, but the GOP is pandering to the Christian Conservative cadres, and given the more extreme statements of some on the religious right, the whole picture is distasteful.
Barry Goldwater was right: Jerry Fallwell and his ilk deserve a kick in the butt, if only because they are giving Christianity a bad name. And Goldwater was no Eastern liberal. Remember, he wanted to saw the East Coast off the country.
"political conservative of moderate stripe"
Would you like to translate that into English?
And, everyone, please have a nice weekend. Christmas is coming.
Dan,
You are unfamiliar with the English, "moderate conservative?"
Ronski --
Is that like "moderate Islamic fundamentalist?"
Trial,
You know, it is a bit like that.
Can you point to anything Lincoln ever said or wrote that expressed any disagreement between the principles of government as he saw them and the Bible?
First, I refer you to the rest of my post number 10438, in which I pointed out that the Bible would be compatible with a broad range of political structures and social institutions, including slavery, whereas Lincoln clearly interpreted our founding documents as being incompatible with slavery.
Second, to say that Lincoln's political morality was centered on those founding documents does not mean to say that they were incompatible with his faith; it is to say, however, that in choosing a political direction, he always referred to those documents. When he referred to his faith, it was always in a display of humility at the task before him, a plea for guidance in his conduct as he sought the proper path for enacting his political philosophy of maintaining the Union first, and abolishing slavery second.
My problem with Bush was effectively summed up by Adrianne. He used the name of Jesus to flash a little leg to the religious right. I find this troubling for two reasons: (1) It shows that he's not afraid to pander to an element that wishes to establish a theocracy and thus threatens our constitutional way of life; (2) It demonstrates a contempt for religion in general, because it strikes me (and a number of pundits and persons on this thread) that his new-found faith is grounded in opportunism and that it lacks the kind of philosophical depth that one would hope to find in a serious political figure.
Thanks for posting MSG number 10850. Krauthammer said exactly what I've been saying, albeit more eloquently.
But this was a 'political' pollster. Thing took half an hour. Would of been about 5 minutes but I wanted to make up my own answers.
Either I am real funny or real stupid, Cause the pollster chuckled often. Will know how I fared when plea for $ comes from whatever candidate.
Is Gore the best the left can do? If he wins the nod there will be a Republican in the White House..I.'m crossing my fingers.
I love it when the pollsters call me.
I do, however, beg to differ on your assertion that there isn't a "left in America". Oh well I guess.
john k --
I got called by a pollster during the last election, but it was a sham; the guy worked for the challenger in my district and was doing "push" polling. You know: "Do you believe children should be allowed to live full and happy lives? Did you know that the incumbent favors killing children and drinking their blood? Doesn't that make you want to vote for the challenger?" About that heavy-handed.
I hear that John McKeating would seriously consider leaving the Republican Party in order to be a presidential candidate for the national party who is the highest likely bidder (presumably the Independent Party) if he doesn't get the Republican nomination.
Whatever happened to supporting the winner of the nomination? If he jumps ship, it will show that support only goes one way in McKeating's book.
connie --
The toys have all been put away in your attic.
*Somebody* posted:
"Do you think the left has a real presence here?"
Of course they do. As a matter of fact, for the most part they're as Leftist as they wanna be. Not having a 'viable' presidential candidate in no way argues against the existence of the 'real presence' of actual Lefties. It *does* says something about the viability of their social policies, OTOH.
Witness the American Communist Party, the DSA and the Congressional Progressive Caucus. One can rest assured that these are indeed Lefties who are quite 'present' in American politics.
Thanks for reminding us once again how worthless your posts generally are, Trialiar.
Thanks for reminding us once again how worthless your posts generally are, Trialiar.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Governor Bush, you're a big handsome lug with a snappy line of patter. How can the American people be sure that you won't have some sad little fat girl rimming out you're asshole in the Oval Office.
GEORGE W. BUSH: Christ. Because he changed my heart.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Mr. Bauer?..Oh, Nevermind.
Yours is a wholly emotional argument. Public or private reliance upon an expression of faith is par for the course for many politicians, then and now. Lincoln invoked God and Scripture quite often. Jefferson wrote in a missive that American political philosophy is derived from the teachings of Jesus, a fact that is relevant to the issue of whether Bush's answer during the Iowa debate was apropos (it was). Strangely, you have glommed onto the fact that the letter was private, as opposed to public. As Stumbo pointed out, that fact is incidental.
You have also determined that Bush is whoring his religiosity. Spuds has determined that Bush's religiosity is dangerous (i.e., that Bush as a "captive." The conclusions make you a guesser, and a relatively transparent one at this isue, and Spuds a hypocrite (for he does not spread the butter of his "papist menace" to Gore, ostensibly because Spuds, like many, believes that Gore is just scamming up his "What Would Jesus Do?" and thus, Spuds is made confortable).
As for Bauer, Stumbo is correct. Bauer's religiosity is not an issue because Bauer is a bit player, not because Bauer "walks the walk" of being a true Christian. You have determined that Bush does not walk that walk, but your determination is devoid of fact (at least, on this thread). It appears to be something you just know.
Trust me. I noticed your nuance. Distilled, it is as follows: Christians politicians who glean things from their religion that Lady disagrees with (Bush) are bad. Christian politicians who don't (Lincoln, Carter) are good.
There is no question you have posed to me that I have avoided. And while I labeled you a bigot, let me retract, to save you the pain of having to clear your name. On the issue of Christian politicians, you are not a bigot, and I withdraw the charge. You are more of a schizophrenic discriminator. Akin to a redneck who only dislikes light-skinned blacks.
Like Lady, Christianity in politics is AOK as long as the Christian politician is reading the Christian dogma in a way Spud would read the Christian dogma. If the politician is not reading the dogma as such, it is not enough for you to simply disagree with the Christian politician. Instead, you must pierce their faith as well, questioning whether, as a Christian politician, they are "captive" to the snake handlers and speakers in tongue. It is a tried and true slur, not very novel, and something less than bigotry.
We know the same camps did not arise when Gore stated that prior to decisions as President, he would ask "What Would Jesus Do?" ala'"Polly Want a Cracker." Would there have been the same camps had Bradley stated that the political philosopher who most influenced him was Jesus Christ? Doubtful. He would have been heralded as a soulful, spiritual man, and the answer would have been lionized.
Finally, those in the "all invocation of religion is bad" camp, race yourselves. The two card monty some are playing now (Bush is a whore, Gore just a well-meaning man of faith quoted out of context) is wearing thin, and religiosity will be invoked in this campaign by both Gore and Bush, leaving your asses in the wind further.
I take Gore at his word that his faith is paramount and inextriably intertwined with his politics (it is not uncommon for men at the ages of Gore and Bush to yearn for more than communion once a week and a round fo golf. I also think that religion is a reasonable area of inquiry. Indeed, given the attention it has received here, my point is proven.
I am really astounded that you could be so disingenuous in your characterization of my argument.
Simply put:
Politician "A" says: "My beliefs guide my conduct in pursuing my policy goals." Fine. That threatens no one. This is the Lincoln-Carter application of publicly-professed faith.
Politician "B" says: "My beliefs are determinitive of my policy goals. In other words, I seek to enact my beliefs into law." Bad. As Charles Krauthammer (no liberal, last I checked) said, that has to be alarming to non-believers and, I would add, to persons whose faiths don't agree with that espoused by "B". It doesn't matter to me what those beliefs are. "B" could be a politician whose religious beliefs correspond 100% to my own, but I would be vehemently opposed to translating those beliefs into laws that everyone else would have to follow.
Politician "A" espouses religion as his personal means of coming to grips with the trials of leadership. For politician "B", religion is the endgame, it defines his legislative agenda, and he spouts religion as a means of attracting votes.
You have yet to demonstrate that Lincoln exploited religion to get votes. And please, please show me where "Jefferson wrote in a missive that American political philosophy is derived from the teachings of Jesus." He did not write any such thing.
You make distinctions without differences. Bush opposes gays in the military, let's say, because he agrees with the military that they are disruptive. He is also a Christian and privately, he believes that gays are sinners.
Carter opposes gays in the military because he agrees with the military that they are disruptive. He is also a Christian and privately, he believes that gays are sinners.
Clinton supports gays in the miltary because he disagrees with the military, but when push comes to shove, he buckles. He is also a Christian and he is unsure as to whether homosexuality is a sin, and his moral view of homosexuals enters into his thought processes, maybe making his buckling more personally palatable (i.e., it's not like gays are blacks).
Where lies the problem with any of these approaches?
Answer. There is none. The Christian politician who lets his religion "guide" his political sensibility is all of the above. You know it, as do I.
But the politician who uses religions as "endgame"? He is bad. It's just, he does not exist, even in the form of Gary Bauer.
It is merely a question of how firm the hand is guided. Yet, you create your own very fine lexicon so that you can make what appear to be meaningless distinctions, so that you cna then make meaningful political choices.
Now, I must run. But, rest assured I will respond to any questions you pose. On Lincoln, I provided the cites as to his public pronouncments of faith. On Jefferson, I will also reply, in that you have questioned the quote and I relied upon it after being posted by another. As I understand it, you are alleging that the provided quote is a forgery?
I leave with a question. Of our frontrunning evangelists (Gore and Bush), at this stage, who have you determined is healthily "guided" and who, if anyone, is "captive"?
Bush suggests that Texans who need food assistance are already receiving it. I guess it's like his claim that the air is cleaner. If you're hungry and not getting food, it's your fault. If the air is visible, it's because you drive in traffic too much and not because he's giving breaks to industries who pump out pollution faster than we can breathe.
Judith:
Food Insecure?
FOOD INSECURE???!!!
What the hell is that supposed to mean?
Is the government now charged with keeping track of its constituents' weekly finances, in order that they may anticipate those days when a $.39 box of macaroni & cheese and a $.25 can of green beans will have to suffice, so that they may rush in and supplement this "inadequate" meal with a nutritious tin of peanut butter?
Listen...this is called "living from week to week". If this is to be the new standard of poverty in this country, then you'd better be prepared to support about half this country's population with such nutritious supplements.
I've no idea what the U.S. Department of Agriculture report entitled "Measuring Food Security in the United States" meant by the phrase "food insecure". Bush must share your disbelief.
It doesn't matter; he has stated it doesn't exist so I guess everyone is eating hearty. Look, I'm only reporting what the article said...it said "basic food needs" weren't being met "at all times". If no one shows up at the fund raisers with rickets or scurvy, I guess the report can be discounted.
I suppose I should be heartened that he has an opinion or has read the Cliff Notes to the survey; I was under the impression reading "stuff" wasn't his bag.
The inability of organized religion, like the inability of society as a whole, to deal with the simple fact that a greatnumber of people are attracted to members of their own sex is major social and cultural failure
I'm reading James Merrill's memoir, "A Different Person" at the moment. I can't reccomend it strongly enough. Merrill (as in Merrill Lynch) was of the generation of wealthy Americans who sent their queer progeny abroad, so's as not to scandalize the nieghbors at home.
The result: a great American poet, and One Fabulous Queen.
This past week, I added another friend to my list. He was an amazing person and went far too soon...
In todays paper, he[Bush] says he doesn't believe the federal study that shows 13% of Texas households are "food insecure" or unable to meet basic food needs at all times.
I didn't read the article (I don't even know what paper), so I cannot comment definitively on what the Federal study intended to conclude, or what Bush meant.
However, if the point of the article was that 13% of Texas households need Federal financial assistance, then this is not the correct conclusion.
The monetary incomes (supplemented by food stamps) of almost all American families are sufficient to provide nutritious meals for their families. To the extent that families are not eating nutritious meals, it is the result of either choice or ignorance.
I'll go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of American families do not know to cook nutritious meals on a limited budget. This begs the obvious question of whose fault this is. Is it information that should have been provided in high school education? Passed down from parents? Or other means? Is it the responsibility of government, or other societal organizations to provide this information? Has the private and religious sector fallen down in this area?
I don't know all the answers, but it is a subject I'd love to discuss.
On Lincoln, I provided the cites as to his public pronouncments of faith.
And not one of those pronouncements demonstrates that Lincoln ever pandered for votes on questions of religion as it relates to political goals. In every one of those quotes, Lincoln referred to the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as the driving force behind his political aims.
Again, simply put, Lincoln essentially stated that the Declaration of Independence is inconsistent with the institution of slavery. Ending slavery was his political goal. He invoked his religion only in seeking guidance for the best way to achieve his political goal, or as a way of explaining in the conventional parlance of the day why a God who cannot be for and against the same thing might choose to allow the war to continue on.
On Jefferson, I will also reply, in that you have questioned the quote and I relied upon it after being posted by another. As I understand it, you are alleging that the provided quote is a forgery?
I can't vouch for the validity of the quote, but I am assuming that it is reliable. What I am saying is that the quote does not support the conclusion you have drawn from it. Saying that the teachings of Jesus Christ constitute an ideal political philosophy is not the same thing as saying that America's founding documents are derived from Christian philosophy. You know as well as I do that, in other correspondence, Jefferson stated unequivocally that the United States was not intended to be a Christian nation.
I'm sorry I don't know how to link to the story but it is on page 1, section A of the Fort Worth Star Telegram (www.star-telegram.com) and was written by Jay Root, from the Austin bureau of that paper.
I agree that many people haven't a clue as to what nutritious meals entail and would rather spend more money on junk or fast food than plan healthy, inexpensive meals. However, there are wretchedly poor people who need food and in this area of GWs state, we are experiencing very low participation in things like Food Banks and community pantries. It seems as people in the mainstream become more prosperous, their level of charity is sinking.
LadyChaos I like your distinction in Message # 10881
However, it is very grey, rather than a bright line.
More importantly, I am guessing that you assign Gore to "A" and Bush to "B". While I wouldn't quarrel strongly with assigning Gore to "A", his WWJD put him further along the line than Bush.
Am I correct that you imply that Bush's comments qualify him as a "B"?
As an aside, you characterized "B" as "bad". Why? It is not, despite uninformed rhetoric to the contrary, unconstitutional. People have a variety of ways of forming their policy goals. Some choose polling, some invoke pragmatism, some hew to the party line, and others try to follow the philosophy of some individual. You reject religion as a source for policy goals. Can you explain which methods are acceptable, and what distinguishes acceptable methods from unacceptable?
I'll go out on a limb and say that the vast majority of American families do not know to cook nutritious meals on a limited budget.
I'll go out on a limb and say that this may be partially true, but one has to consider the time pressure on today's family, as well. Cooking economically takes a lot of one's time - selecting ingredients, preparing, cooking, etc. A single parent working two low-wage service jobs, or a family with both parents working, might still have to struggle just to find time. My guess is that the lack of know-how and time interact.
More importantly, I am guessing that you assign Gore to "A" and Bush to "B". While I wouldn't quarrel strongly with assigning Gore to "A", his WWJD put him further along the line than Bush.
I agree that Gore was pandering. I expressed my dismay at that earlier in the thread.
Am I correct that you imply that Bush's comments qualify him as a "B"?
I'm saying that Bush is pandering, flashing a little leg, to a faction that clearly supports "B"-types. This is not as bad as the Robertsons, but it is troubling in that it demonstrates a lack of philosophical depth. (And that is, admittedly, a wholly subjective opinion.)
As an aside, you characterized "B" as "bad". Why? It is not, despite uninformed rhetoric to the contrary, unconstitutional.
See my MSG #10894.
Bush questions hunger report
"$.39 box of macaroni & cheese and a $.25 can of green beans"
Where the heck do you live that you can get mac'n'cheese for $.39 and canned green beans for $.25??
*end aside*
I got the feeling that Mr. Root might be attempting to embarrass Bush in the last paragraphs of the article. Reading his quotes, he sounded rather rube-ish. "....the federal role, to the extent that it's focusing on children, needs to demand for results and standards and high accountability" sounds awkwardly phrased and that's only one example.
My husband and I have a description of this sort of thing; it's called McNicholing. We once read an article in Esquire interviewing Kristi McNichol and the reporter hardly said anything, only quoted her answers to his questions extensively. She sounded like an utter fool but couldn't accuse the reporter of doing a hatchet job because he was letting her own remarks do the job for him.
In todays paper, he says he doesn't believe the federal study that shows 13% of Texas households are "food insecure" or unable to meet basic food needs at all times.
A minor correction. If Bush took exception to the conclusion about the percentage of "food insecure" households, it wasn't noted in the Star-Telegram article. He was quoted as taking exception to the contention that 5% of households have children going hungry.
The report distinguishes between "going hungry" and "food insecure".
I'm not trying to be a nit-picker, but they are two different concepts, and I want to make sure that when we discuss the issue, we make clear which one we are discussing.
JudithAtHome
It seems as people in the mainstream become more prosperous, their level of charity is sinking.
I think the evidence supports the opposite conclusion.
Christi:
You must not shop very frugally. My wife and I and our kids love mac-n-cheese. We always have a stash of 10 or 12 boxes. Of course, we'd never pay the regular price - we wait for the sales, then buy a whole bunch - at Meijer they even have have it on sale for $.19 one day a year. (And I'm talkin' Kraft here...not the bland store-brand stuff).
Same thing with canned veggies - even in this somewhat rural area, between the 3 major supermarkets you can always find the 4-for-$1 can sales at least once a month.
Even so, we're talking about the difference between a meal that costs at the most $1.30 and at the least .$65 or so. Even when doubled for larger families or bigger appetites, it's not a stretch to say that a family of 4 can easily eat nutritiously (most people's practical definition of nutritiously anyway) for less than $50 a week.
On NPR yesterday, David Broder and Diane Rehm made statements that charitable contributions are down nationwide. In my city, pictures run in the paper showing empty shelves in the food pantries and the call has gone out for help with the holiday food baskets for the poor. The Toys For Tots program was way below the usual donation level but that may pick up next week.
I'm glad your area shows the contrary but mine does not. What evidence did you mean when you said it supports the opposite conclusion?
As an aside, I'm expecting Stumbo to be in shortly to resuce the good name of Ms. McNichols.
I wasn't talking about my area (I have no idea about my area) but nationwide. I'll try to find some data.
I agree with you. On occasion, my daughter has some friends over for a sleep-over, and they often arrive before our dinner time. We invite them to stay for dinner, and several have expressed surprise that eating a sit down dinner is a usual event for us. I must remember to tell my wife, I probably don't express my appreciation enough, but I gather that many families do not have a sit-down, made from scratch dinner several days of the week.
I'm not sure where the data specific to Texas resides. I could not find it this report, the prior report, nor the technical supplement.
He has all the time in the world to do this. He gets a piddling amount of food stamps, but still runs short at times. He never buys processed foods save for the occasional potato chip.
If a couple are working two jobs, and eventually tire of mac and cheese, tuna cassarole etc. it isn't always easy to make it on food stamps. Even poor kids watch commercials and want pop and chips and other junk food as a treat. That makes it even tougher.
I'm sure there is a way to feed people both cheaply and well but I think some are beyond it, whether it be lack of money or lack of an understanding how to do so.
Being able to buy Portobello mushrooms and canned paté is grand but some can't even afford Spam.
Well, therein lies the problem--your post indicates an assumption set that you should realize isn't shared. Where is it written that we should all give a damn if poor people living on direct government assistance don't like the food that is quick to prepare but don't want to take the time to think through a better menu?
Perhaps, just perhaps, joezan, I shop very frugally indeed, but simply live in an area with different prices and was simply momentarily surprised at the particular prices you posted. (no Meijer here, btw)
oh, never mind
Perhaps they should be able to upgrade their expectations. That is a legitimate argument. But it is by no means the majority view in this country, and I'm always struck when people (not just you) casually mention the complaints of the poor.
Exactly--as we've just discussed, food is very cheap in this country. But you have to be prepared to be ingenuous if you don't have as much money and want to vary your diet. Convenience is a luxury.
Did you make a lot of chicken noodle soup? That is wonderful and very inexpensive.
Well, therein lies the problem--your post indicates an assumption set that you should realize isn't shared.
I read your post three times, as well as Jonesatlaw's two posts. I thought he made a lot of sense, but I'm not understanding your point. What assumptions is he making that he doesn't realize are not shared?
(Of course, vows aside, should I be in that position again, I expect I will once again eat whatever is nuitricious and cheap.)
Total Giving Increased 10.7% in 1998
Excerpt:
In 1998, Americans contributed $174.52 billion to nonprofit organizations, according to Giving USA 1999. This represents a 10.7% increase over the revised number-$157.59 billion-for 1997. Personal giving by living individuals represents the vast majority of charitable contributions-77.3% in 1998, totaling $134.84, nearly a 10% increase over 1997's revised number. Giving to religious congregations and denominations continue to receive the largest share of support with 43.6% of the allocated dollars, up 4.6% in 1998.
I'm not familiar with the group that tabulated the conclusions( American Association of Fund-Raising Counsel), so I'm not proposing this as the final word on the subject.
He said something about politicians expecting charities and churches to take up the slack if government programs were cut back but that the churches and charities would most likely get help from the government for doing so...does this make sense?
Thanks.
What utter crap. I’ve said nothing about Bush’s religiosity being dangerous. What I’ve said is that his pandering to the evangelical right in this fashion helped me decide not to vote for him, because it made clear whose religious camp he has chosen to join. Gore’s pandering -- and that’s what it is as well -- is not aimed at the evangelical right. Rather, I think he’s just pandering to the Christian mainstream, who deploy that annoying “WWJD” nonsense as readily as the Christian right. Gore has never referred to Jesus as a political philosopher, but the evangelicals to whom Bush is (I believe) ultimately captive often do; indeed, they claim that Christianity is the pure foundation of the nation itself.
These are reasonable distinctions, I think, and not merely a product of hypocrisy or “schizophrenic discrimination.” Understand: churches like mine (United Methodist) and other so-called “liberal” churches -- which are actually straight out of the historical mainstream of theological thought, while fundamentalists are a relatively recent development who have garnered very little theological respect, except among their own ranks -- are in a real doctrinal struggle with fundamentalists. I make no apologies for making my own choice in this fight.
Agreed. This is no different than any other issue, political or otherwise, that a politician might address. Unless you think we vote for people who take positions that are diametrically opposed to our own.
If the politician is not reading the dogma as such, it is not enough for you to simply disagree with the Christian politician.
Oh really? When have I indicated anything other than that I disagree with him -- and that such disagreement is cause for me to decide my vote? Or, again, do you think I should just overlook the disagreement and not include it in the calculus of my vote?
This, despite the fact that Bush responded to a question, and then did just about everything you could do not to elucidate on his personal religious convictions.
No shit. In fact, that for me was the real giveaway -- Bush hasn’t thought out his religious beliefs well enough even to elucidate them (and, I might add, this is another indicator of the other major factor in my deciding against him, which is his real intellectual shallowness). This is one of the real doctrinal problems I have with fundamentalist Christianity in general: It is reflexive, unthinking superstition cloaked in Christian garb. Fundamentalism, I believe, actively discourages intellectual exploration of one’s faith; instead, it relies heavily on a brew of strict appeals to authority, shallow literal interpretations of Scripture, and blind adherence to lockstep thinking. This is why I believe it’s not about living spirituality, but thought control. (And I say this from considerable personal experience; when I first became an active Christian, it was as a fundamentalist. I’m still recovering.) And I think Bush made it abundantly clear that this is the kind of “Christianity” to which he adheres. Thanks, but no thanks.
That context includes a history of declaring the United States a "Christian nation" and urging the institutionalization of Christian beliefs in the system; of demanding a return of prayer to schools; outlawing abortion; of warning that we are on the verge of takeover by a "New World Order" dominated by "international bankers"; of declaring that the separation of church and state is a "myth." It includes a record of electing "stealth" candidates to school boards, county councils and state legislatures. It includes a long history of rhetoric indicating an extreme intolerance to people different from them, notably eeevil liberals and gays and lesbians out to promote a "homosexual agenda."
I haven't heard anything like that coming from Jews or mainstream, non-evangelical Christians (who comprise, I might add, considerably more than 10 percent of American Christianity). You haven't heard anyone declaring this a "Jewish nation." You don't hear demands to bring the nation's laws into line with their religious beliefs. What you *have* heard is a consistent demand that the separation of church and state remain intact, to protect their beliefs and those of every citizen in the country from being bulldozed by a self-righteous faction that believes in forcing its theology on everyone else.
When Bush makes his allegiance to these forces as clear as he has, it is not hard to decide not to vote for him. Not because I think he is himself dangerous, but rather, because I expect him to toe their line. I would fully expect him, for instance, to appoint justices to the Supreme Court who are inclined to overturn Roe v Wade. Well, not with my vote.
On NPR yesterday, David Broder and Diane Rehm made statements that charitable contributions are down nationwide.
I'm trying to track this down, so I can hear what was said. I'm guessing it was the Diane Rehm show?
Here is her schedule this week. I don't see David Broder listed, but perhaps this will help you identify which show you listened to.
So when they declare that opposition to their agenda amounts to being “anti-Christian,” I have to laugh. Many genuine Christians are opposed to their agenda, because ultimately it means imposing their rather narrow religious views on all of us -- Christians or otherwise. It is, as I say, a genuine cause for concern.
Now, since you have promised to answer all questions, let me pose my own hypothetical: If Hasidic Jews were to begin declaring the United States a “Jewish nation” and were to vow to impose their agenda on the rest of us by tearing down church-state separation, and actually began achieving success at the ballot box, electing stealth candidates to public office and passing legislation aimed at tearing down the church-state wall, would you find that a cause for concern? If presidential candidates began pandering to their beliefs rhetorically, would you vote for them?
How about if atheists were to do the same?
What utter crap. I’ve said nothing about Bush’s religiosity being dangerous.
Strong statement. Especially in view of the subsequent posts. Let's examine:
In Message # 10930 you say:
In fact, that for me was the real giveaway -- Bush hasn’t thought out his religious beliefs well enough even to elucidate them (and, I might add, this is another indicator of the other major factor in my deciding against him, which is his real intellectual shallowness). This is one of the real doctrinal problems I have with fundamentalist Christianity in general: It is reflexive, unthinking superstition cloaked in Christian garb.
You attribute a property to Bush—inability to think through beliefs sufficiently to elucidate them—and in the subsequent sentence, identify this property with fundamentalists.
Do you consider Bush a fundamentalist? If not, why on earth would you construct a paragraph this way?
In your next post Message # 10931 you say:
Now, is fundamentalism ultimately dangerous? Probably,...
Tell me why I should not read your posts as concluding that Bush is a fundamentalist and therefore dangerous?
Well, I don't know how you could miss it when it's there in black and white...except for the fact I misidentified Daniel Schorr as David Broder. I'm sorry; no wonder I'm looked on as a hack.
It was the first hour of Fridays show, the weekly roundup. Toward the end.
I'm listening to the show now—I took the chance that you might have made that substitution.
I'll warn you that I have a very dim view of Daniel Schorr. I can think of no other person who is better at sounding like he is saying something important, while saying nothing.
Interestingly, they discussed this controversy over Gore and Bush re Christ, but I only half-listened, because I was waiting to hear about charitable giving.
I'm sorry; no wonder I'm looked on as a hack.
BTW, I don't share this opinion.
It will take you as long to listen to the entire program as it took me to make 5 dozen sausage balls yesterday. :-)
Quoting the Bible as support for political objectives puts one on a slippery slope, because the range of political philosophies which the Bible can support is much broader than the range of philosophies permissible under our Constitution. In other words, our form of government is but a small sub-set of forms of government that would be acceptable under theocratic dogma.
This is an interesting observation if true. My planned question to you (until reading your subsequent sentence) was this: If your concern is that religious inspired philosophies might violate the Constitution, would you accept a solemn promise from them that they would pursue no programs contrary to the Constitution?
However, you then say:
To invoke the Bible as a basis for a political goal sets a dangerous precedent, even if it is consistent with Constitution, because it opens the door to all kinds of factionalist demagoguery, invoking the name of God and His Word as a justification for a wide range of actions.
How is this different than any other rationale for a policy program?
I am trying to find out why using religion, as opposed to another source of political inspiration, can be broadly rejected. You started by suggesting that these people might seek unconstitutional programs. This is easily countered, but now you suggest that the programs, even if Constitutional, might invoke God. I'm sure I am not capturing your position, so I hope you restate it, but at the moment, it boils down to a concern that the politician may invoke God and/or the Bible.
It will take you as long to listen to the entire program as it took me to make 5 dozen sausage balls yesterday.
You will undoubtedly be the winner of that exchange.
BTW, Diane wishes David Broder a Merry Christmas at the end of the show.
I found the reference. If you want to check it out, it runs from minute 37 to minute 41.
It wasn't Daniel Schorr who made the comment, it was a caller, named David. He asked about proposals to funnel government aid through faith based institutions. As an aside, he said that charitable giving was down (according to the Dallas Morning news), but none of the program participants picked up on that comment. They went on to discuss the ramifications of using faith based institutions. At the end of the segment, a woman (other than Diane) made the statement that demand (for food banks etc.) was up, but no one on the show expressed the belief that charitable giving was down.
JudithAtHome
Not to worry. I try to do two things at once, and often fail. I was literally typing that the caller made the statement without even giving a reference, when I heard him say he read it in the Dallas News.
I went to the Dallas Morning News to see if I could find the article. I did a search on charitable, and found the following:
3. Headline: Individuals, firms donating less to poor despite prosperous times
Relevance: 100%
Writer: New York Times News Service
Published: 12-12-1999
Page Number: 11A
Word Count: 201
Summary: As incomes of the better-off Americans rise in this age of prosperity, charities report that individuals and companies are donating less to organizations that support the homeless, the young and the hungry than they did in leaner times. Leadin...
I'm guessing this is the article the person referenced. (Searching is free, but retrieving carries a charge, so I didn't read the whole article.)
However, the same search identified this article:
1. Headline: More Americans giving to a good cause, fund-raisers say
Relevance: 100%
Writer: John Lang / Scripps Howard News Service
Published: 12-17-1999
Page Number: 52A
Word Count: 1030
Summary: WASHINGTON - Santa's helpers this year are named mud, flood, hurricane, hunger, earthquake, AIDS and ethnic cleansing - and stock market, and rising income. As the season of giving approaches, Americans are digging into deep pockets in. ..
How is this different than any other rationale for a policy program? . . . I am trying to find out why using religion, as opposed to another source of political inspiration, can be broadly rejected.
If religion was just another way of looking at the world, I would agree with your (implied) point. But while a political ideology based on the ideas of Milton Friedman may piss some people off, it is not nearly as divisive as one based on something as deeply personal as religion (or the choice to not be religious). This is especially true when one considers that, for some, religion is inseparable from ethnicity.
Perhaps I'm overreacting because, after all, the fundies could never successfully enact unconstitutional legislation. Right? Well, even the fundies recognize that, which is why they have and will continue to attempt to change the Constitution. Moreover, the more I learn about the Supreme Court's recent history of decisions on drug enforcement matters, the less confident I am of that institution's vigilance in defending the Constitution.
You must also remember that invoking religion raises emotions so high that it can even lead moderates and some liberals to go running off the cliff. DOMA was a particularly nasty example of this phenomenon.
It is for these reasons that I find it important to make sure that the religious right (and any politician who would "flirt" with them) be kept on the margins of political power.
If religion was just another way of looking at the world, I would agree with your (implied) point. But while a political ideology based on the ideas of Milton Friedman may piss some people off, it is not nearly as divisive as one based on something as deeply personal as religion (or the choice to not be religious). This is especially true when one considers that, for some, religion is inseparable from ethnicity.
Interesting point, but I do not accept the implicit point that religion is so much more divisive than any other basis for forming a political agenda. Lenin espoused a political philosophy on a basis other than religion, and I daresay the only reason it wasn't more divisive was the platform plank outlawing dissenting opinion. Dictatorships formed on the basis of "I'm right and you're not" scare me far more than Gary Bauer of Alan Keyes.
You won't get any quarrel with me if you point out that religious zealotry is responsible for deaths in the tens of millions (at least). Nor would I advocate, or accept, a government along the lines of an Islamic republic.
Perhaps I'm overreacting because, after all, the fundies could never successfully enact unconstitutional legislation. Right? Well, even the fundies recognize that, which is why they have and will continue to attempt to change the Constitution.
Many groups advocate making changes to the Constitution. If they cannot get a super-majority to agree, they won't succeed.
If you are simply expressing unease with the zealousness of people like Gary Bauer, I'm with you. But if you are making a broader, principled assertion that no person should be elected if he or she derives their political position from religious principle, I'm failing to see how religion garners special status.
Ah the Newspaper Article. It appeared in the SF Independent. By way of background, I developed an intense dislike of Mayoral Candidate/Gay Radical Tom Ammiano a few years back when he rudely responded to an e-mail I sent him. I mentioned the e-mail exchange (in the following article) to a friend in the Brown Campaign who passed it on to the Press SpokesModel who passed it on to the newspaper. REVENGE!
"City Hall Notes
With supervisor TOM AMMIANO opposing incumbent mayor Willie Brown, who has long been an outspoken proponent of civil rights for all people, in the December 14 runoff election, some voters in San Francisco's gay community find themselves in a quandry over which candidate they should support.
One voter, though, attorney JOHN MCCUTCHEN, who has repeatedly voted for Ammiano in past elections (my bad!), is rethinking his position this time around based, in part, on an e-mail he received from the supervisor during the height of the General COLIN POWELL controversy, when Ammiano was denouncing the military for its policies on gays."
On November 25, 1997, McCutchen wrote to Ammiano: "I am a gay San Francisco voter, an attorney who has been active in Democratic politics since I was 8 years old. I have lived here for 20 years. I am appalled at you opposition to Supervisor Newsom's resolution thanking General Powell for his fund-raising work for children in this community.
Your tenure on the Board has been characterized by a myopic and irresponsible focus....Your representation of the community at large and of the gay community is becoming an increasing embarrassment, especially to me, who has consistently voted for you each time you have stood for re-election.
This may well change. Please forward a copy of this letter to Supervisor Newsom.
To which Ammiano replied: "I pity you. You are full of self-hate. Forward it to Newsom yourself and embarrass yourself further."
McCutchen said he could not believe Ammiano's reply.
"I used to work in the United States Senate, writing constituent letters, and you don't ever write something like that back to a voter, " McCutchen said. "To me the pissy tone of his reply is very revealiong. It indicates just how intolerant Ammiano, who insists he's capable of holding a dialogue with all sides, really is."
Ammiano, for his part, said he received alot of e-mails during the Powell controversy, but **he acknowledged that he remembered McCutchen's***(!!!!!!)
"I don't remember the exact content, but I remember that it was very incidiary and insulting. I was simply reacting to his e-mail," Ammiano said in reply
tsk...tsk...tsk
Ronski,
In SF, as you know, things are not normal. Ammiano is so whacked out left, he makes Willie Brown look like Gary Bauer.
Tell me why I should not read your posts as concluding that Bush is a fundamentalist and therefore dangerous?
Thanks for pointing this out. I can see I didn't really clarify this point. I really don't have a clear picture of Bush's faith. To the extent that he is a fundamentalist (and I'm not sure how much of it is public image and how much of it genuine, but I would be last in line to hazard a guess on that score), he is a follower and no more dangerous than any minion, though he would wield considerably more power than the average schmoo. But he's not a leader. Bauer? Yeah, I think he's dangerous. Reminds me of Chucky.
You've just described Bauer and Keyes.
Thanks for the Ammiano post, jex.
Judith:
That's "Krist*y* McNichol," FWIW.
And she didn't sound like a fool -- merely a spoiled brat. Which, I'd guess, is not untypical of 20-year-old Hollywood stars.
At any rate, for those who give a shit, the text of the interview can be found here.
I'm crushed. She smokes. I suspect that doesn't bother you, but it does me. My day is in tatters.
I don't disagree that Keyes and Bauer fit into the "I'm right, and you're not" mold. But they are vying for elected office, not dictatorship. I doubt I'd vote for either one (although Keyes is becoming more interesting in my mind), but my world wouldn't come to an end if either were elected to an office that includes substantial checks and balances.
Thanks for your response.
ButterfieldSwire says that Gore and Clinton are fundamentalists. Do you know? Does that make them dangerous? Or are they not leaders?
Just to be clear: When I said that Bush was not a leader, I was referring to the fundamentalist movement, and obviously Gore and Clinton don't fit that description either. He could be a natural political leader for all I know, but he has not taken a leadership role in fundamentalism that I can detect (unlike, say, Bauer).
Thanks for the link...I am impressed with your interest in the subject! :-) In future, I will take care to correctly spell her name.
Hi, Jexster. Come back, soon.
Funny stuff. Who says you don't have a sense of humor?
Why, praytell?
I had thought of Keyes as a Johnny one-note. Impassioned perhaps, but narrow in his range of subjects. I caught a bit of him in a recent debate, and concluded that he painted a broader brush.
I don't make it a practice to e-mail people. I also don't make it a practice to hound people over every single thing they do or say but in your case, I may make an exception. Not in any way to suggest you are exceptional...
Opponents use the curious logic that integrating gays would be disruptive because of the prejudice held by the majority in the service. Prejudice is used to justify discrimination!! The same arguments didn't stop Harry Truman from ordering the integration of blacks into the military. A stronger President and better military leadership than we now have overcame prejudice against blacks and will do so one of these days for gays. Now is the time for informed and tolerant politicians, soldiers and citizens to speak out for justice on this issue.
1) Who invented the Internet?
2) Who introduced the EITC into law?
3) Who discovered Love Canal?
4) Which party controlled the Senate in 1993?
5) What real life people, if any, were the major protagonists in 'Love Story' based on, and which characteristics were borrowed from those persons?
Thanks for the information. I was finding the speculations about GWB 'caving in' to Christian Fundamentalism baseless and, therefore tiresome, but hadn't got around to debunking it myself, yet. Additionally, I don't think that would be something one would to to attract the Hispanic vote.
I wouldn't know for sure, but it wouldn't surprise me if 'Home Economics' is one area of school education that is being neglected in our 'take out' society.
Bradley played him like a fiddle.
Bradley: cool, calm, collected and funny.
Gore: nervous, high strung, very insecure, constantly cutting in on other speakers, misstating earlier comments, and not humorous.
Folks, if Bradley is the nominee, it will be a race. I might even vote Democratic. If not, GOP wins in a landslide.
Diva:
He wasn't dancing around the question - merely harkening back to the days when he put in many long hours toiling on daddy's tobacco farms in order to bank away enough pennies for prep school.
Why, if I could do it, then surely some Catholic kid can do it, he was gonna say. But just before the words came out, he remembered:
It was TOBACCO that killed my sister...OH, the shame...
--Washington Post, regarding yesterday's MTP debate.
"What utter crap. I’ve said nothing about Bush’s religiosity being
dangerous."
The words of spud, on Bush:
10469: "My problem isn't with Bush saying he had faith in Christ. My problem is with his recurring implications that his style of believing is the only true path to salvation."
10508: "Personally, I do read Bush's comments as once again suggesting that *he* is righteous, and others who don't take the same path are damned. It probably has something to do with that smirk."
10548: "Well, I certainly haven't had a "frothing conniption" about Bush's remarks. I rather mildly indicated I thought they were ill-advised. And the reason I believe they're ill-advised is that, in this country, our political leaders are supposed to be the leaders of us all, regardless of our faith. I don't want a president who indicates he'll only be a president for evangelical Christians. Nor do I want one who believes that people who believe differently from him are going to hell."
10563: "If evangelicals can't contain their religious beliefs, even when they're running for a secular public office, then why should I trust them not to force their religious beliefs down our throats when they hold positions of secular public power? Especially in a nation where there is a firm separation of church and state? That certainly was the chief reason not to vote for Pat Robertson. He made it
quite plain he intended to "make this a Christian nation again." And when I hear G.W. Bush natter about his faith in that mindless parroting fashion to which all evangelicals are prone, I rather suspect he'll go down the same path."
10718 - "Now, Bush's remarks in themselves were pretty innocuous. But they come in an important context, including his own previous pronunciations that only evangelical Christians can get into heaven (which he was less than convincing in backing away from). More important is the concern of people like me or even more conservative folks like Jay Severin or William Safire -- and that is the lingering question of just how captive Bush is to this faction of evangelical Christians, which has been trying to increase its political clout for the past 20 years with only limited success. Personally, I've been looking for reasons to vote for Bush, but my biggest worry is that
his "compassionate conservatism" is just so much empty rhetoric, to be replaced by his willing concession to a variety of extreme-right-Christian policy decisions once he is elected. And he gave a pretty clear answer, I thought, in that debate: He is indeed a complete captive of those interests, so complete that he will pander rather brainlessly to them in a national debate."
In spuds' eyes, Bush is a "captive" of the evangelicals, a veritable Pat Robertson, fears abound as to the path he will choose. Indeed, spuds suggests that Bush will go down Robertson's path to make the nation Christian again. So, while it is "utter crap" that spuds called Bush's religiosity dangerous, he indeed has consistently labeled Bush's religiosity dangerous.
On what basis? A 1993 statement, some conservative views, his labeling Jesus a political philosopher, and his having had his heart changed by Jesus.
Well, probably less than that.
"When have I indicated anything other than that I disagree with him -- and that such disagreement is cause for me to decide my vote? Or, again, do you think I should just overlook the disagreement and not include it in the calculus of my vote?"
As my excerpts of your writings demonstrate, you have done much more than indicate your disagreement with Bush. You've accused him of being a captive to the evangelical Christian horde. Now that your prior words appear in stark contrast to your meek, newer protestations ("I merely disagree with the man, not his religiosity"), I have no quarrel with you. I too disagree with
the man on issues. In doing so, however, I don't find it necessary to label him a toady Christian who will tow the Robertson line and be a "complete captive" to evangelicals (your words).
But of course, after reacquaintance with your earlier foolish opinions, which no matter how you backpedal are the carbon copy of allegations 40 years prior that Kennedy would be a "captive" to the Vatican, it appears your labels make even you sheepish.
As well they should. Welcome to the light.
"thought control. (And I say this from considerable personal experience; when I first became an active Christian, it was as a fundamentalist. I’m still recovering.) And I think Bush made it abundantly clear that this is the kind of “Christianity” to which he adheres. Thanks, but no thanks."
Of course, had I known your personal experience, it would have spoken volumes. I'm reminded of a friend's father whose sister had been raped by a black man. He was not particularly enlightened on issues of race and crime, and thoughtful discussion of either was really quite impossible.
Sorry to be off topic.