State Rep. Fred Jarrett is switching parties - R to D - and will run for the State Senate next year in the 41st District. Will the last Republican leaving the Legislature please turn out the lights?
I don't have time for much comment at the present time, so for now I leave you with David Postman's lengthy blog coverage here and here, plus the print coverage in today's paper. Here's the P-I's story too.
We have to shed the Mr. Burns image and put forward a Progressive agenda that is more in tune with the basic American need.
It is not only a republican problem. Conservative dems are being shown the door as well. If one is pro-life or does not support gay marriage, try being welcomed in the dem party. I believe that back in the day that each party had a spectrum of views. It doesn't seem possible any more because of the drive for ideological purity which is why I believe the number of indies, like me is growing.
Posted by: WVH on December 14, 2007 09:00 AMTherefore, he took the easy way out. He didn't want to campaign and took the word of the Ds.
Did you read his rationale? The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility? That statement sealed it for me.
Posted by: swatter on December 14, 2007 09:01 AMIt's probably a symptom of a Republican Party that promotes candidates that are more for sale than principled. It's to be expected that a politician that is for sale may switch to the highest bidders.
"The Democrats are the party of fiscal responsibility?" That's a good laugh! The only fiscally responsible thing from the Democrats is a determination to raise taxes sufficiently to keep close to their spending. And in their perfect world, they'd taxes every penny and spend even more to buy every American's vote.
Posted by: MJC on December 14, 2007 09:47 AMThere is absolutely nothing wrong and every thing RIGHT with being a person of faith. To allow the power hungry secular brats make this a negative is outrageous.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 09:55 AMAnd this is supposed to mean something?
Posted by: jimg on December 14, 2007 10:07 AMThat being said, Peggy Noonan raises a very good point in the WSJ today. I am far more worried about Huckabee than I am about Fred Jarrett:
"I wonder if our old friend Ronald Reagan could rise in this party, this environment. Not a regular churchgoer, said he experienced God riding his horse at the ranch, divorced, relaxed about the faiths of his friends and aides, or about its absence. He was a believing Christian, but he spent his adulthood in relativist Hollywood, and had a father who belonged to what some saw, and even see, as the Catholic cult. I'm just not sure he'd be pure enough to make it in this party. I'm not sure he'd be considered good enough."
I'm sure having Nancy consulting astrologers to set Ron's schedule would go over real well with the Christian Coalition.
The founding fathers came here specifically to flee from government mandated religion and fought NOT to eliminate faith but for each and every citizen to have the right to participate in their own faith without governmental interference. Can you not grasp the difference?
Furthermore, I find it disgusting that secularists want to rewrite history. You cannot and you WILL NOT change the truth: America was founded with an awe for the God that endows us (yes, that includes secularists and God-haters) with FREEDOM.
Take your blinders off and LEARN about your country.
Take your blinders off and acknowledge the truth of history.
Take your blinders off stop being fearful of the faithful.
Take your blinders off and thank who or whatever you worship FOR the faithful...
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 10:39 AMThere's no way we'd be as understanding of Mrs. Reagan as you guys were with Mrs. Clinton when she channeled Eleanor Roosevlet and had running conversations with her...
Posted by: jopalm on December 14, 2007 10:48 AMFace it, the Republican party is 2: The Bombs and Jesus crowd, that could give a rip about federal deficits as long as they get a war, and fiscal moderates like this.
The hateful bile spewed by the Right on all things Democratic doesn't help.
Y'all can see if you can find a mirror on that one. Meanwhile, who can blame moderates from deserting Republicans? They ARE defined by their extreme elements, until their moderate ones publically denounce them.
Posted by: DaveD on December 14, 2007 10:53 AMWhat I got in response was a religious rant that didn't even attempt to discuss the substance of the question.
I guess that answers my question.
(I would still welcome a rational discussion of this issue. I am sincerely interested in how persons of faith view the traditional conservative principles of Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater. I am looking for a discussion, not a jihad, Ragnar.)
Posted by: fred on December 14, 2007 10:56 AMI am 47 years old, property owner, hate taxes. Married, kids. Employed (and posting at work!).
Not in a union, hate them. Hate the NEA most.
Yet.... I can not in good conscience vote for any Republican, because of the dumbass neocons that start wars as foreign policy, who care nothing for the deficits they create, and who are allied with the Fundamentalist Army who wants to quarantine gays and elect pastors to the presidency.
So, Moderate Republicans ... Those among you that want to actually win elections in Western Washington .. I believe you'd do well to divorce yourselves from the Bedroom Police, from the war mongering Bushies, and from any other criminals first... and stop Fox Newsing every issue out there into Democrats this and Democrats that.
But - but - but - Clinton is a joke that died 10 yrs ago.
How many of you here drive guys like this out of the Republican party? Think about it.
Posted by: DaveD on December 14, 2007 10:58 AMYour raw hatred speaks volumes and validates every single thing we claim about you secularists.
Your mistaken impression that those of us of faith are all hillbilly snake handlers speaking in tongues will harm you far more than us.
WE are America.
WE are the flyover country citizen you eleistis like to denigrate and ignore... except at primary time
WE are the engine AND the heart of this country and WE are trying to help it retain its soul.
Take a moment to ask yourself why your secular progressives suddenly find God when they are in political fights.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 11:01 AMThe moral decay infesting our country has much more dire consequences than transitory, cyclical spending.... look at dying Europe for proof.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 11:05 AMJarrett has always been a liberal Democrat at heart. I'd rather he join his idealogues on the left than stay in the Republican Party merely for it to have one more vote. When the party presents no alternative vision from the Democrats, why should any sane person vote for a Republican?
Posted by: pbj on December 14, 2007 11:08 AMWhat have YOU done to change the Republican Party? Have you attended any meetings? Do you know how evangelicals got a hold of the party? They got off their asses and went to meetings, ran for positions within the party. If the so called "independent " theory of mass Republican exodus due to evangelicals is true, surely those that so object to them could attend the meetings, take up party posts and outvote the evangelicals. Yet instead, those of you like WVH et all choose instead to whine about how you don't like the party.
Posted by: pbj on December 14, 2007 11:15 AMAnd you expect to get a discussion out of this?
I am nothing of those things, yet you trot out ignorant, left-wing stereotypes as some sort of indictment on my political beliefs. And then have the balls to call us the ones full of hate.
Eff you.
Posted by: jimg on December 14, 2007 11:19 AMSeems to me a lot of the GOP would support a Constitutional ban on Gay Marriage rather than leaving it up to the states where it belongs. This to me is the ultimate form of Govt. oppression since you would be dictating morality from the federal level. A lot of conservatives are still fuming about the Supreme Court ruling that sodomy is perfectly legal when practiced in the bedroom or your private home.
Look at Rangnar, he's still under the delusion that were a Christian nation rather than one made up of many ethnicities and religions all practicing their faith in their own peaceful way. Seems to me the Pilgrims came here to escape the type of religious bigotry and oppression that now permeates the religious right.
Wait till the Ron Paul people start showing up....that will be a great fight.
During 2001-FEB to APR, the Graduate Center of the City University of New York conducted an American Religious Identification Survey (ARIS). It was a massive poll, questioning 50,281 American adults about their religious affiliations during 2001-FEB to APR. 2 They obtained some results that are noticeably different from the Pluralism Project's data. The differences are mainly because they asked their poll subjects what religion they considered themselves to be, rather than what religion they were actually affiliated with.
Results included:
76.5% of American adults are Christian (52% Protestant; 24.5% Catholic).
14.1% do not follow any organized religion; they are Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, or have no religious affiliation.
1.3% are Jewish.
0.5% are Muslim, followers of Islam.
0.5% are Buddhist.
0.4% are Hindu.
0.3% are Unitarian Universalist.
0.1% are Neopagan (Druids, Pagans, Wiccans, etc)
There are many more small religions, each of whom are followed by fewer than 0.1% of American adults.
***
U.S. Religious Affiliation, 2002
(self-identification, Pew Research Council)
In February and March 2002 the Pew Research Council conducted a survey of 2,002 adults. Questions about religious preference were included. The results are below:
Religious Preference June 1996, March 2001, March 2002
Christian
June 1996 84%
March 2001 82%
March 2002 82%
Jewish
June 1996 1%
March 2001 1%
March 2002 1%
Muslim
June 1996 *%
March 2001 1%
March 2002 * %
Other non-Christian
June 1996 3%
March 2001 2%
March 2002 1%
Atheist
June 1996 *%
March 2001 1%
March 2002 1%
Agnostic
June 1996 *%
March 2001 2%
March 2002 2%
Something else
June 1996 *%
March 2001 1%
March 2002 2%
No preference
June 1996 11%
March 2001 8%
March 2002 10%
Don't know/Refused
June 1996 1%
March 2001 2%
March 2002 1%
TOTAL
June 1996 100%
March 2001 100%
March 2002 100%
This table was published in a study titled "Americans Struggle with Religion's Role at Home and Abroad", released on March 20, 2002.
The authors listed are:
Andrew Kohut, director of The Pew Research Center For The People & The Press
Melissa Rogers, executive director of The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life
Methodology:
"The nationwide survey of 2,002 adults, conducted Feb. 25 - March 10 by the Pew Research Center and the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life..."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Hmmm, ever wonder why they put this in and why it's the FIRST Amendment?
Where has congress or the executive branch or the judicial branch established a national religion Cato? Show us the documents.... we're waiting.
The fact that nearly 90% of Americans claim to be Christians is a perfect example of the
freedom expressed in the statement: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
INDIVIDUALS, even millions of them, practicing their INDIVIDUAL faith is not the same as a government decree of a national religion. The buldings and the documents and the history mentioning God and the faithful that offend you so much are simply acknowledging that fact... in much the same way that PC pointed out homosexuals are desperate to do.
I don't believe you Vance, when you say you're worried about Huckabee. I think you and your "moderate" cronies would like all of us social conservatives to hop on the Huckabee Horse. Not so he can win, but so he can split the conservative vote, since the rest of the base, including myself, find him unacceptable on fiscal issues and on the border (in spite of the stunning Gilchrist endorsement). Having Huckabee as keynote speaker for the KCGOP fall dinner was a dead give-away by those in control of the party who fight us tooth and nail in every platform debate on social issues.
Sorry. Not buying it.
And by the way, you and Blathering Michael would do well to read the rest of Noonan's column, especially the last section on the border.
Blathering Michael, thanks for the compliments. Lovely.
Posted by: Michelle on December 14, 2007 11:54 AMFreedom is the very reason the court struck down the sodomy law in Texas. What business does the Govt. have regulating the sexual presences and acts of private individuals int heir own homes? None. What business does the federal Govt. have in regulating the marriage between two men/women? If a person wants to get married should that not be their right regardless of their sexual preference? Is it harming anyone? No.
as i recall, until 2006, there was little else but flag waving and pom pom shaking going on here amongst the r's, with nary a trouble in sight (except of course those islamoterrorists and democrats).
daved has a pretty decent, succint summary of the problems with the r's and the legacy of rovian politics. mobilize the mega-churches to get just enough votes to win precinct by precinct. it wasn't about party, country or god (in that order), for bush/rove, it was about winning. he did, we lost.
so an r has flipped the switch. sounds like a calculated move to hold onto power.
Posted by: dinesh on December 14, 2007 12:21 PMThe problem cato, is that you want to be like the queen: HAVE your cake and eat the damned thing too.
AMERICANS have every right to complain, to lobby, to work within their ability to make it known they do not agree with decisions government makes. YOU, as a liberal in the Bush years should surely appreciate that fact in that that's pretty much all liberals have been doing since he won the presidency.
You don't like OUR opinions, yet you have no qualms shoving yours down our throats.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 12:26 PMAnd yet hear you are cato, attempting, championing and cheering the very same oppresssion.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 12:30 PMRoe anyone?
Sodomy anyone?
Homosexual rights anyone?
Thinking back to the three candidates that were actively promoted by the KCGOP last November, we have Dan Satterberg, Jim Nobles and Jane Hague. Now, if us Bible-thumping Jesus freaks have taken over the party and are driving out all them's that's got straight teeth and don't keep a spit cup on the ironing board, how did these three slip past us?
You can tell which of the commenters here have been getting all of their "information" about the GOP from the weekly DNC emails.
Posted by: TB on December 14, 2007 12:57 PMAnd, again, I ask (for the third time), how is this consistent with the conservative principle of personal liberty?
Apparently, the survey result showing the U.S. is 76.5 percent christian is all the information you need to justify your crusade. Given recent election results, most of those 76.5 percent are apparently tolerant enough not to try to shove their piety down the throats of the 23.5 percent who are infidels.
Recent bumper sticker: "If you don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church."
Posted by: fred on December 14, 2007 01:06 PMNo one is stopping you from practicing your belief, no is stopping you from petitioning the Govt. about your beliefs. They take objection to when your religious beliefs extend into the bedroomsof every man, woman, and child in this country.
If the people of Washington State want to allow gays to marry I see no problem. If Idaho does not allow it, that's their choice as well. I would most certainly object if the Govt. came into your church and said that you must perform gay marriages. That's not the Govt's role. If someone wants to willfully perform a gay marriage allowed under law I have no objections. It's not hurting me, it's not hurting anyone else, it's not decreasing my property values, and it brings revenue to local businesses.
Abortion should also be a states rights issue as well. South Dakota has already pretty much outlawed abortion. If it's the will of the people in that state then so be it. I may disagree with them, and it's my right to do so. Maybe one day the people of the state will feel differently and repeal the ban. Therein lies the right of the people to petition the Govt.
As for the moral degradation of America why is that your concern? What happened to personal liberty? I mean why name yourself after a character in Atlas Shrugged if you can't even bother to follow the books central belief?
Posted by: Cato on December 14, 2007 01:36 PMThe religious right is comprised primarily of those folks who, over time, have completely insulated themselves from the world. They hate the sin, but "love" the sinner, as long as the sinner stays in his/her neighborhood. Don't show up to church unless you've been properly cleaned, washed, hair combed, etc. If the Church would ever get back to being the Church, it would be amazing.
I am not for behavior modification. I'm for life transformation. Consider this...a minister asks another minister how he deals with gay members of his church. The second minister responds with, "the same way you deal with fat members."
I really wish the "evangelical" community would get a clue, but I don't expect it to. Most of them would have taken the woman at the well and told her all the things wrong with her and all the things she had to do to be welcome in their church...not even close to what Jesus did.
Oh, and as a former Southern Baptist...Huck scares me. Can you say Jimmy Carter II?
Posted by: Danny on December 14, 2007 01:43 PM"The GOP's social conservatism inarguably has been an enormous benefit to the party throughout the past 30 years, winning over conservative Democrats and lower-income voters who otherwise might not find the Republican limited-government message appealing. That said, nominating a Southern Baptist pastor running on his religiosity would be rather overdoing it. Social conservatism has to be part of the Republican message, but it can't be the message in its entirety.
Someone needs to tell Huckabee. His first TV ads in Iowa touted him as a "Christian leader," and his target audience of evangelicals has responded. But according to a Pew poll released in early December, only 1 in 7 nonevangelical Republicans support him in Iowa and 1 in 20 nonevangelicals in New Hampshire and South Carolina."
Remember this?
"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state."
It's called Article IV, Section I, and it's what's wrong with the idea of just letting each state decide gay marriage for itself. If you truly support each state making its own decision, then you must also support a constitutional amendment to make an exception for marriages so that they do not necessarily retain full faith and credit state-to-state.
Either that, or just ignoring the Constitution, which is much easier, and generally pretty popular these days.
Posted by: TB on December 14, 2007 02:08 PMSince there is no federal law recognizing gay marriage each state is obligated to follow their own statues regarding the institution of gay marriage. That's exactly what they do.
Posted by RBW at December 14, 2007 02:23 PM
YES! EXACTLY!! Now you have to find one.
Every courtroom - sure why not. They are the basis of the law, Everyschoolhose - that should be left to INDIVIDUAL school boards - not banned and punished. Even better, SCHOOL CHOICE where those whose precious little minds can't abide the thought of worship can go in peace.
They take objection to when your religious beliefs extend into the bedroomsof every man, woman, and child in this country.
And it doesn't. MY opinion clearly doesn't stop homosexual BEHAVIOUR such as their yearly rampages in San Fransisco from happening. Another cute canard, but totally useless.
Given recent election results, most of those 76.5 percent are apparently tolerant enough not to try to shove their piety down the throats of the 23.5 percent who are infidels.
No actually as usual, you have that ass backwards - it is YOU the intolerant and every one so easily offended that want the MAJORITY ... it this case well beyond a supermajority to sit down, shut up and hide.
Well guess what? YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED. You hate Christians? Fine stay away from us. It's no different than peanut allergies - you can't eat them but don't expect the rest of us to stop eating them and to hide the fact that we do.
Furthermore I don't care what you opinion is on homosexual marriage or goat marriage or teapot marriage - it is simply another example of you trying to change the arguement, you still trying to lump every American of faith into the bigotted stereotype you've invented and promulgated. You game won't work with me. Nice try.
Regarding moral degradation, you are a fool if you think that it only refers to abortion and homosexuality. It most certainly does not.
It refers to respect, most of all SELF respect.
It refers to the culture of parents dressing little girls like whores and Hollywood continually denigrating fathers.
It refers to "heroes" that are drug addicts and criminals, while true heroes, men of faith, patriotism and service are spat upon.
It refers to politicians who are more interested in power than in service.
It refers to children learning that oral sex isn't sex; that hooking up is in any way acceptable; that foul language is hip and cool, that parents don't have to be obeyed, that competiton makes someone feel bad, that the government will solve all your damend problems so you can sit and whine.
Just a thought...
Posted by: Jack Turk on December 14, 2007 02:53 PMAnd, again, I ask (for the third time), how is this consistent with the conservative principle of personal liberty?
They are the guard rails that keep us on the road. They are the Liberating truths that keep us from self destruction. They are the wind under our wings, they are the sun on our face, they are the light to us. They are all about personal liberty because the group the big F Fred has just joined are individuals that will Never believe a man can govern himself by any principles other than the ones Fred and his Cabal Decide and we see where those laws get us, tragically.
Who is free? A man that pumps his veins full of drugs, a man that fornicates with his wife's best friend because he is 'free' to do so or a man that craves guidance that never fails, never betrays and never misleads?
I pity Fred and I pity you fred for walking further away from your liberty and deeper into your chains. What could Fred offer you that is More than the two guiding principles in your question? NOTHING. Of course he'll tell you all the great things he is going to do for you and all the things you are going to be 'free' to do but it is only his nasty trickery to get what he wants and either turn you into a henchman or a has been.
How in 250 years did a ragtag group of Europeans build such momentum and pass on such a legacy that a nation could rise to such great heights and shove darkness off many lands across the globe thousands of miles away from home like never seen before! Because the 10C's and prayer were in courthouses and classrooms and in everyone's hearts.(To my public school teachers I did pay attention the question is how much as a nation will we now pay?)
It is a different path to reconsider the redirecting your life to but oh it is very liberating and freeing and we don't need any of man's laws to tell us to do that. Now heart/think it over.
Ironically man's laws are often geared to and have the presumed ability to erase the 10C's and prayer and such but they only strengthen it. At the end of the day you have worn out dictators, destroyed lands but the liberty of the 10C's remains and the land will be restored! There is no middle ground folks.
BTW this is not an R's vs. D's argument as much of the postings split it into it really is about the issue of who will is going to be imposed and on whom.
Are you going to DECIDE to LET God free you with his will in you or decide to enslave yourself to your will and try and enslave your brother as well? Ironically you can even take your will and call it Gods will and then try to impose that as well. Examples - Islamists, Imperialist Japan. Or you can take your will declare it good for all and try and impose it like Legal Foundations, Eco Terriorists, Green Extremes, AlGorebists, Humanists, Brueacractists, Democracts that declare smoking bad and teaching homosexual history good! etc.
Bottom line there is nothing wrong with separating Church and State the problem is one church has taken over the state and is imposing this bizzare will on us all. It screams that a few R's are going to take over yet we have a government pearched and ready to take much of our civil liberites away because for 40 years those 10C's and prayer were driven from all of us! Oh how to have had that when I was in school! We have no separation of school and state. So big F Fred wanders around leading us into more problems and little f fred sits and ponders the problems having prayer in school?
What would the world look like if we did have the 10C's and prayer in schools to train our youths in the ways of freedom? It looked good for 250 years.
Posted by: Col. Hogan on December 14, 2007 02:57 PMWe have a far better chance of people understanding our point of view right here in blogs like these. There are tens of thousands of people all over the country, the world, that read all kinds of blogs without actually participating in a particular debate. I know I do... I read about a dozen blogs everyday, mostly right but a few lefty's... I only regularly participate in this one.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 03:00 PMGoash, Ragnar, who in this string might have possibly perpetuated that little stereotype? A sincere attempt at rational discourse results in a full Ragnar rant about God-hating sodomites.
No need to wonder where these sterotypes come from ... .
Posted by: fred on December 14, 2007 03:30 PMBlathering Michael, thanks, but if you're still dreaming about those brownies, maybe you have them confused with brownies you had at another party ;)
Posted by: Michelle on December 14, 2007 03:40 PMI don't care about gay marriage. Let 'em marry - it doesn't bother me. So let's nip that one right in the bud shall we?
I asked about abortion and civil rights. I see your classification of abortion as a state's right issue in contradiction of your classification of civil rights as not being a state's rights issue. Don't get me wrong here, I am not arguing for "white's only " signs but rather pointing out your gross inconsistency when comparing your classification of the two.
Perhaps this will help (from the 14th amendment) :
" Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
Reread the bold portion 100 times and think really really hard Cato.
Right now you are probably presuming my argument is for restricting abortion. Again it is not. It isn't for expanding it either. My argument is for some intellectual honesty. Abortion is murder. Yes, it is legal blah blah blah, but it is totally hypocritical to call it anything other than murder. Again, murder away if you want it, but don't tell me it isn't murder or that is doesn't "deprive any person of life". When sanctimoniuos liberals tell us all how awful it is to club baby seals yet turn around and suction the brain out of baby humans, they lose any chance at credibility. This isn't rightwing. This isn't left wing. This is intellectual honesty.
Not once did I use the word "sodomite". Nice try.
The problem is that when WE defend our positions you attack... and your post perfectly illustrates that. You folks learned your lessons well at the knees of the Clintons - that's exactly how they attempt to vanquish their enemies: ascribe their own disgusting behaviour to their opponents then act shocked. Well, thinking Americans are on to that particular con. The only ones that appear to fall for it anymore is the media, but I actully think they are less duped and more perpetuating it for their own agenda.
I don't care what you believe fred, I don't care if you believe. I do care that indignation about those that do believe is setting an nasty discourse in this ugly political season. I do care that a few whiners like you and cato actually think you can deter people of faith. And that's what you don't get. When you are a person of faith, you are not easily deterred. You might want to look up the definition, kiddo.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 03:45 PMYearly rampages? What the hell are you talking about?
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED
Where in the Constitution does it say that? Right next to the right of privacy? What offends you about two men getting in on in the privacy of their own bedroom? You can't see it.
Religious kooks offend me when they come to my doorstep preaching their version of salvation, guess what, I tell them I'm not interested and they leave me alone. No one if forcing you to go to SF and hang out in the Castro.
IIt refers to the culture of parents dressing little girls like whores and Hollywood continually denigrating fathers.
Guess what, sex sells. Jesus knew that, he had a big fit in a temple about it. What was true then still holds true today. Nowadays though there are plenty of Christian options with "good" moral values available to you.
Should I tell my wife to put on a Burkha for she might offend you with her style of dress? Would that please you?
It refers to "heroes" that are drug addicts and criminals, while true heroes, men of faith, patriotism and service are spat upon.
These "heroes" are glamorized because they lead different lifestyles than the 9-5 cube jockey. The reality is always much more grim. People need distractions from their lives, Hollywood provides this and people watch it. If it's considered interesting, more people will watch it.
Men of faith? Who's faith, yours? Why not women?
Can you give me the name of any person of "patriotism and service " who has been spat upon?
It refers to politicians who are more interested in power than in service.
Has this changed in 2000 years? Welcome to the real world.
t refers to children learning that oral sex isn't sex
Why is that the Govt's role? That's for the parents to teach their children.
That parents don't have to be obeyed
Maybe you should ask why did God design children to be so rebellious? We are created in his image right? Maybe you should pray to him to fix your ills instead of trying to be an Americanized version of the Taliban and trying to outlaw everything that goes against your personal (and possibly misguided) moral beliefs.
Those papers refuse to publish those letters. They just laugh and throw them in the garbage. They ony wish to cater to the liberal line, facts be damned. Go ahead and write the editors of those papers and ask them if they are "papers of record". I did. They said they were not. Want an example? Go to the library and look up issues of those papers for the few weeks following 911. The selection of letters printed makes it look as if the country was glad we FINALLY got what we deserved. A historian using those papers as a source would conclude that 911, while tragic was something the nation thought we brought upon ourselves and deserved for our evil behavior.
No letters to the editor work when the papers are close to a proganda arm for a particular viewpoint.
Posted by: pbj on December 14, 2007 03:54 PMI find your ideas intriguing and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Posted by: DaveD on December 14, 2007 04:01 PMIf you want to interpret it that way then maybe we should stop fighting wars and abolish the death penalty. I mean abortions are usually performed by private private businesses (ie Planned Parenthood) that receive no state/federal funding. Death Penalty is actually administered by the state, which seems a much greater violation the 14th Amendment because the Govt. is actively ending a human life.
Govt. funded wars also end human life...if so then the draft would be a violation of the 14th Amendment since your actively forcing people to risk their lives in service of their Govt.
Methinks it better to point fingers AFTER you have followed the criticism you are pointing your finger at.
Just saying.
Posted by: swatter on December 14, 2007 04:03 PMI suspect he's talking about this:
http://www.zombietime.com/folsom_sf_2007_part_1/
And no. It's not safe for work, family or while you're trying to eat.
Posted by: jimg on December 14, 2007 04:11 PMCato,
Read Planned Parenthood's annual report. (p.12) This is PP of W. Washington in 2006 ALONE:
http://www.plannedparenthood.org/westernwashington/files/Western%20Washington/AnnualReport06.pdf
Revenue from federal, state and county grants: $2,841,773.
Posted by: Michelle on December 14, 2007 04:14 PMI am not a lawyer and I would agree with you. The courts are not always consistent in their opinions. Many complexities of America stem from trying to determine what our Founding Fathers meant when they started out with this grand experiment we live in called the United States of America.
The Folsom Street Fair: "photographic evidence the San Francisco government suspends indecency and child abuse laws for a day allowing fair goers to parade the streets of San Francisco, fully nude, engaging in illegal public sex while taxpayer funded police stand-by and do nothing.... children have attend the event, exposing them to "this activity which is illegal child abuse."
But of course, to you that does not represent moral degradation or a lack of decency, does it?
Yep, we have freedom of speech which probably includes that disgusting behaviour, but just because we can do something, doesn't mean we should. A person living a moral life knows the difference.
Can you give me the name of any person of "patriotism and service " who has been spat upon?
Soldiers coming home.
Families at Walter Reed.
Children are rebellious which is exactly why they need a country of moral citzens setting an example.
Your response to little girls being dressed like whore is "sex sells"?
I truly pity you kiddo.
Little girls and little boys DESERVE a life of imagination and sweetness. The do not deserve to be exposed as whores by their parents and yes once again it is children growing up without the example of a moral country that led then to become such parents. Folks without a moral compass accept that "sex sells".
I don't give a whit what your wife wears. I do care if you or she blast foul mouth lyrics where any kids can hear them. I do care if you perform sex acts on public streets.
Your burka comment is typically purposely offensive and you are purposely attempting to equate a moral citizenry with subjugation. You keep trying and you keep failing.
Maybe you should pray to him to fix your ills instead of trying to be an Americanized version of the Taliban...
How predictable. Thanks Cato. Now go point out where I have ever remotely mentioned outlawing anything. You can't because THAT'S your game: assigning guilt to me through the lens of your bigotry.
I do pray to Him and you know what, I have no ills. My family is blessedly healthy in mind, body and soul. We know there is no adversity that can defeat us. We know that in the grand scheme of things that those petty annoyances of our today will be inconsequential in our tomorrow.
Govt. funded wars also end human life...if so then the draft would be a violation of the 14th Amendment since your actively forcing people to risk their lives in service of their Govt.
I suspect you failed history... I know by your pinball thought processes that you never even attempted to pass Logic.
ABC's Barbara Walters Slams White House Christmas Card for including Scripture
By Colleen Raezler of the Culture and Media Institute
LOS ANGELES, CA, December 14, 2007 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barbara Walters likes to receive Christmas greetings from high-profile celebrities and leaders, but apparently not if they refer to the Bible.
On Thursday's episode of ABC's The View, Walters expressed dismay that President and Mrs. Bush would send out greetings containing Scripture.
During the segment, Walters showed the other gals some of the "highfalutin Christmas cards," and explained the White House card:
"First of all, let me show you the cover of the White House, which is nice and bland...So that's pleasant enough. This is what interested me, that it is a religious Christmas card. Usually in the past when I have received a Christmas card, it's been 'happy holiday's' and so on- And this says:
"'You alone are the Lord. You made the heavens, even the highest heavens, and all their starry host, the earth and all that is on it, the seas and all that is in them. You gave life to everything, and the multitudes of heaven worship you.'
"That's from Nehemiah in the Old Testament. I don't remember- and I'm sure people will remind me-getting a religious card. Now does this also go to agnostics and atheists and Muslims and -"
Moderator Whoopie Goldberg and co-host Sherri Shepherd tried to steer clear of controversy by joking that the Scriptures were about Walters, but Walters persisted in her critique, asking, "Don't you think it's a little interesting that the president of all the people is sending out a religious Christmas card?"
Walters showed her co-hosts a Christmas card from Elton John and his partner David Furnish that had angels on the cover. She didn't have similar concerns over the religious imagery as she did about the Scripture printed in the White House card.
Co-host Joy Behar pointed out to Walters that Elton John's card was "religious," and Walters responded, "But it doesn't say anything religious. It says 'Season's Greetings.'"
Later in the show Walters did say, "By the way, I don't want to put down the President of the United States and his wife. I think it's very nice that they sent me a Christmas card."
Christmas greetings can be sent to Barbara Walters at the following address. CMI asks that Christmas greetings be worded in the spirit of the season.
Barbara Walters
c/o The View
320 West 66th Street
New York, NY 10023
(reprinted with permission from http://www.cultureandmediainstitute.org/ )
Now isn't it interesting that good ol Barb actually refers to them as CHRISTmas cards and not "season" cards?
Do you not see how ridiculous your contortions are?
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 04:39 PMSo if your so offended why the heck is a Catholic group posting photos of the event? Why are you linking to it? Are you not spreading the very "filth and perversion" that your rallying against?
By posting and linking to this doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
while taxpayer funded police stand-by and do nothing.... children have attend the event, exposing them to "this activity which is illegal child abuse."
How is this child abuse? All the photos you've showed me seem to be of people engaging in consensual acts. Are the children being hurt by these people?
Soldiers coming home. Families at Walter Reed.
They were physically spit on? Or is this a metaphor? If it is a physical act can you show me or name these individuals that have been spit on?
Children are rebellious which is exactly why they need a country of moral citizens setting an example.
Haha, so they can make all the same mistakes their parents have till the end of time? Moral parents are great, but why are your morals superior to mine? Because you follow some guide laid down by some guy who claimed to be the son of God in a 2000 year old book? 2000 years ago do you think people could even grasp the concept of what happens on this board every day?
little girls being dressed like whore
I wouldn't let my daughter dress like a whore, but I have no right to dictate how other people dress their children.
Little girls and little boys DESERVE a life of imagination and sweetness.
With candy coated gumdrops and unicorns that prance on rainbows. Oh wait, unicorns are not in God's plan, we must abolish them. While we're at it let's abolish Harry Potter too because he flys on a broomstick...for fun. That's not in God's plan either.
children growing up without the example of a moral country that led then to become such parents.
Is it, or maybe it's their overbearing zealot parents who drove them rebellion because they are too controlling. The most messed up kids in my HS were the ones who's parents sounds just like you.
I don't give a whit what your wife wears.
Yes you do...you said so back at #66 when you said "YOU HAVE NO RIGHT NOT TO BE OFFENDED". My wife could offend you with her manner of dress. My wife's friends may offend you with their choice of lifestyle. I've already offended you, you said so yourself.
Frankly Rafnar, I don't give a damn. It's their choice, I don't have a right to tell anyone other than myself and my children how I want them to live. I'd much rather show them the reality of life than hide the truth behind some religious blindfold.
Your burka comment is typically purposely offensive and you are purposely attempting to equate a moral citizenry with subjugation.
Is that not what your advocating? A society of proper moral values enforced by a series of laws based on those handed down to Moses by the hand of God?
Thanks Cato. Now go point out where I have ever remotely mentioned outlawing anything.
You
My family is blessedly healthy in mind, body and soul. We know there is no adversity that can defeat us.
Good for you. My family is fine as well. Does that have anything to do with whether I believe in God or not? I don't think so.
We know that in the grand scheme of things that those petty annoyances of our today will be inconsequential in our tomorrow.
You keep believing that and I will continue to believe something else.
Now go point out where I have ever remotely mentioned outlawing anything.
You said that "The moral decay infesting our country has much more dire consequence". Which implies you want to change things to better fit your morals. That to me implies changing laws to better reflect your values. Outlawing sodomy seems like a good first step right?
I suspect you failed history.
Why, I'm just taking PBJ's interpretation of the 14th Amendment and pushing it to an extreme.
Posted by: Cato on December 14, 2007 05:12 PMThank you Michelle, I was wrong and I now stand corrected.
First, you set up a false standard in implying that advocacy of any laws which restrict individual behavior is an ipso-facto departure from liberty and limited government. But let's get a sense of scale, here. Laws which prevent me from walking up to annoying liberals and shooting them in the face, had I an urge to actually do that, would be restricting my liberty, but a reasonable person could still call this a free country. The existence of a few laws here and there does not make us into a fascist dictatorship, or a theocracy.
Second, look at your list of issues. Ten Commandments in the courthouse, school prayer, "government in the bedroom," and flag-burning. Do you actually know anyone for whom these are their big issues??? I know a few very nice people who get worked up over these, but they just aren't top-tier issues, and they certainly weren't responsible for driving away Fred Jarrett (as if that was a bad thing -- we like a big tent, but Fred only briefly visited the tent).
Third, with your brevity in mentioning these (non-top-tier) issues, you are drawing a bit of a caricature, allowing an over-simplistic image to take hold, and projecting these over-simplistic positions onto all active "Republicans of faith."
* Commandments in the courthouse -- as part of the artwork up above, or posted so prominently that you can barely see the judge sitting behind them? With a Torah also on display, or welcome to be displayed, or not? Should we support an overzealous religious cleansing imposed by a federal court, or let the voters decide whether they want that judge for four more years?
* Prayer in schools -- by individual students on their own time, by individual students during designated prayer time, spoken by the teacher alone, or recited all in unison?
* "Government in the bedroom" -- Nice and vague, so that people's imaginations can run wild and they can get all worked up about it. I'm sure there are a few folks who would outlaw homosexual activity altogether, instead of leaving whatever judgment may come to God. But, hot topic that it is in Republican circles, I'm not sure I've met any of them.
* Criminalization of flag-burning -- OK, now you've finally got an issue that a sizeable number of Republicans (and independents and conservative Dems) would sign onto, although I personally think it's too small and silly to pass a constitutional amendment over. But again, in the grand scheme of things, it's a yawner. And nobody who looks at flags with a gleam in their eye and matches in their pocket was really thinking of voting Republican anyway.
Fourth, a public service announcement. Back in Old Europe, suspected criminals used to be hauled in front of the bishop for judgment. Pastors for churches were appointed by the government. Pastors not officially appointed by the government risked imprisonment and/or execution. Those not belonging to the right denomination were officially barred from any position in government service. This is what is meant by "establishment," and it is this that the Founding Fathers sought to prohibit with the Establishment Clause. A judge finding someone guilty of breaking the third commandment, or violating Leviticus 18, would not be in keeping with that; the same would be true for mandatory-participation prayers in the public schools. But courtroom decorations? A moment of silence during which students can pray? Mentioning God in a public place? These are all protected by "nor prohibit the free exercise thereof," and I have trouble understanding why liberals get worked up about them.
Posted by: TB on December 14, 2007 05:25 PMMy core point: the post started by Eric had to do with an R going D and lamenting that fact. It has turned into a very nasty internal food fight, that IMO will do very little to make things better for a pro-family, pro-business, smaller government, lower taxes point of view.
I would just love to see 1/100th of this level of intensity and energy at the next Snohomish County Republican meeting. Or campaign breakfast. Or fund-raising event. Or phone-call brigade. Or... yes... with a whole lot more letters to the editor.
Over the years I've written several letters to the Herald and the Seattle Times. And just about every time I've written a letter I've gotten published. It can happen.
Who wins if we celebrate our own self-destruction?
Posted by: Jack Turk on December 14, 2007 05:34 PMAm I now responsible for Barbara Walters point of view? What makes you think I agree with her? She expressed an opinion, you disagreed with it.
How about you ask yourself:
1) Is Barbara Walters going to get the President to change his Christmas Card to her?
2) Does anyone care what Barbara Walters opinion is on anything?
3) If no one else cares, why do I care?
4) How many people actually watched this show? How many more people will watch this clip on YouTube now that I've made a fuss about it?
If your answers are 1) No, 2) No, 3) I don't know 4) I don't care...maybe you should just let it go.
But since you put out an all-points memo alerting everyone to the fact Barbara Walters is mildly offended and in fact a godless heathen, you can now expect everyone to go see the show and maybe even agree with her opinion. So in essence you just shot yourself in the foot for being an idiot.
Morals are standards.... you don't want set morals, you believe do what feels good at the moment and your stnadards are your own. We call it relativism and you espouse it like a pro.
Decency is a standard. Our country used to have both, decency and morals but the whiners and the squeaky wheels and the relavists have been banging their fists, making noise and here we are with children commmitting mass murder in schools, malls and churches. It's not progress.
Someone said if you don't believe in something you will believe anything. And it appears you do.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 05:40 PMAnd, a point of interest cato, I wasn't referring to any one person in referring to hypocritcal controtions, but clearly you recognized yourself in the description.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 05:49 PMYes. His name is Michael Medved.
Posted by: fred on December 14, 2007 05:54 PMThese absolute failures of moral decency and standards are acceptable?
Lenin had said: "The best revolutionary is a youth devoid of morals."
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 06:07 PMWait... is that why you worded your original question "Republicans of faith," in order to include Medved?
OK, you got me. That's one. But how many rank-and-file voters who don't have to think of how to fill three hours of radio every day?
Posted by: TB on December 14, 2007 06:09 PMPlanned Parenthood's latest annual report reveals it made $902.8 million dollars from 2005-2006 and did 264,943 abortions.
Planned Parenthood reported total revenue increases of 10.7 percent, 5.7 percent and 8.9 percent in its previous three years and the non-profit group's moneymaking efforts don't appear to be stopping anytime soon.
It reported "excess of revenue of expenses" of $55.8 million for the fiscal year.
"This marks the 34th year in a row that Planned Parenthood has reported "excess revenue" -- otherwise known as profit," Sedlak (head of a PP watchdog organization) said. "Over the years, Planned Parenthood has reported total profits of over $700 million. It has amassed a treasure chest of assets worth $839.8 million."
So with total profit of over $700 MILLION dollars why does this group have Non-Profit status and tax breaks?
The annual report showed that Planned Parenthood reported receiving taxpayer funds totaling $305.3 million -- a whopping $32.6 million (12 percent) more than last year. As a result, taxpayer money now accounts for 34 percent of Planned Parenthood's income.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 14, 2007 07:44 PMA politician should be discarded as soon as they are not useful to you in pursuing your political goals, much like a level that is no longer accurate for measuring slopes or a computer that is no longer keeping up with your needs.
There is no reason to become emotionally attached to a computer when another one better meets your needs and no reason to become emotionally attached to a level that is no allowing you to measure slopes accurately.
Becoming emotionally attached to a politician is likewise futile, judge them solely based upon their usefulness in furthering your political cause and when they no longer consistently do this or when an alternative comes along that you think will do a better job - toss the old one.
It's kinda like the buffoons that were unable to discern that the Rolling Stones the performance at Super Bowl a few years back was sub par because "it is the Stones and I love em. It was excellent." Puhleeese spare me.
Posted by: JDH on December 14, 2007 08:14 PMRepublicans Block Anti-Torture Bill
One-time torture opponent Lindsey Graham helps his fellow Republicans stop a bill that would ban the CIA from using waterboarding and other harsh interrogation methods. (TORTURE)
# The Torture Tapes:DOJ Tells CIA Not to Cooperate in Probe
# Mukasey Won't Share Torture Tape Info
If that's the case, why is he so supportive of Rudy for the nomination?
And as I recall, Medved was very vocal in his opposition Judge Roy Moore asserting his right to display the 10 Commandments in his courtroom.
Posted by: Michelle on December 14, 2007 09:44 PMThink of the political blogosphere as one giant "letter to the editor" section. Debate is good.
And I think you'll be sure to see some of this intensity and energy, probably more than 1/100th, at the caucuses in February and at the county and state conventions. That is, as long as party leaders don't try to control it too much and erect a facade of unity.
It's good for our party to have these struggles. Let's not pretend there is unity where there isn't. That hasn't worke so well in the past. Let's have a real debate, determine what our party will stand for, and in the end, we'll see how well it works for us.
Posted by: Michelle on December 14, 2007 09:55 PMThe R's wanted us to pay 10 bucks for a cornish game hen to impose moralality,and franchise Democracy abroad while we let the Country fall apart.
The D's want us to pay 10 bucks for a cornish game hen so we can pay for services we really do not need,and union raises they don't deserve.
The R's would not capitalize on the D's weekness,and refused to alter the platform,and lost Washington State county by county.
It has been a slow frustrating death for those of us fiscal conservatives that were cast aside by the Neo conservative factions who's numbers were just too few.
The neo cons were too stubborn.
Now our State will have no checks and balances for the duration of my life.
Take a look at the party R's.
Nothing but church people and ex hitler youth standing in front of the safeway gathering signatures,waiting for a watch salesman to provide any checks and balances.
Can't say I did not try and bring you to your senses.
Being a conservative is not about the letter after one's name, but instead about one's core principles. Jarrett doesn't have principles other than the desire to get reelected in a percieved Blue district. He will lose that too.
Posted by: Jeff B. on December 14, 2007 11:06 PMWho is your beef with? The Religious Right or the Neo-cons? Though some are members of both, they are not one in the same. If you're a Ron Paul supporter, as I think you have indicated before, you really ought not rage against the Religious Right, your potential allies, if you really want to get your man elected.
Posted by: Michelle on December 15, 2007 01:05 AMBuddy, you really should get better informed before picking a fight on the blog!
Michelle & Ragnar just beat you from one end of the street to another.
Damn wish I could have been there.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on December 15, 2007 06:35 AMContinuing the smashing successes of the Bush administration? Um, no. The performance of the economy? I don't think so. The pressing need for more wars in the Middle East? Probably not.
For a long time, I thought I knew: The GOP campaign would be some variation of this theme: "Those damn illegal aliens! Let's round them all up and ship them back to where they came from, and then let's build a giant fence around the Southern border. Illegal aliens bad! Grrrr!"
In the 19th Century, you could openly beat on the Irish, the Slavs and the Chinese and no one would blink. But today it's no so cool to be an open bigot. Yes, it's permissible to harbor concerns about border security, but when you start criticizing someone for the way they look, speak or celebrate their culture, a lot of Americans cringe.
You don't have to push the hardcore Republican anti-immigrant faction too hard to get them away from talking about border fences to moaning about the fact that you have to press 1 to hear English when you call the bank. They are nativist bigots, plain and simple, and I would like to think that the American people will reject their divisive approach.
The Republicans, a once great American political party, is dead and stinking at our feet. In time, hopefully, a real conservative political party will rise up to replace it.
Posted by: Joe Futawn on December 15, 2007 09:12 AM"If you want to interpret it that way then maybe we should stop fighting wars and abolish the death penalty. I mean abortions are usually performed by private private businesses (ie Planned Parenthood) that receive no state/federal funding. Death Penalty is actually administered by the state, which seems a much greater violation the 14th Amendment because the Govt. is actively ending a human life."
So now you are saying that the constitutional rights of anyone can be vilated as long as it is a private business that does it and they receive no state/federal funding. Gotcha. So if you support abortion then certainly you have no problem with killing in wars or the death penalty.
Yes, war is murder and the death penalty is murder. So let's nip that one right in the bud, shall we?
But those are not what we are talking about. We are talking about you trying to classify civil rights as being protected under the 14th amendement but somehow baby humans as not being so protected.
Posted by: pbj on December 15, 2007 09:17 AMThe guards wore black masks and black clothes. They would not utter a word as they extracted Bashmilah from his cell for interrogation -- one of his few interactions with other human beings during his entire 19 months of imprisonment. Nobody told him where he was, or if he would ever be freed.
It was enough to drive anyone crazy. Bashmilah finally tried to slash his wrists with a small piece of metal, smearing the words "I am innocent" in blood on the walls of his cell. But the CIA patched him up.
So Bashmilah stopped eating. But after his weight dropped to 90 pounds, he was dragged into an interrogation room, where they rammed a tube down his nose and into his stomach. Liquid was pumped in. The CIA would not let him die.
On several occasions, when Bashmilah's state of mind deteriorated dangerously, the CIA also did something else: They placed him in the care of mental health professionals. Bashmilah believes these were trained psychologists or psychiatrists. "What they were trying to do was to give me a sort of uplifting and to assure me," Bashmilah said in a telephone interview, through an interpreter, speaking from his home country of Yemen. "One of the things they told me to do was to allow myself to cry, and to breathe."
Last June, Salon reported on the CIA's use of psychologists to aid with the interrogation of terrorist suspects. But the role of mental health professionals working at CIA black sites is a previously unknown twist in the chilling, Kafkaesque story of the agency's secret overseas prisons.
Little about the conditions of Bashmilah's incarceration has been made public until now. His detailed descriptions in an interview with Salon, and in newly filed court documents, provide the first in-depth, first-person account of captivity inside a CIA black site. Human rights advocates and lawyers have painstakingly pieced together his case, using Bashmilah's descriptions of his cells and his captors, and documents from the governments of Jordan and Yemen and the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to verify his testimony. Flight records detailing the movement of CIA aircraft also confirm Bashmilah's account, tracing his path from the Middle East to Afghanistan and back again while in U.S. custody.
Bashmilah's story also appears to show in clear terms that he was an innocent man. After 19 months of imprisonment and torment at the hands of the CIA, the agency released him with no explanation, just as he had been imprisoned in the first place. He faced no terrorism charges. He was given no lawyer. He saw no judge. He was simply released, his life shattered.
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2007/12/14/bashmilah/
As one of the Paultards allow me to retort.
Disregard the Hitler Youth comment.
Luke Esser's photo looks the part,I could not resist.
My grandfather was a republican,My father was a republican,I am an independant.
The line was broken because I could not maintain
a relationship to the party due to the moral conquests of the religious right.
To me the R's were just as guilty of putting things on the cart that did not belong.
My Father started to become irritated with the Reagan administration for Drug War Costs that made it tougher on small business.
The small business playing field was destroyed equally by both the R's,and D's for different reasons.
I watched the death of small business.
I saw who killed it,I know why it was killed.
Prior to Reagan Criminal Justice costs were in line. During the Reagan Era Criminal justice in our County went from 59 percent to 70 percent or something to that effect..the federal cost for criminal justice went up too.The cold war cost dog piled on.The small business workforce actually began to make a transformation to Mexican,and foreign labor in the 1980's as a result of the criminal justice increases.
Criminal Justice mandates greatly increased the non violent criminal population,which began to erode America's work force.
My Dad hated the drug war,He never did drugs.
My Dad loved Nixon,but hated Reagan.
The Neo cons like to celebrate this time period as a point in time in which America stood for values.
Well those "values" came at a cost.
The Cost was the death of small businees and an overload of non violent criminals put on the cart so the Neo cons could feel good about America.The overload of non violent criminals onto the cart represents the single largest increase of overhead for small business during this time period.When you throw in the cold war costs,and the costs of Democratic administrations you can see why we have the Transportation infrastructure deficit that we suffer from today.
These " Moral Theme Regimes" have diverted our tax dollars to other causes that failed to keep up with the basic needs of our People.When we fall for " Moral Theme Regimes" we ultimately end up putting things on the cart that do not really belong,and tin cup the basic needs.Then costs go up to cover the basic needs.
Small business can not merge like corporations to overcome the tax load.Over head goes up,Prices go up, sales go down. Small business is dead.
No matter how much I tried to keep the Neo Cons from falling for the "Moral Theme Regimes" I failed.
The Neo Cons live for " Moral Theme Regimes".Now the Republicans have died here in Washington State because of it.
I have no more interest in trying to convince Neo cons from adopting another " Moral Theme Regime"
I would rather concentrate on reaching out to other fiscal conservatives that can resist the temptation of falling for another " Moral Theme regime" promotion.We need checks and balances.
" Moral Theme Regimes" will not provide them here in Washington State.
Excerpts that should make you ashamed:
My God, what have we become? We stand by meekly and watch as our wonderful English language becomes increasingly denigrated and devalued, we allow the primitive animalistic gruntings of our Black Inner City Gangsta Rap, pants-falling-off-the-butt "culture" to infiltrate and diminish almost every aspect of our lives: our music, our movies, our television, our sports, the way our kids act and dress -- and now we're going to tell our Santa Clauses not to say "ho-ho-ho" because it too closely resembles that Gangsta Rap word for "whore"?
The murder of young Black males by other young Black males in the Black Inner Cities is a Black problem and can only be solved by Blacks. Blacks who are willing to be honest with themselves. Blacks who are getting sick and tired of that criminal-worshipping, female-degrading, drive-by shooting, Gangsta Rap drug world of self-destruction. Blacks who are willing to listen to those honest and tough love messages of respected Black people like Bill Cosby, and even from those unapologetic liberals, like Juan Williams. Blacks who are willing to accept responsibility for their own lives and want to quit blaming everything on the Whites, who finally have the courage to disassociate themselves from those so-called Black Leaders, like Al Sharpton and that extortionist Jesse Jackson, who are nothing more than enablers, living off the suffering of others. Offering their followers that same old false comfort of self-pity and victimization by perpetuating the myth of White subjugation.
By pretending that this is still a White problem, that only White people are smart enough to fix it, those delusional liberals are only making matters worse. It's trying to cure the alcoholic's problem by telling him he has good reason to drink. And it just ain't gonna work.
So, what are we really talking about here? Blacks? Jews? Racism? Anti-Semitism? No, we're still talking about Political Correctness -- or perhaps, more precisely, that same old cowardly disingenuousness in it's latest disguise? A problem we've been wrestling with throughout that whole tumultuous course of human history. It's called moral integrity. Some people simply call it honesty.
Once again, a great big THANKS to Spree for her courage and her fearless determination to stand up and speak out.
The question only you can answer is how you can turn your back on the moral decay in your country?
Even more importantly how you can look your self in the mirror after you do?
How can you allow yourself to be degraded by allowing the degradation?
Do you understand that you are condoning it when you do nothing to condemn it?
Do you really believe this is freedom or progress, or are you too lazy, too much of a coward to stand up.
We, those who you refer to and denigrate as the "crazy", "rightwing" "neocon" "religious zealots", are not interested in shoving our faith, our God upon you. We want you to wake up and pay attention to our country steadily failing and falling into the same moral decay that has proven itself deadly in countries before us that have followed that path.
When will you have the courage to listen, to understand?
Ladies and gentlemen, these people set, they opened the doors, they gave us the right, and today, ladies and gentlemen, in our cities and public schools we have fifty percent drop out. In our own neighborhood, we have men in prison. No longer is a person embarrassed because they're pregnant without a husband. (clapping) No longer is a boy considered an embarrassment if he tries to run away from being the father of the unmarried child (clapping).
Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic and lower middle economic people are [not*] holding their end in this deal. In the neighborhood that most of us grew up in, parenting is not going on. (clapping) In the old days, you couldn't hooky school because every drawn shade was an eye (laughing). And before your mother got off the bus and to the house, she knew exactly where you had gone, who had gone into the house, and where you got on whatever you had one and where you got it from. Parents don't know that today.
I'm talking about these people who cry when their son is standing there in an orange suit. Where were you when he was two? (clapping) Where were you when he was twelve? (clapping) Where were you when he was eighteen, and how come you don't know he had a pistol? (clapping) And where is his father, and why don't you know where he is? And why doesn't the father show up to talk to this boy?
The church is only open on Sunday. And you can't keep asking Jesus to ask doing things for you (clapping). You can't keep asking that God will find a way. God is tired of you (clapping and laughing). God was there when they won all those cases. 50 in a row. That's where God was because these people were doing something. And God said, "I'm going to find a way." I wasn't there when God said it... I'm making this up (laughter). But it sounds like what God would do (laughter).
We cannot blame white people. White people (clapping) .. white people don't live over there. They close up the shop early. The Korean ones still don't know us as well...they stay open 24 hours (laughter).
I'm looking and I see a man named Kenneth Clark. He and his wife Mamie...Kenneth's still alive. I have to apologize to him for these people because Kenneth said it straight. He said you have to strengthen yourselves...and we've got to have that black doll. And everybody said it. Julian Bond said it. Dick Gregory said it. All these lawyers said it. And you wouldn't know that anybody had done a damned thing.
50 percent drop out rate, I'm telling you, and people in jail, and women having children by five, six different men. Under what excuse, I want somebody to love me, and as soon as you have it, you forget to parent. Grandmother, mother, and great grandmother in the same room, raising children, and the child knows nothing about love or respect of any one of the three of them (clapping). All this child knows is "gimme, gimme, gimme." These people want to buy the friendship of a child....and the child couldn't care less. Those of us sitting out here who have gone on to some college or whatever we've done, we still fear our parents (clapping and laughter). And these people are not parenting. They're buying things for the kid. $500 sneakers, for what? They won't buy or spend $250 on Hooked on Phonics. (clapping)
A.Kenneth Clark, somewhere in his home in upstate New York...just looking ahead. Thank God, he doesn't know what's going on, thank God. But these people, the ones up here in the balcony fought so hard. Looking at the incarcerated, these are not political criminals. These are people going around stealing Coca Cola. People getting shot in the back of the head over a piece of pound cake! Then we all run out and are outraged, "The cops shouldn't have shot him" What the hell was he doing with the pound cake in his hand? (laughter and clapping). I wanted a piece of pound cake just as bad as anybody else (laughter) And I looked at it and I had no money. And something called parenting said if get caught with it you're going to embarrass your mother. Not you're going to get your butt kicked. No. You're going to embarrass your mother. You're going to embarrass your family.
If knock that girl up, you're going to have to run away because it's going to be too embarrassing for your family. In the old days, a girl getting pregnant had to go down South, and then her mother would go down to get her. But the mother had the baby. I said the mother had the baby. The girl didn't have a baby. The mother had the baby in two weeks. (laughter) We are not parenting. Ladies and gentlemen, listen to these people, they are showing you what's wrong. People putting their clothes on backwards. -isn't that a sign of something going on wrong? (laughter)
Are you not paying attention, people with their hat on backwards, pants down around the crack. Isn't that a sign of something, or are you waiting for Jesus to pull his pants up (laughter and clapping ). Isn't it a sign of something when she's got her dress all the way up to the crack...and got all kinds of needles and things going through her body. What part of Africa did this come from? (laughter). We are not Africans. Those people are not Africans, they don't know a damned thing about Africa. With names like Shaniqua, Shaligua, Mohammed and all that crap and all of them are in jail. (When we give these kinds names to our children, we give them the strength and inspiration in the meaning of those names. What's the point of giving them strong names if there is not parenting and values backing it up).
Brown Versus the Board of Education is no longer the white person's problem. We've got to take the neighborhood back (clapping). We've got to go in there. Just forget telling your child to go to the Peace Corps. It's right around the corner. (laughter) It's standing on the corner. It can't speak English. It doesn't want to speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk. "Why you ain't where you is go, ra," I don't know who these people are. And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk (laughter). Then I heard the father talk. This is all in the house. You used to talk a certain way on the corner and you got into the house and switched to English. Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. You can't land a plane with "why you ain't..." You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth. There is no Bible that has that kind of language. Where did these people get the idea that they're moving ahead on this. Well, they know they're not, they're just hanging out in the same place, five or six generations sitting in the projects when you're just supposed to stay there long enough to get a job and move out.
Now look, I'm telling you. It's not what they're doing to us. It's what we're not doing. 50 percent drop out. Look, we're raising our own ingrown immigrants. These people are fighting hard to be ignorant. There's no English being spoken, and they're walking and they're angry. Oh God, they're angry and they have pistols and they shoot and they do stupid things. And after they kill somebody, they don't have a plan. Just murder somebody. Boom. Over what? A pizza? And then run to the poor cousin's house. They sit there and the cousin says "what are you doing here?" "I just killed somebody, man." "What?" "I just killed somebody, I've got to stay here." "No, you don't." "Well, give me some money, I'll go..." "Where are you going?" "North Carolina." Everybody wanted to go to North Carolina. But the police know where you're going because your cousin has a record.
Five or six different children, same woman, eight, ten different husbands or whatever, pretty soon you're going to have to have DNA cards so you can tell who you're making love to. You don't who this is. It might be your grandmother. (laughter) I'm telling you, they're young enough. Hey, you have a baby when you're twelve. Your baby turns thirteen and has a baby, how old are you? Huh? Grandmother. By the time you're twelve, you could have sex with your grandmother, you keep those numbers coming. I'm just predicting.
I'm saying Brown Vs. Board of Education. We've got to hit the streets, ladies and gentlemen. I'm winding up, now , no more applause. I'm saying, look at the Black Muslims. There are Black Muslims standing on the street corners and they say so forth and so on, and we'rere laughing at them because they have bean pies and all that, but you don't read "Black Muslim gunned down while chastising drug dealer." You don't read that. They don't shoot down Black Muslims. You understand me. Muslims tell you to get out of the neighborhood. When you want to clear your neighborhood out, first thing you do is go get the Black Muslims, bean pies and all (laughter). And your neighborhood is then clear. The police can't do it .
I'm telling you Christians, what's wrong with you? Why can't you hit the streets? Why can't you clean it out yourselves? It's our time now, ladies and gentlemen. It is our time (clapping). And I've got good news for you. It's not about money. It's about you doing something ordinarily that we do--get in somebody else's business. It's time for you to not accept the language that these people are speaking, which will take them nowhere. What the hell good is Brown V. Board of Education if nobody wants it?
What is it with young girls getting after some girl who wants to still remain a virgin. Who are these sick black people and where did they come from and why haven't they been parented to shut up? To go up to girls and try to get a club where "you are nobody..," this is a sickness ladies and gentlemen and we are not paying attention to these children. These are children. They don't know anything. They don't have anything. They're homeless people. All they know how to do is beg. And you give it to them, trying to win their friendship. And what are they good for? And then they stand there in an orange suit and you drop to your knees, "(crying sound) He didn't do anything, he didn't do anything." Yes, he did do it. And you need to have an orange suit on too (laughter, clapping).
So, ladies and gentlemen, I want to thank you for the award (big laughter) and giving me an opportunity to speak because, I mean, this is the future, and all of these people who lined up and done..they've got to be wondering what the hell happened. Brown V. Board of Education, these people who marched and were hit in the face with rocks and punched in the face to get an education and we got these knuckleheads walking around who don't want to learn English (clapping) I know that you all know it. I just want to get you as angry that you ought to be. When you walk around the neighborhood and you see this stuff, that stuff's not funny. These people are not funny anymore. And that 's not brother. And that's not my sister. They're faking and they're dragging me way down because the state, the city and all these people have to pick up the tab on them because they don't want to accept that they have to study to get an education.
We have to begin to build in the neighborhood, have restaurants, have cleaners, have pharmacies, have real estate, have medical buildings instead of trying to rob them all. And so, ladies and gentlemen, please, Dorothy Height, where ever she's sitting, she didn't do all that stuff so that she could hear somebody say "I can't stand algebra, I can't stand...and "what you is." It's horrible.
Basketball players, multimillionaires can't write a paragraph. Football players, multimillionaires, can't read. Yes. Multimillionaires. Well, Brown V Board of Education, where are we today? It's there. They paved the way. What did we do with it. The white man, he's laughing, got to be laughing. 50 percent drop out, rest of them in prison.
You got to tell me that if there was parenting, help me, if there was parenting, he wouldn't have picked up the Coca Cola bottle and walked out with it to get shot in the back of the head. He wouldn't have. Not if he loved his parents. And not if they were parenting! Not if the father would come home. Not if the boy hadn't dropped the sperm cell inside of the girl and the girl had said, "No, you have to come back here and be the father of this child." Not .."I don't have to."
Therefore, you have the pile up of these sweet beautiful things born by nature raised by no one. Give them presents. You're raising pimps. That's what a pimp is. A pimp will act nasty to you so you have to go out and get them something. And then you bring it back and maybe he or she hugs you. And that's why pimp is so famous. They've got a drink called the "Pimp-something." You all wonder what that's about, don't you? Well, you're probably going to let Jesus figure it out for you (laughter). Well, I've got something to tell you about Jesus. When you go to the church, look at the stained glass things of Jesus. Look at them. Is Jesus smiling? Not in one picture. So, tell your friends. Let's try to do something. Let's try to make Jesus smile. Let's start parenting. Thank you, thank you (clapping, cheers)
It's far too easy, far too convenient to say to yourself, 'this isn't MY family or MY neighbor or MY community'.
BUT it is your country and YOU ARE ALLOWING THE MORAL DEGRADATION TO DESTROY IT. And, with your continued willfull ignorance, with your condemnation of our history and its roots, YOU are destroying it.
1. First, I agree with you at #110 above and so does Dr. Bill Cosby and have been saying such about my communities and other low-income community for months. Responsibibilty and a good basic education are key.
2. We are not arguing about values, here is my question to all values voters. A party that cannont win elections is not viable. Just like the South is becoming more diverse in terms of political opinions because people from all over the country are moving there, so the ring burbs are becoming more politically diverse because gen xers move there when they have families. So, the question is does a political party have different messages for different locales?
I think that one-party rule is a ticket to mass corruption. Let's take Seattle, for example, the republican party cannot afford to cede the area just because in all likelyhood the kind of candidate who could win an election will probably be pro-choice, not necessarily pro-abortion.
I believe that there are issues that appeal to a broad array of people, but they are family issues and what it takes to support families. I believe that a heterosexual couple is the preferred option for raising children. I'm like Queen Victoria, if no children are involved, I don't care what you do, unless you do it in the streets and scare the horses.
Even secular progressives can be reached by issues that are directed toward supporting families, like education, no-marriage penalty on taxes, and some kind of health care plan.
I believe the dems need conservatives like Zell Miller and me, even though they don't want us. I believe the republicans need people of all viewpoints as well. Didn't Reagan say something about "big tents" which applies equally to both parties. Part of the reason that politics is so darn nasty is increasingly each party is so devoid of leavening influences. As that happens, more of us go indie.
Posted by: WVH on December 15, 2007 01:38 PMROFL.
Posted by: pbj on December 15, 2007 01:45 PMWhat we can and should do is attempt to hold them to standards that benefit us all and have the courage to shame them when they fail to live up to them.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 15, 2007 01:56 PMAs an arm of the once mighty Republican knight I denounce the "moral theme regime".
I simply would have taken my losses like a man and accept the fact that a perfect world does not exist,and being an agent of intolerance will not stop the devil from putting out my eyes.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 15, 2007 02:57 PMI share your view of liberals,and their push to raise the social bar because it is no problem for them to get over the bar.
I do not have the same bitterness towards Fred because he bemoaned the party line and the party did not listen so he left..just like Rodney Tom.
Heck even Judy Clibborn was at one time considered a conservative of sorts.
The R's need to face fact, what works in the deep south and bible belt does not work here.
The national republican playbook does not appeal to voters here.
I wish it were not true but it is.
The R's need to re organize the party,and adopt a political platform that will work here.
"Moral theme regimes" won't work.
Fiscal conservative themes deserve a chance to provide our state with the proper checks and balances.
Your attitude is a disgrace.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 15, 2007 03:30 PMIs there anyones shoes you don't kick dirt over.??
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 15, 2007 03:58 PMYou scream and yell that 'faith is the problem, stop pushing "moral themes"'. I respond that it is not, that the problem is you don't care about the sewer our cities, our air waves, our schools have become.
You charge that "fiscal conservatism' is what matters. WHY? Is economics more important that the future of of this little society called America? Is that all America is to you: dollars and cents? How sad for you.
Again, your attitude is shameful and all your name calling won't change it a whit.
So long GOP you feared, you intolerated,you hated,you filled the back of the bus,you lined us up at the corporate gouge,you provide us no checks and balances here in Washington State,your time has come.. .
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 15, 2007 10:07 PMConcern about gang violence is "selling fear".
Concern about young girls hooking up is "selling fear".
Concern about alcoholism, drug abuse, failing schools, teenage pregnancy, STDs, school shootings, foul lyrics, drugged children, abortion, teens landing in over-populated prisons drunk driving is "selling fear".
Pull your head back into your shell, little turtle.
And your riff about the GOP in Washington state is laughable: when was the last time the GOP had any influence here. No, little turtle Geoff, it all lands in your lap and the lap of your fellow democrats,
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 15, 2007 11:01 PMNobody cares about your fears.
Nobody wants to kill homosexuals and Pot smokers anymore.
You have lost.
Good bye.
Bottom line Geoffypoo is that I,'m proud to stand for morals and decency; I'm proud to expect more from my fellow citizens; I'm proud to want them to reach for the highest standards.
You claim to be my opposite, you present yourself to loathe all I champion,
So fine, what does that make you? Proud of immorality? Proud to watch your fellow Americans sink to the lowest depths of depravity? Proud of degradation, vulgarity and villainy.
Pretty sad, dude, pretty darn sad to be such a miserable human.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 15, 2007 11:46 PM1. I don't think the issue is killing gay people and pot smokers. Any one supporting those positions is nuts and is neither conservative nor liberal, just nuts.
2. I would frame the issues differently:
a. The question is what issues promote formation and support of strong family units.
b. What issues help small businesses to form, grow, and innovate. Small businesses create jobs and often develop into bigger businesses.
c. What issues will change the institutional structure of education from a government monopoly to a sector where there are different types of schools, including government schools and home schools competing to deliver a good basic education to the majority of students.
The elephant in the room issue is the middle class, however one chooses to define it has been shrinking. This is a hard definition because reports are that the original Sam Walton always thought he was middle class. What issues such as reducing debt and having a stronger economy can each party frame?
People seem to be hung-up on the introduction of any religious value into the political process. Many gen xers as they form their families are interested in values that cut across both secular and religious perspectives like how to keep their families in tact, how to educate their children so they respect them and the environment, a good education, building security for their and their children's future. Respect for life is definitely a key conservative principle, but when people stop yelling at each other and explain positions there is a lot more agreement than both parties want people to believe. I haven't looked at the latest poll numbers for abortion, but more and more people do not want unlimited abortion and more and more are willing to support some restrictions.
I believe on family support issues, more people are amenable to conservative philosophy than you state in your posts.
My point is that it may have been ok for the Reagan Era to have invested in the Cold War,but not the cold war and the drug war at the same time.You have to limit your crusades whether it be moral theme's or social service them's.
the Basic's come first.
Look at the back log of problems we have today.
At some point you have to acknowledge that we have failed to cover the basics because we placed too much emphasis on moral themes,and social service themes,and did not invest in enough finished product.
That is what I see.
50 year old feries,60 year old bridges. the same roads my grandfather built.
The reason we risk our lives on our transportation system is because both the R's and D's did not know when to say when.
Heck I would rather sit on the bus next to a church going god fearing person than a product of a single mother with a spray paint can or a knife, carving or painting gang writing on the back of a seat or window.
However I think I can reach almost anyone and I want them to help tow the cart,and not be on it.
That is my point with the agents of intolerance.they have put more on the cart than the Social service crowd,because they have no place in society for the"les desirables".
Give me your "les desirables".
I will built ferries,roads and bridges with them.
I will let the non violent ones out of jails and prisons and put them to work towing the cart rather than costing me 60,000 a year or welfare because they got fired for being gay,and I will eliminate,or greatly reduce the need for foreign labor..
The agents of intolerance cant do that.
Heck neither can the social service crowd because they have made a living wage career housing the "les desirables" in prisons,jails and on welfare programs.
At the end of the day when you pull the "les desirables" out of the bag and ask the moral theme and social theme animals what do they want to do with the "les desirables", they will tell you they want to put them on the cart rather than have them help us tow it.
I think it is time to stop tin cupping our problems and get the les desirables to help us tow the cart so we don't have to leave another generation a deficit.
How do you like me now Ragnar.
HOWEVER, your infrastructure wishes, as laudable and practical as they are, are and will be wasted upon a society that does not respect YOU for giving it to them, does not respect WHAT you gave them or themselves enough to care whethrer thye have them.
Bottom line, Geoffypoo is that until we create (re-create) a culture of respect (ta-dum: the beat I've been pounding) especially SELF respect you are wasting time and resources.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2007 10:51 AMAnd isn't that just what we're seeing today?
Lipstick on a pig.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2007 10:56 AMI wait with bated breath to hear you actually articulate your big-government plan to make us all play nice.
Posted by: what then? on December 16, 2007 11:00 AMIt is a war I wont invest in.
Head to the deep south or the bible belt for that platform you can get a majority there..
Your way here is shut.
it was ruined by those whom are agents of intolerance.We are tolerant here.
You have no base.You have only a full back of the bus,full prisons and jails.
The people of Washington State have turned their back on you. you have become insignificant.
That is a tragic reality for thiose of us that want a checks and balance.
What are you going to do call in the military and demand to be respected, because god has failed to provide you with a lightning bolt to strike them down with. you will wake up in the same imperfect world you started with.
As your posts indicate here you are not able to give respect,what makes you think you deserve respect..
You are willing to deprive those that do deserve respect,in spite of those that do not.
You are a draconian agent of intolerance whom thinks the basic things we need we should be deprived of because the "les desirables" did fall to their knees and repent. .
shouldn't you be in church.
It is a war I wont invest in.
Head to the deep south or the bible belt for that platform you can get a majority there..
Your way here is shut.
it was ruined by those whom are agents of intolerance.We are tolerant here.
You have no base.You have only a full back of the bus,full prisons and jails.
The people of Washington State have turned their back on you. you have become insignificant.
That is a tragic reality for thiose of us that want a checks and balance.
What are you going to do call in the military and demand to be respected, because god has failed to provide you with a lightning bolt to strike them down with. you will wake up in the same imperfect world you started with.
As your posts indicate here you are not able to give respect,what makes you think you deserve respect..
You are willing to deprive those that do deserve respect,in spite of those that do not.
You are a draconian agent of intolerance whom thinks the basic things we need we should be deprived of because the "les desirables" did fall to their knees and repent. .
shouldn't you be in church.
SECONDLY, When have I ever said people didn't deserve the basics or had to kiss your ass to get them? Do you people ever even read or just jerk your knees through the lens of your own damned bias?
PAY ATTENTION:
This has absolutely NOTHING whatsoever to do with politics, with pathetic WA state. It has to do with PEOPLE. It has to do with each and every one of us, individuals expecting, demanding MORE of themselves and their fellow citizens. How damned blind are you not to see that? PEOPLE deciding they will no longer accept the degradation.
You are the perfect caricature of a liberal, thinking automaton it's all about some government solving EVERYTHING. And your refusal to even understand something as basic as simple respect disqualifies you for pretty much everything.
This is not governemt: it's about HUMANS and teh society in which they choose to live.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2007 11:23 AMPeople and the type of society in which they CHOOSE to live.
I pity you your inept blindness and narrow minded world view.
Many of us are really on the same page. The late Senator Monyihan was also a PhD sociologist who studied the Black family for over 50 years and a lot of his work is relevant to all segments of society. It does start small, it starts with the family. There are some awesome single parents, but by and large a single parent headed household dooms both the family and child(ren) to poverty.
One of the reasons I do not favor gay adoption is there is plenty of research on single parent households headed by women in the Black community. Even if there are plenty of material resources there are gender identification issues.
Children need models of both sexes, ideally this comes from a two parent heterosexual household. The single parents that I have observed who are successful consciously seek role models of the opposite sex for their children.
The "Great Society" programs were a failure as they broke up the family unit and led to the development and cultural acceptance of single parent families headed by women. This development has devasted the lives of children. How many newspaper reports have you read of a child(ren) being abused by the live-in boyfriend/girlfriend of the child's caretaker parent. These relationships are transitory and serial leading to lots of upheavel in the child's life.
Monyihan studied the Black family in the 50's which altough often poor and coping with the effects of segregation was two-parent and was able to transmit values to their children which allowed them to thrive and prosper in the 60s and 70s. The Black family, along with other families is not thriving because of the cultural change of have the baby or babies, hook-up, and perhaps at some point have a committed relationship, even marry at some point. The question of whose your daddy has relevance in many segments of society today. It is not just Black women having children before marriage, it is all groups.
I know that many here are libertarian until it hits an issue dear to them like ferries or improved highway access. Government policies do matter. The "Great Society" broke-up families and government needs to formulate policies that support families and make it less attractive for single women to start families. I supported Bush's marriage initiative. No, I don't want women in abusive relationships where they or their children are unsafe. But, many of the same feminists who criticized that initiative support Hillary who stayed with a serial cheater horndog when most women would have turned the jerk into a soprano because it furthered her ambitions. This is no different than a low-income couple joining forces to increase the wealth of the family unit and divide childrearing responsibilities. I have often thought that many upper income and wealthy feminists wanted something to do with their lives other than Junior League so they morphed into feminazis and their ideas don't work and aren't relevant for most "pink collar" women. I know that Professor Stephanie Coonz of Evergreen is anti-marriage as an insitution, but for women who choose to have children, it offers protections for the children.
We have to start small at the family unit and yes, there is cultural change that is needed. I can speak for my community, the hip hop culture of women as hos and yo baby mama has to be dispensed with just like MADD made acceptance of driving with a beer can unacceptable. Schools have to be reformed, so that children with MIA parents at least have education as a ladder out.
Tax policy has to favor marriage. Education has to be a competitive sector and leaders have to use the "bully pulpit" to denounce values of hip hop and other deviant culture. But, it starts with the family and values transmitted there. If one looks at the achievements of Asian Indians in this country, what one sees is a culture that values education, family, and hard work. This is also true of many Asian demographic groups. Those are values many groups need to adopt.
Posted by: WVH on December 16, 2007 11:36 AMI finally understand.
You are frightened, you are scared to death that people will no longer accept what you are pushing like a desperate drug dealer.
You are absolutely terrified when people like Bill Cosby DARE name the truth of the problems that exist.
You are horrified that people will finally go back to thinking for themselves. That they will stand up and say they don't accept wrong as right, that there is a difference good and evil.
You mistakenly think you are an emperor, but you are still buck naked and more people know it every single day.
Ask yourself why much promoted movies are failing - people are tired of degradation;
Ask yourself why abortion numbers are down (albeit minutely) - people are tired of degradation;
Ask yourself why young people believe in marriage - people are tired of degradation.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2007 11:37 AMIs it because you feel the people of Washington State are unworthy,or is it because the Republican party does not have a platform that the people will adopt.
Then I would like to hear your idea's for how the Republicans can get a majority here.
It is my view that the moral themes will not work here.
What case can you make for continuing on with a moral theme platform here in Washington State,despite the track record of the Republican party losing here..What success are you going to be able to point to to justify continiung on with a losing platform for yet another year.
I am only afraid of a government without any checks and balances.
You seem a tad bit too extreme to me to be doing the talking for the R's but I will give you a chance to speak for them.
I didn't base any of my arguements in POLITICS at all.
Nice try, Geoffy, but you clearly don't have a clue. You are simply playing out of your old worn out book valiantly trying to reframe the arguement in your image.
It won't work because we aren't talking about the same thing and you are willfully ignoring that pertinant fact.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2007 01:22 PMYou bring nothing to the table but ranting.
You can not speak for yourself or the Republican party.
I want out of this conversation because it serves no purpose.
You are a coward.
Posted by: Publicbulldog on December 16, 2007 02:11 PMI really don't know what you're ranting about Ragnar. Is it that you're arguing for a religious test for membership in the Republican party? If such a test existed, how would it change the way Republicans govern in terms of policy?
This is just another way of asking the same thing I asked you before - that you conveniently ignored:
What, Ragnar, are you actually proposing in political terms to "re-create a culture of respect, especially SELF-respect"? What policies? What concrete actions do you expect your politicians to take to advance your social-engineering goals?
Today is Ron Paul's big "money bomb" day. It is the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party, and so far, as of 3:45 PM Seattle time, he has raised over $4,250,000 in one day. He will almost certainly break his one-day record of $4.35 million set last Nov. 5th. His total for the fourth quarter is over $15,850,000.
Imagine a Republican who is a true fiscal conservative! Imagine a Republican who really believed in limited government! Wow! Would that be great!
This really is hope for America!
Please donate today at ronpaul2008 dot com! :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on December 16, 2007 03:46 PM2. He is finally showing up on the radar of the lamestream media. This from the Houston Chronicle:
:Paul's past
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5374328.html
A look at Ron Paul's controversial past (w/video)
By BENNETT ROTH
WASHINGTON Texas Rep. Ron Paul's fervent opposition to the Iraq war
and his denunciations of Big Government have made him the Internet
darling of the 2008 presidential campaign and have earned him more than
$10 million in contributions.
Less known to Paul's many Internet-driven supporters are earlier
writings and speeches by the Lake Jackson Republican in which he made
incendiary comments about African-Americans, immigration, AIDS patients
and alleged victims of sexual harassment.
"Why don't they quit once the so-called harassment starts?" Paul wrote
in a 1988 book, Freedom Under Siege.
In 1997, Paul took issue with the concept of global warming, arguing
"the temperatures are getting cooler, on the average."
Ten years earlier, in 1987, he wrote that the United States should not
have a national immigration policy and "should welcome everyone who
wants to come here and work."
While some supporters say Paul's controversial views would not affect
their support for his presidential run, some academics begged to
differ.
'Off-the-wall views'
Paul, a 10-term congressman who was the 1988 Libertarian Party nominee
for president, has emerged from the rear of the 2008 presidential pack
to reach double digits in some polls in New Hampshire, the first state
to hold a presidential primary. The early front-runners have avoided
clashing with him because they did not see him as a threat to win the
nomination.
But if Paul continues to gain in the polls, "the more likely that some
of his off-the-wall views will get known," said Bruce Buchanan, a
University of Texas political science professor.
Paul's campaign spokesman, Jesse Benton, said in response to questions
that criticisms of the congressman's writings were recycled political
attacks.
Benton said Paul has changed his position on immigration over the past
two decades, now backing government action such as building a fence on
the border. Paul still opposes the Kyoto climate change protocol, but
now believes "temperatures are rising in some places and falling in
others, and that human activity plays a role," the spokesman said.
Paul outlined many of his ideas in his current weekly column, "Texas
Straight Talk." He also gave numerous speeches and wrote or co-wrote 11
books.
Many opinions
Among other provocative stands, Paul has advocated decriminalizing
drugs, returning to the gold standard and eliminating the Federal
Reserve, CIA, IRS and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms.
More recently he slammed government bureaucrats for using the Sept. 11
attacks as "an excuse to seize police powers sought for decades." And
he labeled the neoconservatives who built the case for invading Iraq
"Trotskyites."
Earlier this year, Paul said the Civil War did not have to be fought,
arguing that there were better ways of ending slavery. "We could have
paid for the slaves and released them," he said on HBO's Real Time with
Bill Maher.
Some of Paul's most provocative stands are included in his book Freedom
Under Siege, published in 1988. In it, Paul took issue with people
seeking government redress based on their affiliation with certain
groups.
In one chapter, he questioned those employees who claim sexual
harassment is a violation of their rights.
"Employee rights are said to be valid when employers pressure employees
into sexual activity," he wrote. "Why don't they quit once the
so-called harassment starts? Obviously the morals of the harasser
cannot be defended, but how can the harassee escape some responsibility
for the problem? Seeking protection under civil rights legislation is
hardily acceptable."
The Paul campaign did not respond to questions about the passage.
AIDS stance explained
In the same chapter, Paul also singled out people with AIDS, saying
they "demand health care and scream AIDS 'discrimination' if insurance
companies claim they have a right to refuse to issue a policy to
someone already infected with the AIDS virus."
"The rights of the insurance company owners are not considered, while
legislation is passed forcing insurance companies to provide insurance
demanded by the victims," he wrote.
Campaign spokesman Benton said Paul, an obstetrician, believes
"government mandates on insurance companies always push up costs and
drive down quality."
An August 1992 edition of the Ron Paul report newsletter described
former Rep. Barbara Jordan, D-Houston, as "the archetypal half-educated
victimologist, yet her race and sex protect her from criticism."
Benton said that even though the writings appeared under Paul's name,
the articles were written by others without Paul's approval. Benton
said Paul was "especially upset with the Barbara Jordan comments
because he respected her and liked her." Jordan died in 1996.
Libertarian at heart
A number of Paul's writings underscore his libertarian leanings.
While Paul does not talk about legalizing drugs on the campaign trail,
he wrote in 1988 during his bid for president on the Libertarian ticket
that "all drugs should be decriminalized."
In recent years Paul has criticized the war on drugs but largely
directed his ire at what he argues is the government's zeal in going
after physicians who prescribe drugs for pain management.
bennett.roth@chron.com
Brought to you by the HoustonChronicle.com
I speak quite well for myself - you are just too damned unwilling or unabble to LISTEN and COMPREHEND, but that's you're problem... and not just here in the blogosphere.
You are tedium defined, Geoffypoo. Perhaps, since you keep trying to flog your same errors over and over and continue to get nowhere you could use a good dose of comprehension Viagra.
Once again "dear", you are not COMPREHENDING either. I have not proposed one single thing in POLITICAL TERMS nor in terms of POLICIES, not one. You must share that same jello brain disease from which geoffy and most liberals (and children between the ages of 6-18)suffer: nothing ever goes in your brain, nothing ever comes out.
Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjold on December 16, 2007 04:56 PMNONE!, you fool. Do you read???
It would be tremendous if you could organize a long-term letter writing campaign. It seems very easy to do. But first, you and the management need to see the value. With the advent of the computers and e-mail it should be a lot easier to creat e-mail trees rather and phone trees.
With the strategy, the party would direct their members to write even one letter a year and help them with subject and content.
But, it needs a leader. You said you were that leader for the Snohomish County party.
Posted by: swatter on December 17, 2007 06:52 AMNo one is scared, everyone knows the problems exist. The question is does he actually change anything with his rants? Arguably not since BET has NOT playing Gangsta Rap and cut down on the number of women dressed like prostitutes show in an hour.
You are horrified that people will finally go back to thinking for themselves. That they will stand up and say they don't accept wrong as right, that there is a difference good and evil.
If this is the case why do you feel that Barbara Walters expressing her opinion that he Christmas card should have been more culturally reflective? Are you worried that others may share the same opinion as her? Will people be more likely to elect a Democrat because Barbara Walters feels slighted?
Ask yourself why much promoted movies are failing - people are tired of degradation;
Then why do these films keep getting made? If their wasn't a market would these films get made? It seems that an individuals conscious choice is the very root of the very problem you are ranting against?
Ask yourself why abortion numbers are down (albeit minutely) - people are tired of degradation;
Are abortion numbers down around the world? I don't think so. Abortions may be down because people may not have access to the clinical facilities or doctors who will perform these procedures. If abortions are down is the adoption rate up?
Ask yourself why young people believe in marriage - people are tired of degradation.
Because people are raised in a generation where people decide not to stick around when their spouse beats them or cheats on them? Are you saying people should stay in dysfunctional marriages for the sake of children? Why is it any of your any of your business?
You claim that people should go back to a time of proud morals and personal decency, can you provide a timeframe to which you are talking about? 1950's? 1930's? 1880's? Clue us in here.
Ragnar can speak for himself, as only he can do.
1. You said this regarding Dr. Cosby:
"The question is does he actually change anything with his rants? Arguably not since BET has NOT playing Gangsta Rap and cut down on the number of women dressed like prostitutes show in an hour."
a. What you are talking about is cultural change and cultural change evolves. MADD was started in the 80s and the antismoking campaign got started in earnest about that time as well. So we are looking at about a generation to change attitudes.
b. BET is not actually owned by Black people, it is a unit of Viacom. So, the poison you described is used to keep folks down on the plantation.
http://www.thenation.com/docprem.mhtml?i=20010514&s=themba
c. Policies affect the cultural outlook of society. The "Great Society" programs encouraged single women to start families because of the compensation structure. An example of a policy that encourages marital relationships, elimination of the marriage tax penalty. Other policies that encourage family development, Nixon's guranteed annual income.
NO ONE ADVOCATES SPOUSE ABUSE
But, isn't interesting the number of women and children in serial relationships without committment that are killed and maimed.
2.You said:
"If their wasn't a market would these films get made? It seems that an individuals conscious choice is the very root of the very problem you are ranting against?"
You are correct that there is a market for vulgar, no matter what vulgar is. Paris Hilton is doing quite nicely.
The issue is are there alternative scripts that get by the 20-30 something producers that have one take on life and doing see anything beyond their noses.
"AP) Family crowds spoke louder than fans of racy stories or shoot-'em-up action flicks last year at movie theaters, with PG-rated films hauling in more money than R-rated ones for the first time in 20 years.
PG titles grossed $2.3 billion domestically, compared to $2.1 billion for R-rated films, according to figures released Tuesday by the National Association of Theatre Owners. PG-13 movies did the most business with $4.4 billion.
Five of 2004's top-10 moneymakers were rated PG, which means they were open to all audiences, among them "Shrek 2," "The Incredibles" and "Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban." Out of the top 25, only four carried R ratings, which prohibit those younger than 17 from attending unless accompanied by an adult...."
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/16/entertainment/main680676.shtml
3. These are the abortion stats:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0764203.html
Behavior is difficult to assign causation. If a woman is determined to get an abortion, she will get one whether it is legal or not. The pregnancy is generally the result of unintended consquences.
a. Access to birth control can affect the number of abortions. Whether contreception is affordable and accessible can affect the number of abortions.
b. Woman according to qualitative research consider a pregnancy untenable if:
i. it affects life choices like education or employment
ii. they feel they can't afford the child
iii. the relationship is disintegrating and they don't want the responsibility.
c. Adoption has barriers such as cost of paperwork and the fact that some families can adopt children, but will need additional support after the adoption.
What is going on with abortion and adoption is a bit more complex than you describe.
4. Regarding the concept or institution of marriage. Has hooking-up made your generation any happier?
Posted by: WVH on December 17, 2007 10:40 PMLet me get this straight, your saying watching BET causes death? Smoking and drunk driving are both physical acts that can lead to death of one or more individuals. Watching BET all day will make you a fat lazy slob. Viacom is all about pushing the limits of what's acceptable in society, and they are make a lot of money doing it (see Tina Tequila, America's favorite bi-sexual bachelorette) . As someone who claims to be a conservative I'm SHOCKED you would want the Govt. to interfere in free speech and the exercise thereof. =P
You state:
"Five of 2004's top-10 moneymakers were rated PG"
This is supply and demand, has nothing to do with parent advocates. Theater owners benefit from PG movies because kids bring parents, and parents bring their wallets. A family of four could shell out anywhere from $80-$100 with parking, tickets, and concessions just to see a 90 min movie. Meanwhile an R rated movie brings in less revenue because the target audience is smaller. Economics 101.
Again, you say:
"Access to birth control can affect the number of abortions. Whether contraception is affordable and accessible can affect the number of abortions."
So why deny individual access to contraception and decent sexual education? Seems a much cheaper and more humane option than abortion. Yet certain individuals (including Ragnar I'd bet) seem to want to deny proper sexual education and contraception to people based on their particualr religious beliefs.
People are human and make mistakes, yet the human brain lets them learn from their mistakes so they don't do it again. Contraception is by no means the final solution, but combined with a good education it can lead to much wiser and healthier choices. Beats the pants off abstinence education, an ignorant teenager is still a teenager with all the feelings and emotions that go with along with being one.
"Adoption has barriers such as cost of paperwork and the fact that some families can adopt children, but will need additional support after the adoption."
So make adoption easier, let gay families adopt. Dan Savage's kid seems to be doing just fine. Seems a lot better than the foster parent system we have in place now.
I'd have to agree with Sinclair Lewis...based on Ragnar's comments it's quite clear to see what he's getting at (oh yeah, Ron Paul repeated these words as well, not that I care).
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis
I don't know, which generation do you think I'm in?
You said:
"Let me get this straight, your saying watching BET causes death? Smoking and drunk driving are both physical acts that can lead to death of one or more individuals. Watching BET all day will make you a fat lazy slob."
a. The research on behavior modeling is too extensive to cite here.
b. Research on the effects of violent and sexist attitudes toward women is too extensive to cite here.
c. The effect of violent videos:
i. " Date: August 19, 2005
Contact: Pam Willenz
Public Affairs Office
(202) 336-5707 (until 8/17)
(202) 962-4204 (between 8/18-8/21)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REVIEW OF RESEARCH SHOWS THAT PLAYING VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES CAN HEIGHTEN AGGRESSION
Boys Play Games Longer and May Be More Vulnerable to Increases in Aggressive Behavior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WASHINGTON - Violent video games can increase aggressive behavior in children and adolescents, both in the short- and long-term, according to an empirical review of the last 20 years of research. These findings are presented at the 113th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association in Washington, DC.
According to researchers Jessica Nicoll, B.A., and Kevin M. Kieffer, Ph.D., of Saint Leo University, youth who played violent video games for a short time experienced an increase in aggressive behavior following the video game. One study showed participants who played a violent game for less than 10 minutes rate themselves with aggressive traits and aggressive actions shortly after playing. In another study of over 600 8th and 9th graders, the children who spent more time playing violent video games were rated by their teachers as more hostile than other children in the study. The children who played more violent video games had more arguments with authority figures and were more likely to be involved in physical altercations with other students. They also performed more poorly on academic tasks...."
http://www.apa.org/releases/violentvideoC05.html
ii. "Violent Video Games And Hostile Personalities Go Together
ScienceDaily (Apr. 5, 2007) -- New research by Iowa State University psychologists provides more concrete evidence of the adverse effects of violent video game exposure on the behavior of children and adolescents.
ISU Distinguished Professor of Psychology Craig Anderson, Assistant Professor of Psychology Douglas Gentile, and doctoral student Katherine Buckley share the results of three new studies in their book, "Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents" (Oxford University Press, 2007). It is the first book to unite empirical research and public policy related to violent video games...."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070404162247.htm
2. I am a conservative, I am not a libertarian. I believe that is what you and other Paultards are.
i. "Libertarianism
First published Thu Sep 5, 2002; substantive revision Mon Jul 24, 2006
Libertarianism holds that agents initially fully own themselves and have moral powers to acquire property rights in external things under certain conditions. It is normally advocated as a theory of justice in the sense of the duties that we owe each other. So understood, it is silent about any impersonal duties (i.e., duties owed to no one) that we may have...."
ii. "con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj.
1. Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.
2. Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit."
I have traditional views, but I am pragmatic.
3. You said:
"So make adoption easier, let gay families adopt. Dan Savage's kid seems to be doing just fine."
i. You have no idea how his kid is doing. A certain top pol recently had his kid sentenced. Judgement should be reserved.
ii. You are confusing material security with gender identity and personality security. There is reems of research on single gender households. Kids need to model identity from both sexes. Got any research you care to cite which is contra.
iii. I do agree that adoption for heterosexual couples could be made easier.
3. I wondered why so many atheists are supporting Paultard. You said:
""When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis"
Here is the Youtube link to the Fox and Friends segement:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4
For all you Evangelicals and Right Wing Christians supporting Paultard, he means you, babe. Maybe, you'll be able to convert all his atheist supporters.
5. What generation do I think you are in Cato, the lost generation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrkltetQ0x4
Cato said:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." - Sinclair Lewis"
Paultard said the same things. So, all you Evangelical Christians and Right wing Christians link arms with atheists Cato, Tyler, and Bruce G. and begin singing the fist verse of cum baya.
Posted by: WVH on December 18, 2007 10:28 PMI watched music videos growing up, I don't beat my wife or exhibit sexism towards here. Nor do any of my friends who also grew up watching music videos.
"Violent Video Games And Hostile Personalities Go Together"
Haha, that may be so but one does not influence the other. Halo 3 (a violent video game made by Microsoft) sold 1.8 million copies in it's first 24 hours. Meanwhile "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City" has sold more than 8.5 million copies worldwide.
Both of these are violent video games...I can bet many kids and adults play both of these games. Now of the 10.3 million people how many have actually gone on violent rampages?
"I am a conservative, I am not a libertarian. I believe that is what you and other Paultards are."
I'm not a Paultard but will stick up for them when people starts associating them with Nazis.
"You have no idea how his kid is doing."
I can guess based on what Dan Savage says about him. He's certainly doing better than Mayor Nickels son who was raised in a loving Heterosexual environment. How is Dick Cheney's grandson doing?
"Kids need to model identity from both sexes."
Yeah, my friends father was a real winner. Her beat her mother, insulted her mother, pulled at one point pulled gun on his wife while my friend who was about 10 at the time was watching. Her mom left and raised the kids (my friend and her sister) on her own, both posses Master's degrees from highly regarded colleges. Do you think they would be better of with the model husband here? Or were they better of with the single mother who worked hard to make ends meet and sent her daughters to off to receive quality educations?
"I do agree that adoption for heterosexual couples could be made easier."
Why just heterosexuals, you saying that homosexuals can't provide a quality home environment for their adopted children? Here's a study that says Homosexual couples are likely to be happier and more stable when raising children.
"Maybe, you'll be able to convert all his atheist supporters."
Doubt it, Paul voters are pretty thick headed.
"What generation do I think you are in Cato, the lost generation."
This Lost Generation? Apparently we invented Jazz.
1. If you invented jazz, you are at least as good as Gore who invented the Internet.
2. Regarding the Nazi association, the newspapers are all over that. Do you deny the association? Paul never formally has. As far as I know, he has never responded to Medved. All your pals can say is they won't talk to me and answer questions because I'm mean and don't play nice in the sandbox. Benton, the campaign mouthpiece won't go near the issue. So, Cato it is a little Nazi party in bloom
3. You seem to argue a lot from your specific circumstances. Most people who inject heroin tend to become addicted. For some reason about 1% don't and are able to kick the habit. Do you advocate we all inject heroin?
3. Do you have any research or evidence for any of your opinions?
4. You said:
"Why just heterosexuals, you saying that homosexuals can't provide a quality home environment for their adopted children? Here's a study that says Homosexual couples are likely to be happier and more stable when raising children."
I really don't give a rat's rear about making some homosexual couple feel good. I am more interested in the child(ren) and them having a good life. Your study is PC madness on steroids.
If it makes you feel better there are some heterosexuals that I wouldn't trust with children or animals either. They lack the committment to care for anything or anyone but themself.
There are some awesome single parents, but that is not the norm. Many through circumstances are forced into that role and they more than rise to the occasion.
5. I admit to some times being rude, but this next comment is not meant to be mean. You seem to have had a difficult time growing up and there seems to be a lot of pain in your life. Quite often children who have either witnessed abuse or been abused suffer trauma and delayed stress.
Each individual is different and some people are more reslilent or develop coping skills, some healthy, some not. No one can give a professional opinion without real observation, but you need to have some one help you with some issues from your past so that you can get beyond the hurt and anger. Your life and relationships will be better, in my opinion.
6. On a different note, the Paultard lame move of the day:
Associated Press - December 19, 2007 12:45 PM ET
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Campaigning in New Hampshire today, Republican Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores.
Paul says if the U.S. relieved pressure on Iran, people would breathe a sign of relief, interest rates probably would not go up and oil prices probably would drop.
Speaking in Manchester, Paul said the Bush administration has been looking for war with Iran.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Now, what would he do for Hugo, invite him over for lunch?
He has no reason too, they may be racists but as long as they're American citizens with no felony record they have just as much right to donate money as you and I.
"Most people who inject heroin tend to become addicted. For some reason about 1% don't and are able to kick the habit. Do you advocate we all inject heroin?"
Hehe, now your equating parenting with taking Heroin? Oh how far the the high and mighty have fallen.
"I am more interested in the child(ren) and them having a good life."
Who's to say they won't have a good life? I can't find valid proof one way or the other that the child's life is any less fulfilled by having homosexual parents. All the studies I found using Google are from church groups with pre-conceived agendas. Then there are the articles by Christian groups saying that the actual studies done are flawed. Not knowing whom to believe, I base my opinion from my own experiences.
Having met with, been roommates with, have friends that were raised by two homosexual parents (post-divorce) and they all seemed to be fine and upstanding individuals. Of the few I've known (5), only one was bitter about his childhood. None of them dated members of the same sex.
"Many through circumstances are forced into that role and they more than rise to the occasion."
I would agree with that.
"You seem to have had a difficult time growing up and there seems to be a lot of pain in your life."
Are you trying to make insights into the quality of my life? I don't believe you know me, I'm just a name on a board. Nice try though. =)
"Ron Paul says he would lift sanctions on Iran and order the U.S. Navy to pull back from its shores."
Ummm...Bush signed off on Russia giving Iran nuclear fuel. I mean the Iranian president is clearly crazy but it's the religious council that has all the power in Iran. The Iranian president is more of a democratically elected figurehead.
1. You are correct that Paul has the right to solicit and take money from racists. That is his right. I have asked several of your team members if they know of any other republican except Strom Thurmond, David Duke, or George Wallace who has taken money from racists organizations. To date, not one of your team has answered that question. Don't you guys claim to be rock rib republican? At least the others. My research indicates every other major republican candidate has returned contributions from racists, including Bush 41.
As a corollary, since your team believes in the concept of the Constitution, the President represents all religions, creeds, and ethnic groups. The founding documents state that "ALL people...." This is clearly not the agenda of the Nazis, KKK, and Aryan Nations types who claim all non-Causcasian Protestants are inferior.
In Europe, there is often a President and a Premier and the symbolism of government authority is important. Our President embodies both the executive authority and the symbolism of national power. Nice symbolic touch, Nazis R Us.
2. You said:
"I watched music videos growing up, I don't beat my wife or exhibit sexism towards here. Nor do any of my friends who also grew up watching music videos."
The heroin comment is in direct reponse to this remark. Heroin is toxic and poison and the fact that a small percentage are not harmed doesn't mean that it should be widely used.
3. Now, regarding my opinion on the forces that shaped your posted opinions. Aren't I entitled to my opinion, just like Paul is entitled to accept racist money? A free country or something like that. Regarding your observations regarding some of your friends raised in gay households, I have no opinion regarding how successful that endeavor was without observing the individuals. So, I can have no opinion.
4. Now regarding Paul, the gift that keeps on giving. The point is he seems to lack a certain depth of knowledge in international affairs and economics. If he is like most of his followers, nuance and levity escape him.
Posted by: WVH on December 19, 2007 09:38 PMYes it is his right, whoop-de-doo. If he wants to take money from Santa Claus that's would be his right as well if Santa Claus was an American Citizen. Are you shocked that racists can be Libertarians too? Ron Paul is not going to be winning the black vote (which hardly ever goes GOP anyway), so it really doesn't matter.
Like I said, I'm not on their team I just object to you associating them with Neo-Nazis. Clinton takes money from recent Chinese immigrants, does that mean she's supporting everything they believe in? Doubt it.
2. "Heroin is toxic and poison"
It's also a Class B Felony to posses with penalties of up to 50 yrs. in prison and $1000000. Comparing music videos on BET to Heroin is like comparing apple and a machine gun, not even remotely similar.
3. "Aren't I entitled to my opinion, just like Paul is entitled to accept racist money?"
Yes, and you are also entitled to support what candidate you want as long as you are an American Citizen above a certain age and are not a felon. You can have no opinion as well.
4. "The point is he seems to lack a certain depth of knowledge in international affairs and economics."
You seem to have me lumped in with the Paul supporters for calling you out on your Nazi association.
Seven years ago Bush was a lackluster Governor of Texas, an office which has little to no power. Talk about a position that lacks a "certain depth of knowledge in international affairs and economics". He was elected and has managed to run the country in a manner many people regard as effective.
People are going to vote for whomever they want, I seriously doubt your going to convince a Paul supporter to change their vote to your guy Huckabee.
1. Hillary should be asked tough questions about the money she gets from Chinese waiters who donate several times their reported salary and some who have no recollection of making the donation. Whenever people cross the Clintons they tend to end up dead or in prison, so I'm sure Hu isn't willing to divulge much. Dirty money is dirty money whether it comes from Nazis or the Chinese government.
2. Now, regarding Blacks and the republican party, it helps to know some history:
"....Nelson A. Rockefeller was a critical player in this story. Since the 1940s a small group of liberal Republicans, chiefly from the Northeast, had routinely joined pro-civil rights Democrats in Congress to sponsor civil rights legislation regarding voting rights, segregation, and equal employment opportunity. Like their Democratic allies, they favored a stronger role for the federal government in ensuring racial equality. Such a position, they maintained, represented a fulfillment of the tradition of Abraham Lincoln. It also represented good politics, for the black population of many cities in the Northeast had grown dramatically since the 1940s. In 1960, Rockefeller, who had eyes on the party's presidential nomination, voiced the concerns of this wing of the GOP in his fight for a strong civil rights plank at the Republican party's convention in Chicago. He persuaded nominee Richard Nixon to fight for a civil rights statement that expressed support for the sit-in demonstrations that had spread across the South that spring. Southern Republicans, who had grown in number since the mid-1950s, were predictably outraged. So were other conservatives, who worried about the expanding reach of government into employment matters and other areas related to private property. The party retreated from the Nixon/Rockefeller position, but Rockefeller had established himself as the leader of the pro-civil rights faction of the party at the presidential level. As the civil rights movement intensified across the South during the Kennedy administration, battle lines within the Republican party hardened. Rockefeller and other liberals routinely criticized President Kennedy for being too timid and tardy in responding to the crisis. During the spring of 1963, Rockefeller blasted Kennedy for ignoring recommendations of the Civil Rights Commission regarding housing, employment, voting rights, and education, failing to live up to promises made in the Democrats' civil rights plank of 1960, and appointing anti-civil rights judges to the Federal bench in the South. On the other hand, conservatives within the Republican
party, led by Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona, looked increasingly to the South as fertile ground for future GOP electoral gains. Ironically, even as Kennedy was being condemned by northern liberals in each party for doing too little, white southerners believed he was doing too much. The conservatives insisted that this growing resentment in Dixie could be combined with anti-government feelings in the West to propel the Republican party to victory in the 1964 presidential election. The conflict between liberals and conservatives culminated in 1964 as Rockefeller and Goldwater battled for the Republican presidential nomination. Like the vast majority of Republicans in Congress, the New York governor strongly supported the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act. The law contained important provisions that outlawed segregation in public accommodations and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to combat employment discrimination. These two sections drew the wrath of Goldwater, who criticized them as unwarranted intrusions of federal power into the rights of private property owners and accordingly voted against the bill...."
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:VEmPpe404MAJ:archive.rockefeller.edu/publications/resrep/thurber.pdf+African+American+republican+party+history&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=14&gl=us
The 1964 Voting Rights Act was the turning point for Blacks and the GOP.
The fact that GOP leaders cannot dissassociate themselves from a candidate with Paul's associations is certainly not going to help republicans win in increasingly diverse Puget Sound counties and ring burbs.
3. I am not shocked that racists use the political process to achieve their goals. That is what David Duke attempted in his unsuccessful run for governor of Louisiana and that is what Hitler did in his successful campaign in Germany.
This is the issue:
Conservatives and republicans are not racist soley because they espouse a conservative ideology. They can become aiders and abetters of racism by not denouncing Nazis, KKK, and Aryan Nation types who attempt to co-op their party. Republicans came out to defeat Duke in Louisiana, republicans voted for Bobby Jindal in the hope of getting clean government in Louisiana. Bush 41 had no problem kicking the racists to the curb. The question for the republicans in this state is whether you let your party be taken over by the David Dukes of this world?
Posted by: WVH on December 20, 2007 10:11 PM