fletch

Easy. But unfortunately, you don't hear them do it often enough. 90-something percent of the US believes in the existence of God. A republican who states that 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights' is making a faith based argument that the majority of Americans would probably still agree with. As to whether religion or socialism is the greater threat, I suppose that if someone could demonstrate how the current religious revival in this country is somehow different and more dangerous than it was at any other point in US history, I might be persuaded to vote for the Dems. But from my perspective, the idea of Christianity and individual rights have coexisted since the nations' founding. A Christian who believes that individual rights are bestowed upon man by God is no threat to me. He will, in fact, be more likely to defend those rights when they come under assault by the political left. Socialism may have been discredited, but many (no one here) argue that the Great Depression did the same thing to capitalism. So that has left us with welfare statism that has a built in bias towards statism, not capitalism. Capitalism is nothing more than that evil necessary for the support of the welfare state. Republicans, fresh out of ideas about how to fight this trend, have been overrun by a group with an agenda. I just don't see that agenda as more threatening as the one posed by people like Obama, Reed, Pelosi. As an aside, what is the proper word to define a person like Obama? Socialist? Marxist? Welfare statist? Leftist? None of those seem right. Any suggestions?

I suppose it would probably help the discussion if you could name someone openly advocating "killing non Christians, " While you are at it, tell me who it is that is looking to set up a "Christian monarchy." There are legitimate reasons to object to theism, so there is no need to make up more. I havent ignored it, I just dont agree with it. Many on the right accept that individual rights are endowed upon man by his Creator. Thats fine with me. The left has successfully pulled the old switcharoo and have substituted economic rights for political rights. Thats a problem. Sounds like someone is under the Great Teleprompter Readers spell.

Who would decide what constituted an emergency? Is global warming an emergency? Is health care an emergency? Is gun violence an emergency? And who decides? If the answer is the state, how do you propose stopping them from them declaring a national emergency for any variety of reasons and suspending all rights? It is the role of government to secure rights, not look for creative ways of violating them.

Hadnt heard that one. You gotta think that McCains investigators would have turned that up if there was any truth to it. But that is one hell of a vicious smear.

So what does this tell us about the woman?

If you are writing it for a Christian school, you might want to object to the union of church and state from the angle that it is the state, not the church that is the evil. The church is a voluntary organization in which not even God compels obedience to his will. The state, on the other hand, achieves its goals through force. Combining church and state grants to the state the ability to impose the will of a few on the many in the name of God--a power no man or group of men should ever have. Rather than elevate the church, combining church and state crushes the human liberty and the inalienable rights granted to man by God....That sort of thing.

If she accomplishes nothing more than convincing the bull-headed McCain to drop his worship of the "pristine" and open up Anwar, she will have been a good choice. Issue #1 for me in this election is energy. Obama seems content to let the bad guys monopolize the production of oil while we place our resources off-limits. If he cant see the danger such a position poses to our national security, then he really is unqualified to lead this nation. To then proclaim that we will kick our "addiction to foreign oil" in ten years without using our own oil, coal, or nuclear power is the type of insane fantasy that should get him laughed off the stage. McCain, at least, seems to have seen the light on this issue and he strikes me as the type of guy who would cast aside his environmentalism if he felt the national interest was at stake. At least I hope so.

Why would you assume that?

I have friend who is a contract driver for Eagle. He was taking a bunch of generators down to the disaster area a day or two after the storm hit. He told me that there was virtually no power south of Atlanta, which meant no way to get fuel. On top of that, many roads were impassable. If I remember right, it took 3 days for the convoys to arrive in New Orleans. Do you think these convoys of food and bottled water were just sitting around waiting for a disaster to strike? It takes time to organize these things and when an entire state is a disaster area and an entire city is submerged in several feet of water, the length of time gows that much longer. The entire situation could have been avoided if there were adequate supplies of food, water and emergency power sources at the places people were told to go in case of emergency. That fault lies at the local level, not the Oval Office. Why you would excuse the incomparable incompetence of local officials is beyond me. Funny how you dont here anything about Mississippi, which actually suffered even more from the storm but didnt spend the next three years complaining about federal response. Could that have anything to do with the fact that Mississippi had a republican governor who was up to the job?

I agree. Teaching evolution and the evidence there is for that theory along side of creationism and the complete lack of evidence for that theory is actually good for children in my opinion for the very reason you mentioned. Frankly, I am more concerned about the environmental agenda being pushed in schools than the religious one. My daughter was introduced to the idea that man was destroying the planet in the 4th grade. And I dont expect to ever see a class extolling the virtues of capitalism or the greatness of America. From the Christian perspective, that last sentence would read: "When teaching creationism is banned, when freedom of speech is diminished, then we are in trouble."Just as the rise of Christian fundamentalism is a reaction to the social meltdown of the 60's, the push for creationism in schools is a reaction to the injection of leftist social and political ideology into the classrooms over the last couple of decades. The solution, as you said, is the end of government schools. And in that regard, the religious right would make a formidable ally. They feel their beliefs are under assault by the left...and they are right about that. Schools have just become the latest battleground. The way to defeat the left is to dismantle the power of the state. In education, that means private schools. There is no reason to believe that the religious right cannot be swayed to this idea since there is not likely to be any other means for them to get their agenda into public schools.

The same. McCain is not the candidate of the religious right. That was made clear during the primaries as Huckabee garnered huge support as a protest vote. The choice of Palin was not made to appease the Evangelicals--although it may do so--it was made to satisfy the conservative base and appeal to women voters in the wake of Clinton's defeat.

Larry Kudlow was saying that if you reduce or eliminate capital gains tax for investment in new or small business, money will flow toward these risky investments rather than to stable companies that have a proven track record. Why would you support a policy like this? As for cutting taxes to 90% of Americans, do you not realize that this money is first to be taken from the remaining 10%? What Obama is proposing is nothing more than a huge transfer of wealth from one group to another. Apparently, this doesn't apply to that 10% now does it. I may have missed it, but did you post a critical response to the democratic convention? Or is it just everyone else that has to be objective?

How, exactly, are Republicans responsible for the Katrina disaster? Was it because of the incompetent republican governor Louisiana had at the time? No, Blanco was a democrat. Was it the incompetent republican mayor who failed to adequately conduct the evacuation? No, Ray Nagin was a democrat. Was it those republican bureaucrats who devised the brilliant scheme to send people to sports arenas during the storm but failed to stock those arenas with the supplies needed to support several thousand people for what could be several days? No, democrats have controlled that city forever. Was it rich republicans that failed to heed the warnings to evacuate the city? No it was mostly poor democrats who decided to stay behind and take their chances on surviving the storm of the century. As for your claim that republicans are "the party of racism, sexism and bigotry," you may notice that it is white democrats that Obama is having trouble with.

And that was only halftime.

I cant think of an argument that can make the case that turning the country over to Obama, Reed and Pelosi is a good idea. Since it seems certain that Reed and Pelosi will keep their leadership positions, the only rational choice in this election would be a vote for Mccain. Aside from keeping the 'Axis of Evil' from controlling of the US government, there are side benefits to a McCain victory that should not be overlooked. First, a Mccain victory will demonstrate to future Republicans that towing the line of the religious right is not the only path of success in politics. It will succeed in further marginalizing the role of Evangelicals in the Republican Party. A Mccain loss will do the opposite. Should he lose the election, his failure to woo the religious right will get the blame, thus only strengthening the hold of religion over the Republican Party. As for the Democrats, an Obama loss might get them to conclude that nominating extreme left-wing candidates is a recipe for electoral disaster. That seems unlikely since they didnt seem to learn from the Clinton/DLC example, but instead continued along the path of defeat paved by Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry and now, possibly Obama.

As long as you are Bible shopping, you might as well pick up two of them--King James and The Living Bible to help interpret King James. There are countless verses in the King James version that you will likely find incomprehensible. The Living Bible will give you a layman's interpretation. I suppose you could always just read the Living Bible instead, but King James is what most people use and quote from. As for debating religious folk afterwards, actually reading the Bible will put you in a position of being more knowledgeable about Christianity than the vast majority of Christians who have never bothered to do what you are about to.

Not usually, but I dont see what they gain by lying this time. If they were going to lie about it, wouldnt it be better to say that the spotted owl has made a remarkable comeback, and hold it out as an environmental activism success story? The way the article reads, destroying the logging business in an effort to save this one breed of owl was a complete waste. It seems that the spotted owl may in fact have been dying out, but not because of man, but because of other owls.

Saw this article in this mornings paper: http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/stori....xml&coll=2 After 14 years on the endangered species list and a 24.5 million acre federal land grant upon which to roam, the saintly spotted owl is on the verge of extinction. This time the blame rests not at the feet of the villainous loggers--if it ever did--but on a different species of owl, the barred owl. The article doesn't go into it, but you have to wonder if this other species of owl was not the culprit in the demise of the spotted owl all along. What to do now? Nice.

Count me in. I would like to read it as well. And no, I wont swipe it.

Strike one.

Check out his clip of some black county commissioner taking offence to the obviously racist term: "Black Hole" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20a-exAW6qc

Actually, one of us is living in reality, the other is evading it.

Thanks for the thoughts there, Gramps. I agree with everything you say, particularly this: Control over ones life is what Objectivism offers, but it also enables you to develope the self-confidence that that control requires.

What would a person who describes himself in such a way 'mean' to anyone? If you have no self-worth, you cant expect others to place much value in you. If I received such a letter, I would simply reply: Get off the drugs and get your shit together.

Compare that to how Obama answered the same question. He pegged "the rich" at $250,000. To him, anyone who makes that amount or more is fair game.