Weekend question
On Thursday we learned pro-abort US Senator Barbara Boxer blocked a Senate resolution welcoming Pope Benedict to America for its reference to “the value of each and every human life.”
Boxer thought this referred to abortion.
After a 3-day impasse, the sponsor, Catholic US Senator Sam Brownback, relented and struck the disputed language, and the resolution passed unanimously. See the original here and amended version here.
The Crypt reported Brownback “did not want a high profile fight over the resolution.”
Do you agree with Brownback’s decision, or do you think he should have stood his ground?
Apr.19, 2008 7:30 am |
Weekend question |
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The House has no life.
Cranky, what do you mean?
Wimp alert!
Acceding to a woman’s PC agenda –
shameful!
The most important sentence in the resolution – the bedrock
foundation – was removed.
You can’t handle the truth! I say BRING IT ON!!
Ben Stein for U. S. Senate!
How can boxer publicly say she’s not in support of the ‘value of human life.’ How does she sleep at night?
I don’t understand why Boxer really cares what the wording is or not.
I agree with Sam Brownback’s decision. There wasn’t a need to dispute the wording for three days. Mr. Ratzinger is the Catholic leader, and everyone knows that Catholics do not condone abortion.
This wasn’t a resolution that would change or influence any laws. The Catholic position on abortion has always been crystal clear, IMO, so a resolution to welcome a Catholic leader was simply not worth the arguement of the wording.
Brownback getting rid of it was a good idea, regardless of whether or not you support abortion. Would you really want an uproar in the Senate over welcoming the pope to the country?
Though, the point of this resolution when they could just have some sort of ceremony or something to welcome him is a bit beyond me, but politics is politics, *sigh*
Acceding to a woman’s PC agenda – shameful!
I don’t understand the relevance of the senator’s gender here. If it had been a male pro-choice senator would that have been somehow less shameful?
Though, the point of this resolution when they could just have some sort of ceremony or something to welcome him is a bit beyond me, but politics is politics, *sigh*
Dan,
I was wondering the same thing!
I think it is important to choose your battles. Sam Brownback has chosen some big battles, and I am fine with him using his resources for those battles.
Absolutely, emphatically, NO! Shine the light on these roaches and they will scatter. (And I hate to insult roaches).
It is for this type of response to liberals and pro-aborts that continue to act like children, pouting to get their own way, that the dysfunction in our government continues. This is how God has been taken out of schools, this is how abotion was legalized, etc. If our pro-life politicians understood God’s word that with God you can do anything, would they understand how you can stand against these pro-death, godless, pro-aborts, and utterly win.
A believer should NEVER, NEVER compromise with evil, NEVER.
We must stand against everything that is evil in our country and fight. There is no peace until there is victory. There is no victory until you have completely DEFEATED YOUR ENEMY, and the Barbara Boxer types are our enemies, and do not be deceived about this.
This more then just a sentence being deleted folks…it goes much deeper. I am ashamed of Sam Brownback’s decision to buckle under pressure and remove this.
“How can boxer publicly say she’s not in support of the ‘value of human life.’ How does she sleep at night?”
I know Anon, how do they sleep at night.
Look at this garbage for Boxers spokeswomen:
“UPDATE: Boxer’s spokeswoman Natalie Ravitz has written The Crypt to say “we are very pleased we were able to reach an agreement with Senator Brownback to remove the political language and pass this resolution welcoming Pope Benedict.”
witnessing the value of each and every life is political language ???
This was a perfect opportunity for Brownback to expose this evil from liberals and he blew it.
You coward Sam Brownback.
It is for this type of response to liberals and pro-aborts that continue to act like children, pouting to get their own way, that the dysfunction in our government continues. This is how God has been taken out of schools, this is how abotion was legalized, etc.
HisMan,
Yes, I didn’t see it like that! Thank you for posting that. I’m changing my mind and I’m agreeing with you on this one. A pro-abort did indeed throw a little hissy fit, and got her own way. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile. We really need to stop giving inches!
Thanks again!
Boxer’s call is a virtual admission that she understand life begins at conception. Her response gives light to the lie – if she truly believed that the unborn are not human life, then she would not have made the request.
Brownback should have made a statement to that effect and then dropped it. That would have been more personally convicting of Boxer than anyone else.
I agree with Senator Brownback (I often do!)
Pick your battles. Was it worth this sentence to cause an uproar when the purpose was to welcome our guest? Barbara made an ass out of herself and Sam handled it in a classy way.
The above wasn’t Jasper- it was me, addressed to Jasper. I’m sorry about that.
Politics, politics…yeah.
Brownback is often seen as such a wingnut that it’s best, IMO, in his eyes not to try and put spin on this deal. Dan is right – leave the BS for other things, at the very least.
Jasper & HisMan,
Step off your soapboxes and use your brains.
Brownback wanted to welcome our guest. Boxer was holding up this timely resolution over a line of text she didn’t like. So, Brownback, being mature, wise and always picking his battles, removed this line so his ultimate goal could be achieved. And he won. He could have sacrificed his original goal bickering over an inconsequential line of text to no end. Do you think Boxer or anyone’s minds would have changed if Sam had foregone the welcome (cut off his nose to spite his face) to fight this? It’s fruitless. We need to save our fights for bills when words matter. “Health Exceptions” come to mind.
Politics is not screaming louder than another and having the last word like some schoolkids on a playground. Sam is mature and classy in this, not a coward because he won’t fight a pointless battle that would compromise battles where human lives are at stake.
Sometimes I think my short-sided idealogue allies do more harm than my enemies.
Jacqueline,
I’m confused. What did this resolution have to do with welcoming our guest? If the resolution didn’t “pass”, would we not welcome him? I guess my question is what on earth was the point of this resolution anyway?
testing
JLM-
That’s what the resolution said! It was a way for the U.S. Congress to officially welcome the Holy Father. And yes, if it hadn’t passed, there’d be no official statement on the Pope’s visit from Congress. I think no welcome from Congress speaks volumes.
I’m confused- if this resolution about welcome the point doesn’t matter, why do you want to squabble about the wording?
Seriously, y’all. No babies or others will die or be saved because of that statement. Sam knows that. He’s saved countless babies and so he saves his battles for when it does matter.
Calling him a coward for his class, focus and intelligence in this matter in uncalled for- and just buttresses my statement that my supposed allies can be my worst enemies.
Sam is an undaunted champion for the unborn and should be treated as such.
Jacueline,
I think that Sam went lukewarm on this one. As you said, no welcome from Congress speaks volumes. Was it more important for Sam, being Catholic, to get that welcome into writing than to stand firm at all times on his beliefs of the unborn?
Do you think that if he wasn’t Catholic, and still pro-life, would he have stood firm on this one?
Do you think that if he wasn’t Catholic, and still pro-life, would he have stood firm on this one?
Only if he were a arrogant idiot who cared more about making a point than making a difference. There was no point in standing firm on this. It was inconsequential and counterproductive to the goal of welcoming the Pope. Had he stood firm on this, he’d have compromised the integrity of standing firm when it truly matters. He could get labeled as petty and contentious and not be able to influence others when such influence could save babies.
As you said, no welcome from Congress speaks volumes.
Well, had he stood firm, that’s precisely what would have happened, as the Boxers and her ilk wouldn’t have passed the resolution. So he conceded one line of text which is self-evident (the pope is pro-life. everyone knows this) in order to achieve the actual goal. To fight over this line would be to not erect an homeless shelter because of disagreements on the wallpaper. He could have foregone the big picture over a detail, but he’s wise enough not to.
Was it more important for Sam, being Catholic, to get that welcome into writing than to stand firm at all times on his beliefs of the unborn?
First of all, there is no divide between being Catholic and pro-life. I was a pro-life activist protestant for 7 years before I converted, and I can assure you that you can’t be Catholic before you are pro-life or pro-life before you are Catholic. It’s not possible. They are one and the same.
That being said, Brownback didn’t compromise his beliefs for the unborn. Tell me, is anything about that one line of text going to help or harm an unborn baby? I can tell you plenty of bills where one line WOULD help or harm unborn babies, and in those situations, Sam always stands his ground. He stands his ground when it matters- not to fight some immature battle over nothing (perhaps to spare him ridicule of people that are ignorant), but to actually save lives. Sam ain’t about PR- he’s about justice.
Along those lines, I wonder how much of this calling a champion for the unborn a “wuss” a “coward” and “lukewarm” is just self-righteous talk to make certain pro-lifers feel all high and mighty?
Jacqueline,
You are such a smart,logical woman. I totally agree with you.
“I was a pro-life activist protestant for 7 years before I converted, and I can assure you that you can’t be Catholic before you are pro-life or pro-life before you are Catholic.”
Are you really saying you can’t be pro-life without being Catholic? You’re not saying that are you?
Only if he were a arrogant idiot who cared more about making a point than making a difference. There was no point in standing firm on this. It was inconsequential and counterproductive to the goal of welcoming the Pope. Had he stood firm on this, he’d have compromised the integrity of standing firm when it truly matters. He could get labeled as petty and contentious and not be able to influence others when such influence could save babies.
But wasn’t the point of the wording in the resolution what the pope feels…NOT congress???
Trust me….the next time this “wording” is brought up in congress, Boxer & her ilks will remember how effective their whining was. They have been even more empowered by it. This will come back to slap pro-lifers in the face…again…I guarantee it.
So he conceded one line of text which is self-evident (the pope is pro-life. everyone knows this) in order to achieve the actual goal.
Again, that was the point of the wording of the resolution…to put the POPE’S feelings and actions into words…not Congress’.
First of all, there is no divide between being Catholic and pro-life. I was a pro-life activist protestant for 7 years before I converted, and I can assure you that you can’t be Catholic before you are pro-life or pro-life before you are Catholic. It’s not possible. They are one and the same.
I think you missed my point on this one. Was Sam’s decision to delete that part of the wording simply to appease Boxer & her ilks to get the “welcome resolution” passed? Because if he fought it tooth & nail and it didn’t pass….there would be no “welcome resolution”. As a Catholic….was the resolution passing (document on the books in Congress) more important to him than his beliefs of what the pope’s actual beliefs and actions (and his own, too) are? I mean, it seems that he would be more disappointed that a welcome resolution wouldn’t be provided for the pope than standing firm on what the pope and he believed in the first place. Sounds like conceding to me.
Sam ain’t about PR- he’s about justice.
Really? It seems in this instance PR won!
Along those lines, I wonder how much of this calling a champion for the unborn a “wuss” a “coward” and “lukewarm” is just self-righteous talk to make certain pro-lifers feel all high and mighty?
Lukewarm isn’t self-righteous, Jacq. It’s what he did in this instance. Right or wrong, he made a decision. I look up to Sam, and think he’s a very staunch supporter of life, and would never think ill of him. I just think that this will come back to bite PL’ers in the butt, that’s all.
I think that quote should’ve been cut anyway, since he really didn’t do much about the priest molesting little boys thing. That’s certainly not “witnessing to the value of each and every human life.”
Sure, he’s stood for the weak and vulnerable… but not all of them.
He should have stood his ground.
The objections were so petty and out of line that any attention this might have received was smothered. It just goes to show the lie of those who call themselves pro-choice that they would object to such language.
Jeff,
You say the objections were petty and out of line. Why should he have stood his ground then? It just makes the pro-choicers look like a bunch of whiny babies at the end of the day. Personally, I’m okay with him taking the mature route. It makes him look like the mature one while leaving the others to look like a bunch of toddlers having a tantrum.
I think Jacqueline means that you can’t be Catholic and pro-abortion. If you call yourself Catholic and you are not pro-life, you might as well be a ‘Catholic’ who rejects Jesus Christ. Being pro-life, meaning, having respect for human life, and standing in opposition to the murder of the innocent, is a fundamental aspect of being Catholic. Being pro-abortion is a flat-out rejection of many, many basic Catholic concepts, including the Ten Commandments, the Golden Rule, and the theology of the Eucharist. Catholics are called to live lives of sacrifice, not to sacrifice their children.
Sam Brownback is a very good man who has never been one to embrace controversy. He’s not a fighter, like, for example, Rick Santorum. His capitulation on this issue is ultimately not that important, but it does remind me of something much more important and much more momentous in American history: When the southern delegates forced Thomas Jefferson to remove his condemnation of slavery from the Declaration of Independence.
Hey, John-
Catholics are called to live lives of sacrifice, not to sacrifice their children.
You say this and then wonder how I love you so!?!
Jacqueline, aw shucks! I just went through this thread again, and I must admit, as Elizabeth said, your logic is flawless. While it’s also true that Brownback is not the best rhetorician or political fighter, he chose the best course of action in this circumstance. Of that there can be no doubt. We pro-lifers should be saving our fire for Barbara Boxer for taking issue with the resolution in the first place, not for Brownback for trying to avoid an essentially pointless battle.
It’s tangentially related, but I’ve been watching a lot of Pope Benedict XVI in America today. It’s amazing that he is pretty much the exact opposite of how he has been presented by the media. Instead of being a nasty, fire-and-brimstone style preacher who loves power, he’s a very calm, very compassionate teacher who seems almost shy around these large groups of people. I think a lot of us could learn a lot from how B16 behaves. And by “a lot of us” I mean “me”, in particular.
Jacque,
I’m not removing that line if I’m Senator. No way.
here is the line:
“Witnessing to the value of each and every human life.”
what is so wrong with this line? What good is a resolution if it’s meaningless to many of the pro-abort Senators. Most of these people don’t agree with Pope Benedict on anything.
Like HisMan said up above, this is what got us into this mess in the first place. Conservatives giving into the radical liberal agenda.
Jasper, there is nothing wrong with that line. That is why Barbara Boxer should be condemned for demanding that it be removed.
I do not fault Sam Brownback for trying to avoid a fight in this case, a fight which, if won, would not have helped the pro-life situation in this country.
I mean, can’t we have 1 Catholic senator with a spine? I guess not, now that Rick Santorem is gone.
After that wording was removed, I would have voted against it. And then taken the resolution and crumpled it up and handed it to B.Boxer and told her to stick it where the sun don’t shine.
John,
He held his ground for three days, didn’t he?
“I do not fault Sam Brownback for trying to avoid a fight in this case, a fight which, if won, would not have helped the pro-life situation in this country.”
It’s the principle of it John. We need more fighters in the senate, not less. That being said, I don’t think Sen Brownback is a coward, I happen to like him alot, I’m just disappointed that he removed the line.
I’m not removing that line if I’m Senator. No way.
Then your resolution fails. Congratulations. This is precisely the reason why people like yourself aren’t Senators- you’d be eaten alive.
Also, it’s this lack of holistic understanding that makes ineffective Senators. If you take this attitude of nit-picking over inconsequential items, you’ll not pass a single bill.
Luckily, Senators are educated enough not to fall into folly. Sadly, many pro-lifers are not. It’s the Judie Browns and those like yourself that cut off our nose to spite our face.
what is so wrong with this line?
Nothing! It’s a great line! But it’s not worth losing the resolution over. The point of the resolution was not to reaffirm the Holy Father’s stance on life, but to welcome him. It acheived just that- but only after Brownback wisely side-stepped a pointless battle that would have killed the whole thing.
What good is a resolution if it’s meaningless to many of the pro-abort Senators.
The resolution isn’t for them- it’s for the Pope.
Most of these people don’t agree with Pope Benedict on anything.
Screw ’em!
Secondly, how is that relevant?
It’s the principle of it John.
Once again, do we want to make a point (it’s the principle!) or a difference (passing the resolution).
We need more fighters in the senate, not less.
Mature, wise fighters that pick their battles, yes. Petty, pissing contest fighters, not-so-much.
I definitely understand where you’re coming from, Jasper. But I also don’t think that B16 would have liked it too much if his visit here resulted in turmoil in our Congress.
Jacqueline,
I love you…I agree with you and I wish that I was as eloquent with my comments as you are. You rock girl!
Jacqueline, aw shucks! I just went through this thread again, and I must admit, as Elizabeth said, your logic is flawless.
Na-ha! You like me! You liiiiiiike me…
Anyway- it’s my job. It’s easy for people that don’t understand policy and how complex it is to write, support and pass that can feel real good about themselves by criticising the pros- like Brownback. They like to talk about how they would have handled things if they were Senator from the perspective of a black and white fantasy world, when my friends have to make decisions in reality that effect life or death for unborn and ill people all over this state. Policy analysis ain’t easy, lay folks don’t have all the information, and pro-lifers out there doing amazing things for humanity endure these sorts of attacks from their supposed fundamentalist allies.
This is why I get testy when ignorant people criticise.
Once again, do we want to make a point (it’s the principle!) or a difference (passing the resolution).
But you just said in your last breath that the resolution isn’t for the Senators- it’s for your Pope. How does passing this resolution make a difference? IMO, the resolution not passing would have been just fine with me, rather than appeasing a pro-abort.
Don’t pass it, shake his hand, kiss his ring, and say “welcome”…what’s so wrong with that?
Elizabeth, you’re eloquent. Beyond that, you’re smart. You might not say things the way you’d like to, but what you say is always substantive and insightful!
Out of the mouths of babes:
Since the Pledge of Allegiance and The Lord’s Prayer are not allowed in most public schools anymore, because the word ‘God’ is mentioned….
a 15 year old kid in Arizona wrote the following, (and we should feel great sorrow for what our kids have to go through because of liberals like Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama):
NEW School prayer :
Now I sit me down in school
Where
praying is against the rule
For this great nation
under God
Finds mention of Him very
odd.
If Scripture now the class
recites,
It violates the Bill of Rights.
And anytime my head I bow
Becomes a
Federal matter now.
Our hair can be purple,
orange or green,
That’s no offense; it’s a freedom
scene.
The law is specific, the law is
precise.
Prayers spoken aloud are a serious
vice.
For praying in a public hall
Might offend someone with no faith at all.
In silence alone we must meditate,
God’s name
is prohibited by the state.
We’re allowed to
cuss and dress like freaks,
And pierce our noses,
tongues and cheeks.
They’ve outlawed guns, but
FIRST the Bible.
To quote the Good Book makes me
liable.
We can elect a pregnant Senior
Queen,
And the ‘unwed daddy,’ our Senior
King.
It’s ‘inappropriate’ to teach right from
wrong,
We’re taught that such ‘judgments’ do not
belong.
We can get our condoms and birth
controls,
Study witchcraft, vampires and totem
poles.
But the Ten Commandments are not
allowed,
No word of God must reach this
crowd.
It’s scary here I must
confess,
When chaos reigns the school’s a
mess.
So, Lord, this silent plea I make:
Should I be shot; My soul please take!
Forgive my resolution ignorance, but I really don’t see why we need to pass a resolution to welcome a visitor into our country. Can someone please shed some light on why a resolution is so darned important and necessary???
“Once again, do we want to make a point (it’s the principle!) or a difference (passing the resolution).”
what difference did the resolution make? These pro-abort senators, especially the most of the catholic ones, couldn’t care less about what Benedict says. Didn’t you see the list that Judie Brown made?
Elizabeth, are you just a cheerleader or do you have something to add?
But you just said in your last breath that the resolution isn’t for the Senators- it’s for your Pope. How does passing this resolution make a difference?
Because resolutions are how Congress officially “talk” as a body. To have such an influential and public figure, dominating the news with his arrival and for Congress not to pass a resolution is like they were silent.
What news would it make if President Bush came to my hometown of 500 and the mayor didn’t say a word? It looks as if you’re giving the President the silent treatment, because you disapprove.
We don’t want our legislative body on record as disapproving or not recognizing the emmenance of the Pope with no resolution. It’s also an insult to the Holy Father that Congress not welcome him as a body.
These things matter.
what difference did the resolution make?
Okay, apparently you don’t even know what a resolution is, yet you’ll criticize Sam for not going to bat over a line.
So he’s a coward for not going to bat- for something you don’t understand or recognize the importance of.
These pro-abort senators, especially the most of the catholic ones, couldn’t care less about what Benedict says.
Read my above post on resolutions and hear me reitterate: SCREW ‘EM. It doesn’t matter what these pro-aborts think.
Once again
Elizabeth, are you just a cheerleader or do you have something to add?
You wouldn’t be saying this is she were praising your comments. :)
We don’t want our legislative body on record as disapproving or not recognizing the emmenance of the Pope with no resolution. It’s also an insult to the Holy Father that Congress not welcome him as a body.
These things matter.
Most of the world thinks the good ‘ol USA is Babylon, anyway. Do you really think your pope gives a rat’s behind about what our nutty legislative body puts into words, anyway???? I mean, come on! He let Pelosi kiss his ring!!!
Of course I like you, Jacqueline! And I agree with you completely about the pro-life movement shooting itself in the foot too often. If we really want to defeat the pro-aborts, we need to use the right strategy. If we just lash out in our righteous indignation, it might make us feel better, but it’s not going to help us reach our ultimate goal. Alexander the Great conquered the known world because he was one of the greatest generals in history. Sure, his personal strength and passion helped, but if he hadn’t utilized superior strategy, he never would have conquered anything.
And HisMan, that prayer is awesome!
“Read my above post on resolutions and hear me reitterate: SCREW ‘EM. It doesn’t matter what these pro-aborts think.”
then why pass a phoney resolution welcoming the Pope? If it’s not honest and truthful, the hell with it. The Pope doesn’t need any damn dog n poney show resolution.
Elizabeth, are you just a cheerleader or do you have something to add?
Jasper, are you just rude or do YOU have something to add?
“Jasper, are you just rude or do YOU have something to add?”
It was just a joke Elizabeth, I agree with Jacque, your very bright too you know. Remember, you’re suppose to be on my side!
HisMan-
I anticipate a virtual flogging, but I’m glad there is no longer a pledge of allegiance in schools. I’m upset that I was coerced into pledging to a flag when I was young. I think it’s indoctrination and idolatry.
Furthermore, children can say the Lord’s Prayer if they please. I don’t understand the Fundamentalist huffing and when the state doesn’t endorse Christianity.
Perhaps the wrong question is being asked as it seems to divide us?
Open your Bibles and see what Paul says when when Christians start declaring, “I am for John, I am for Jasper, I am for Jacqueline..”. Are we not all for Christ? Are we not for ending the attacks on Christ which is what every abortion is at its foundation?
We always need to look at the motive of the enemy as liberals are geniuses at deception. If they can devide us they win and that is what they have been doing, and that is why they have been winning. If Boxer can cause any controversy among the rank and file pro-lifers she’s won and a millimeter closer to their ultimate goal: an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing abortion rights. Please see the big picture. Why else could a liberal be so concerned about such a picayune matter, really? Jesus NEVER, compromised, EVER with evil. If you don’t believe me read the account of his temptation by satan. He DID NOT compromise, EVER. Pro-lifers need to learn this principle. Never, ever, give satan a foothold.
Whether or not we agree with Senator Brownback is not the question, the question should be:
“Are liberals committed to doing everything they can to solidify the death of innocent children in the womb and what are we pro-lifers going to do about it?
Remember what Jesus said, “A house divided against itself cannot stand”.
Pro-lifers need to stand as one voice, loudly, and forcefully, and uncompromisingly speaking in unison against the most evil actions of our time.
And I want to say this, I love you all and I know where your hearts are in this matter.
:sigh:
I blame the internet, Jasper. It is hard to tell when one is being serious or not. I apologize. :)
“Of course I like you, Jacqueline! And I agree with you completely about the pro-life movement shooting itself in the foot too often. If we really want to defeat the pro-aborts, we need to use the right strategy. If we just lash out in our righteous indignation, it might make us feel better, but it’s not going to help us reach our ultimate goal. Alexander the Great conquered the known world because he was one of the greatest generals in history. Sure, his personal strength and passion helped, but if he hadn’t utilized superior strategy, he never would have conquered anything.”
@John: I whole heartedly agree (no sarcasm here, promise).
then why pass a phoney resolution welcoming the Pope?
It’s not phoney. Those pro-aborts may disagree with him and are on the express train to Hell, but they still welcome him, kiss his ring and respect him as a figure.
Most of the world thinks the good ‘ol USA is Babylon, anyway. Do you really think your pope gives a rat’s behind about what our nutty legislative body puts into words, anyway????
Yes, I do. And there is a difference between letting someone wicked kiss your ring and giving them Holy communion.
“I anticipate a virtual flogging, but I’m glad there is no longer a pledge of allegiance in schools. I’m upset that I was coerced into pledging to a flag when I was young. I think it’s indoctrination and idolatry.
Furthermore, children can say the Lord’s Prayer if they please. I don’t understand the Fundamentalist huffing and when the state doesn’t endorse Christianity.”
Don’t anticipate a virtual flogging from me. I agree with you as well.
I think the Pledge of Allegiance is silly as well…mostly because they added the “One nation, under God” in the 1950’s as a “One Finger Salute” to the USSR (Godless Commies!).
Yep, HisMan, as I said, we should be mad at Barbara Boxer.
Jacqueline, I disagree with you about the Pledge of Allegiance, just as I did the last time that came up, but I certainly understand where you’re coming from.
See that, pro-aborts? I don’t have to agree with someone on everything to like them.
well said HisMan.
“It’s not phoney. Those pro-aborts may disagree with him and are on the express train to Hell, but they still welcome him, kiss his ring and respect him as a figure.”
Well, maybe your right here…. You’re referring to Nancy Pelosi correct? Yes, I saw that too. I said to myself, wow, this woman has alot of nerve.
Jesus NEVER, compromised, EVER with evil. If you don’t believe me read the account of his temptation by satan. He DID NOT compromise, EVER. Pro-lifers need to learn this principle. Never, ever, give satan a foothold.
Well said, HisMan. I believe that B16 would have commended and respected Sam for NOT compromising! I think he would rather have no resolution than the one he got.
Nacy Pelosi gets away with a lot of stuff:
Don’t expect her to get away with this.
Jacqeline:
Our foundation as a nation is Christian. The pledge of allegiance grew out of that.
What exactly don’t you agree with that in The Pledge.
Jacq…
no flogging here, either! I see “with liberty, and justice for all” in a whole new light now!
What a crock!
I f they can devide us they win and that is what they have been doing, and that is why they have been winning.
No- Brownback wisely stops such divisions by conceding where it is moral to concede and not making mountains out of molehills.
If Boxer can cause any controversy among the rank and file pro-lifers she’s won and a millimeter closer to their ultimate goal: an amendment to the constitution guaranteeing abortion rights.
So a line in a resolution has impact on a pro-abortion ammendment? It really doesn’t, and it’s not worth fighting over.
Please see the big picture.
I agree- That’s why criticising Brownback’s choice to wisely minimize conflict in this matter was important. This line isn’t important to the big picture- moreover, it jeopardizes it.
Why else could a liberal be so concerned about such a picayune matter, really?
Because she’s petty- and since Brownback is not, he didn’t retaliate.
Jesus NEVER, compromised, EVER with evil. If you don’t believe me read the account of his temptation by satan. He DID NOT compromise, EVER. Pro-lifers need to learn this principle. Never, ever, give satan a foothold.
I agree- but when Satan already has a foothold, you have to reclaim that ground, and sometimes that includes not fighting all battles to save artillery for the one that will win the war. We are rallying against an existing, almost unfettered evil here. Abortion is legal all throughout pregnancy for any reason. Attempts to regain some justice and peace, like restrictions and regulations are shot down by people claiming what you said to be their justification. So attempts to gain a foothold overselves and reclaim ground from the enemy are thwarted by our own supposed allies. This allows more babies to be killed and the enemy’s grip to strengthen, while certain people feel unduly proud of themselves for standing on principle at the cost of unborn children’s lives.
Pro-lifers need to stand as one voice, loudly, and forcefully, and uncompromisingly speaking in unison against the most evil actions of our time.
And we need to effect change. This doesn’t happen with an “all or nothing” decree in this perverted judicial system we let run rampant. Do you know how many lives are saved because brilliant, righteous politicians were willing to compromise on an unimportant point (like a line in a resolution) to pass a bill that limit’s abortions somehow?
And I want to say this, I love you all and I know where your hearts are in this matter.
Likewise. :)
Kindof related:
I got a letter in the mail today from Franklin Graham (Billy Graham’s son). In it, he was talking about the demise of the morals of the US. The letter was “spot on”, but the one thing that stood out to me was this quote from his late mother:
“If God does not judge America for her sins, then He would have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.”
We really need to pray hard for our country, and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many as we can! The time is coming where we won’t be able to do that anymore.
John 9:4
I must work the works of him that sent me, while it is day: the night cometh, when no man can work.
Jacqueline, I disagree with you about the Pledge of Allegiance, just as I did the last time that came up, but I certainly understand where you’re coming from.
We’ve talked about this before?
Our foundation as a nation is Christian.
That’s true- and it’s these values that contributed to our success. That doesn’t support imposing a theocracy when the founding fathers were quick to see the danger this posed to liberty.
What exactly don’t you agree with that in The Pledge.
I don’t believe in pledging my allegiance to a flag- I think it’s idolatry. It’s a flag. Also, this nation is quite unjust- to 50 million unborn babies, to disabled women who they let starve and dehydrate to death over a two week period, to religious groups they don’t approve of- so the “liberty and justice for all” is lie. This is why I don’t pledge.
What I mostly oppose is that children, kindergarten age, are taught to daily recite a vow they can’t possibily understand to instill some blind loyalty which isn’t based on anything true. Kids recite the words because they’re told. Because you agree with these words, doesn’t make that exploitation okay.
What if the pledge was changed to words you didn’t like, and you were raised saying it daily and your kids must say it daily as well? That would be a different ballgame, eh?
I agree- but when Satan already has a foothold, you have to reclaim that ground, and sometimes that includes not fighting all battles to save artillery for the one that will win the war. We are rallying against an existing, almost unfettered evil here. Abortion is legal all throughout pregnancy for any reason. Attempts to regain some justice and peace, like restrictions and regulations are shot down by people claiming what you said to be their justification. So attempts to gain a foothold overselves and reclaim ground from the enemy are thwarted by our own supposed allies. This allows more babies to be killed and the enemy’s grip to strengthen, while certain people feel unduly proud of themselves for standing on principle at the cost of unborn children’s lives.
HisMan,
Does this remind you of Jericho???
We really need to pray hard for our country, and preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many as we can! The time is coming where we won’t be able to do that anymore.
I agree. The time to beg for mercy is now, while Christ can offer it. When He comes back, it won’t be pretty.
Jacqueline, I disagree with you about the Pledge of Allegiance, just as I did the last time that came up, but I certainly understand where you’re coming from.
Could you tell me where you’re coming from? I’ve never heard anyone argue for why we force kids to recite a vow they don’t understand.
I think we should keep the pledge, I see your point in our country not living up to it. But, before 1973, we did. We should not take a further step backwards in removing the pledge, the liberal pro-aborts would love for it to be removed.
As a liberal pro-abort, I agree. I would love for it to be removed. It’s mindless repetition of words that should not become meaningless. It’s fake patriotism, like insisting on wearing a flap pin.
But, before 1973, we did.
Did we? Did we really? For a very long time, this country was repressive to non-whites, if I recall. Before that, women. Before that, Indians.
We should not take a further step backwards in removing the pledge
Why would it be a step backwards for kids to stop reciting a vow they don’t understand?
the liberal pro-aborts would love for it to be removed.
Why- they love all the injustice they perpetrate!
As a liberal pro-abort, I agree. I would love for it to be removed. It’s mindless repetition of words that should not become meaningless. It’s fake patriotism, like insisting on wearing a flap pin.
Crap- I agree with you? Either by some fluke, you’ve got this one right, or I need to really re-think this.
Jacq,
What makes you happy?
What makes you happy?
Wow, where do I start?
Here’s a short list:
Jesus, the Sacraments, Love, Family, Friends, My Dog, Yoplait strawberry yogurt, floaty pens, Richard Linklater films, live bands of the acoustic-driven folk rock persuasion, crazy straws, 8 bit nintendo, accents, alanis morrisette, alison krauss, astropops, babies, back rubs, ballgowns, bath fizzies, bath salts, bible, black bras, bluegrass gospel music, bluegrass music, boys, bright pinks, bubble bath, bubble teas, butterflies, candlelit rooms, candles, cherries, chilly autumn weather, chop sticks, cinnamon toast crunch cereal, coffee, college, confetti, connect4, cool whip, counting crows, cow tipping, cranberry sauce, curly straws, dance dance revolution, dandelions, daydreaming, doubledare, duct tape, edwin mccain, evening gowns, eyeliner, finger puppets, fishies, flippy-floppy shoes, footy pajamas, french toenails, fruit roll-ups, fruit stripe gum, fruity pebbles cereal, fudgesicles, gelatto, gelly sandals, glow in the dark, grace, graduation day, gummi worms, hair scrunchies, hand-holding, happy tears, he-man, hello kitty, homestar runner, hymns, inside jokes, jann arden, jars of clay, jason mraz, jesus, kilts, laughter, libertarians, lip gloss, lips, live theatre, long drives, lord’s supper, macadamia nuts, magnets, mandolins, manicures, march for life, mary poppins, mcconnell tower glowing green, men’s cologne, miles davis, mini marshmellows, monsters inc., mother theresa’s writings, muddin’, music, my college roommate, nail polish, napping, neverending story, nickelodeon, otter pops, pajama bottoms, palm trees, peaches, praying in the spirit, precious feet pins, princess bride, public policy, pumpkins, road trips, rollercoasters, rolling down grassy hills, ronald reagan, roxette, sand, scripture, shag carpeting, sleeping, sleepovers, slip-n-slide, snow, snow tubing, soybeans, spicy chicken burritos, spooning, squirrels, strawberries, strong bad, summer storms, sunsets, texas, the 80’s, the beach, tilt-a-whirls, tofu, tubing texas rivers, unexpected reunions, university of north texas, vertical horizon, water slides, weird al yankovic, what about bob?, worshipping.
That list is so short, that it’s almost vulgar.
Lol Jacque…I love that you put that list in alphabetical order.
Thank you Jacqueline! That was cool! I don’t get to see your happy side too often, so that was nice. Thank you!!!
:)
:)
:)
(triple-smileys for you!)
Why call reciting the pledge mindless. It is only mindless if the person who says it does not use their mind.
Why call recitation of the Lord’s prayer mindless. It is only mindless if the person who says it does not use their mind.
Why call the act of saying I love you mindless. It is only mindless if the person who says it does not use their mind.
I support the use of people and their minds. I also support people saying all of the above. The words are not mindless. The words have great meaning. The problem is not in the reciting. If there is a problem it is not because of what is said.
Switch some periods into question marks for the above. I am sure you are all smart enough to know where. Thanks.
HisMan (and anyone else for that matter)
I encourage you to look at this if you think the pledge came to be because of Christian values, quite simply, it didnt. Yes it was written by a Baptist minister, but it was inspired by political movements and politicians, not religion.
http://www.united-states-flag.com/pledge-of-allegiance.html
“The words have great meaning. The problem is not in the reciting. If there is a problem it is not because of what is said.”
The problem is FORCING kids to say it, whether the prayer or the pledge. You can’t force patriotism. You might be able to force religion, but why would you want to. Remember, we live in a “free country.” How can you justify forcing kids to recite daily how much they love living here and force them to pledge allegiance to our flag? Seems wrong to me. Free people don’t behave that way. Or shouldn’t.
Strange- I’m always happy. It’s my defining characteristic.
You can’t judge a person’s disposition by how incensed they become at injustice- or in this case, falsely accusing Brownback.
We ‘force’ kids to learn english, math, science, and history. What kind of free society would inflict such a thing on kids? Shouldn’t we just let them grow up and decide what they want to learn for themselves?
We ‘force’ kids to learn english, math, science, and history. What kind of free society would inflict such a thing on kids? Shouldn’t we just let them grow up and decide what they want to learn for themselves?
Posted by: Brian at April 20, 2008 12:46 AM
That’s silly. Our society would become less free if we allowed our kids to become idiots and then those idiots ran the country.
We ‘force’ kids to learn english, math, science, and history. What kind of free society would inflict such a thing on kids? Shouldn’t we just let them grow up and decide what they want to learn for themselves?
Posted by: Brian at April 20, 2008 12:46 AM
No Brian: They need to learn World Religions, Philosophy, Classical Literature, World History, Morality, Architecture, American History, Bible Study, Astronomy, Creative Writing, Human Physiology, Musical Theory,etc… Kids are coddled way too much in our schools. They think the world revolves around them. And then when they become adults, they don’t want to be forced to do anything as adults either. What a mess we are in!
Jackie:
I think the words, “I pledge alegiance to the flag” means: I agree with the principles that this country was founded on: these truths are self evident, that all men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain, inalienable rights”.
And where do these truths come from but God Himself? Pledging allegiance to the flag is giving honor where honor is due….to God Himself.
Brian:
Yes, God’s truths are universal and can be discovered and practiced by anyone, not just Christians.
Thanks for helping me make my point.
I’m a little disappointed in Brownback’s decision. I think he should’be stood his ground, and let someone else introduce a watered down version. That way Boxer’s obstinate desperation to protect the “right to kill” would have stayed in plain view.
“And where do these truths come from but God Himself? Pledging allegiance to the flag is giving honor where honor is due….to God Himself.”
No wonder I’m offended by the mandatory pledge.
We ‘force’ kids to learn english, math, science, and history. What kind of free society would inflict such a thing on kids? Shouldn’t we just let them grow up and decide what they want to learn for themselves?
There is no comparison betwee making a child recite a vow he doesn’t understand every day, to education.
We don’t make kids take vows they don’t understand to the periodic table, to the laws of thermodynamics, the good grammar, etc. If we did, I’d oppose that do.
And where do these truths come from but God Himself? Pledging allegiance to the flag is giving honor where honor is due….to God Himself.
Bull- You’re pledging to a flag and a nation- just like you say you are.
Another thing- How do you think God feels about being pledged to by proxy? It should be God, then country, not country so by default, God.
Also- how we were founded is not how we currently act- so in essence you’re pledging to the flag and the nation for which it stands that offends God daily.
And explain this to me: How can you and your brethren defends the pledging to a flag (becuase it’s *like* pledging to God, twice removed) and then condemn my crucifix, which actually *is* a symbol of God. And condemn the statues in my church, orthodox icons, the divine mercy image, etc. I’ve had many a fundamentalist call me an idolator because I have a home full of such objects that I DON’T PLEDGE TO, but nonetheless I respect what they respresent.
So I can’t respect God through depictions (because they’re graven images, right), yet you think kids should be forced to pledge to God VIA a flag, via a country?
That’s silly. Our society would become less free if we allowed our kids to become idiots and then those idiots ran the country.
Haha, I’m sorry…but this sentence gave me a bit of a chuckle.
We just let people with “important” degrees who are STILL idiots run the country.
No wonder I’m offended by the mandatory pledge.
Hal, the fact that you brag about rejecting your Creator, killing your kids and so forth makes me very sad.
There is a Hell prepared for unrepentant people- please repent before it’s too late.
Jacque,
how about the star spangled banner, do you stand up for it, or do you reject that as well?
Jackie:
You’re prejudice towards me and what I believe is evident.
I wear a solid gold crucifix around my neck as many of my church friends also do. I have no problem with this. Catholics have stutues in churches and as long as they are not worshipped (and I know the RCC does not teach worship of stutues) I have no problem with that. However. stautes in church are not a requirement for salvation as I’m sure you know. Sounds to me like you converted to RCism from a denomination that had alot of animosity towrads RCism, probably Lutheranism or Episcopalianism, correct? I am niether of those so take a deep breath would ya?
I have crosses everywhere in my home. I even have an Armani statues of Mary holding Jesus after His crucifixion, etc., gasp!
I guess if someone attacked our country you would not give allegaince to it? Exactly which country are you a citizen of?
The reason for my posting the pledge written by a 15 year old was really not about the pledge at all. To be honest I don’t havea problem with someone saying it or not saying it. It was to show how far as a nation we have drifted away from God by taking Him out of schools which then has led to other things, the major one of which is legalized abortion. Our kids are in a spiritual war zone and we’d better realize it quick.
So, let’s havea truce on teh pledge issue, OK?
As far as your comments to Hal about Hell, etc. he does not respond to those. I suggest that you pray for him and his family and respond to his posts using logic and not hysteria. Hal is a smart guy, has made up his mind about God and not moved by threats of eternal punishment. Doing so usually reulst in back and forth insults which helps no one. Prayer as you know can move proverbial mountains. A hardened heart is a mountain and prayer is the only thing that can change it. You must be willing to keep Hal in your prayers for the rest of your life and you may not see the fruit of that until you see him in heaven. I think Hal really likes us and we like him. Usually he is not vulgar and vicious but does respond based on the convictions of an honest heart.
Hal:
Not in church this morning, eh? OK, I get your point on the pledge. I don’t even think God would require you to say the pledge, after all, He is the Creator of the whole world and not just the good old US of A. Don’t you think it is good to teach our children to be patroits though, I mean we live in the same country right and we are attacked, we are attacked as one, correct?
Let me also ask this of you as an atheist. Don’t you think that the muzzling of churches via the 501c3 legislation in the 1950’s and taking God out of schools by Madeline Murray O”Hair has led to the passing of Roe v. Wade and other pro-atheistic legislation?
Obviously Sen. Boxer was correct. If the Pope really cared about each and every human life, he would endorse condom use for HIV prevention.
God wasn’t even in the pledge until the Red Scare.
And kids can pray in school all they want. My ENTIRE musical theatre class and my teachers said a group prayer before we did shows. I politely stood outside the circle with my head bowed. (Though I admit, once we were all pumped up, the last line that Taylor always threw in, “and let our voices be on FIRE FOR GOD!”, I usually yelled anyway, just because it was fun.)
No one forbids you from having a bible at school, or from praying out loud or to yourself. They just don’t force you to do it.
So here’s my question…
We’ve seen amanda marcottes blog and now JJ’s…
where are the blogs for choice like this one, that encourage open debate and respect? Are there any?
Hisman, you’re being very respectful. I hope someone checked to make sure you’re not the impostor (joke). I really appreciate. I do like the people, here, I generally like people everywhere.
Regarding your question:
“Let me also ask this of you as an atheist. Don’t you think that the muzzling of churches via the 501c3 legislation in the 1950’s and taking God out of schools by Madeline Murray O”Hair has led to the passing of Roe v. Wade and other pro-atheistic legislation?”
First, I don’t like the “muzzling of the churches” anymore than you do. I always default to freedom when I can, and I don’t like social engineering through the tax codes. I think people in church should be able to do practically anything they wish.
I believe that Roe v. Wade and the legislation you don’t approve of were not caused by “taking God out of schools.” Taking God out of schools is just another effect of a broader societal shift. I might call it “progress” you might call it descent into immorality. Schools are not leading this movement, but might be one of the more visible places to observe it.
your other question:
“Don’t you think it is good to teach our children to be patroits though, I mean we live in the same country right and we are attacked, we are attacked as one, correct?”
Sure, that’s a good idea. My kids come home once in a while with a bit of the old “anti-American” crap teenagers are sometimes drawn to. I like to point out to them the things I believe make our country great, and channel their energy into thinking a bit more critically about the issues. It’s seldom black and white.
I love this country and I stand for the National anthem, (but I wouldn’t if it was required by law).
Okay guys, I’m off site for awhile. Wish you all well over next week or two.
Thanks for your answers Hal.
Have fun whatever you’re doing.
I hope it’s a vacation.
Obviously not presidential stature.
PTL, Brownback failed in his pursuit early on!
MK-
you guys are always more than welcome at mine, I’m just not too popular and not based on one issue ;)
Ans with all this presidential stuff its mostly been based atound Democratic campaign bits. lol.
And Erin- that’s very true.
I’m in MA, possibly THE most liberal state in the U.S. (though Cali is some tough competition) and there is a Bible Study club, and there have actually been a couple prayer meetings people have had before school. It’s more than welcome as long as it isnt being pushed on others or being used in some sort of discriminatory/harassing manner (good story bout that harassment bit I found online, now on my blog, though I’m not so sure most of you guys would see it as humurous, or even in good taste. eh, can’t win ’em all.)
Jacqueline, I’m coming from the same place Brian is coming from. Brian said:
“Why call reciting the pledge mindless. It is only mindless if the person who says it does not use their mind.”
If children do not understand the Pledge of Allegiance, that’s the fault of their parents. It’s true that many of them do not understand it, but the fault doesn’t lie with the pledge itself.
As I told you the last time this topic came up, when I recite the Pledge of Allegiance, I am pledging allegiance to the American ideal. I do not focus on America’s flaws in this situation, but rather on everything that’s good about America.
When I pledge allegiance to the flag, I’m not pledging allegiance to abortion, or to slavery, or to genocide, or to any other atrocities committed by Americans past and present. I am pledging allegiance to the idea that, as Jefferson observed, we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these are the right to life, the right to liberty, and the right to the pursuit of happiness.
Here’s another way to think about it, from a Catholic angle. When I recite the Creed, and I declare that I believe in One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, I’m not saying that I approve of the sins committed by the people of the Church past and present. I’m not focusing on The Inquisition, or the burning of heretics, or the child sex abuse scandal. All of those things detract from the greatness of the Church and do not represent its ideal and true greatness. So it is with abortion and the American ideal. Abortion is contrary to what America is supposed to stand for just as it is contrary to what the Catholic Church stands for.
Reality said: “Obviously Sen. Boxer was correct. If the Pope really cared about each and every human life, he would endorse condom use for HIV prevention.”
He’ll do that right after he endorses promiscuous casual sex.
Erin: 1:42: And kids can pray in school all they want. My ENTIRE musical theatre class and my teachers said a group prayer before we did shows. I politely stood outside the circle with my head bowed. (Though I admit, once we were all pumped up, the last line that Taylor always threw in, “and let our voices be on FIRE FOR GOD!”, I usually yelled anyway, just because it was fun.)
No one forbids you from having a bible at school, or from praying out loud or to yourself. They just don’t force you to do it.
I have an adult relative that does this at meal time when with the rest of the family at her parent’s home – she refuses to acknowledge the prayer a before meal. Just sits quiet. Every time it happens I go crazy inside. I feel it is arrogant and disrespectful to the host and to God.
Although your case is a bit different, dcan you tell me what makes someone do this? What’s going on in the mind? Does it feel wrong for you to just mouth the words? Sometimes, I wish she’d just fake it as a courtesy to her parents. (Sounds like a “Dear Abby” letter, doesn’t it? Thanks for your response.)
Further confirmation that Brownback is a pussy who is unfit to be considered as a presidential nominee
Janet- honestly, it bothers me because that’s me saying things that I know in my heart that I don’t believe. It’s the same reason that I don’t go to church just to humor my parents. It’s a denial of who I am, which I think isn’t fair. I will happily be quiet and respectful if people around me would like to pray before a game or a show or a meal. But doing it with them is nothing short of me lying to them and myself. Honestly, I find it more disrespectful, at least in my mind, to fake some kind of devotion that other people take seriously.
Zeke-
WATCH YOUR LANGUAGE!
I’ll be deleting that when I have a moment.
Erin,
Thanks for your honesty. Have a good day!
HisMan, you wrote: ” Don’t you think that the muzzling of churches via the 501c3 legislation in the 1950’s…”
The churches are not “muzzled”. They are free to say whatever they want, but they will not be exempted from income tax.
Having to pay income tax is not being “muzzled”.
Would you want mosques to be exempted from income tax?
If “God” were allowed in schools, then Allah would have to be allowed in schools too.
Do you want your tax dollars paying for schoolchildren to be indoctrinated into Islam?
HisMan, did you really not know that the phrase “under God” was only inserted into the Pledge of Allegience in the 1950s, during the Red Scare?
It should be removed again–“under God” directly contradicts the phrase “One nation, indivisible”.
God divides nations. Look at Ireland, look at Henry VIII’s England.
God divides nations. Look at Ireland, look at Henry VIII’s England.
Posted by: SoMG at April 21, 2008 9:26 AM
That’s a myopic view of the world. People divide nations.
I should have said, BELIEF in God divides nations.
SoMG: I should have said, BELIEF in God divides nations.
One can argue that God UNIFIES nations as well. For example, the Catholic Church is “universal” after all.
Of course religions can divide people, but I believe the positive influence of God/religion is greater than the negative.
Some of the crazy jingoistic stuff that I see kind of freaks me out because I know how far nationalism can go for a country–and that is not pretty. I love the US but our crazy obsession with the flag and having kids memorize and pledge to it mindlessly, and the idea that our society is better than everyone else’s, that anyone who disagrees is a traitor…all of these can lead to something really dangerous.
to those who say that the parent’s responsibility is to explain to a 5-year-old the meaning of the pledge of allegiance- a 5 year old cannot possibly grasp what it really means. The maturity to understand these kind of things happens years later, just development wise. Who was it that proposed this–was is Eriksson?
When I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance ‘under god’ wasnt even in it. And thats how I say it now. I pledge allegiance to the nation – the supernatural is not relevant to the discussion.
PIP, this is tangentially related, but it might actually be kind of fun if Obama gets elected, because then the rest of us can condemn him every day, call him a liar, accuse him of stealing the election, call him a terrorist, a murderer, a Nazi, etc… and then when you Obama fans get mad, we can scream at you, “STOP QUESTIONING OUR PATRIOTISM!!!!” and “DISSENT IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF PATRIOTISM!!!!!”
So I’ll definitely have something to look forward to if Obama does indeed get into office. Four years of extreme patriotism as I speak truth to power by mindlessly and insanely attacking Obama for no good reason!
I don’t care if you disagree with him, John. Different strokes for different folks. We’ll just vote in november and hope for the best.
But PIP, it won’t be mere disagreement! We’ll be demanding Obama’s impeachment the second after he wins the election. Impeachment for war crimes, terrorism, etc, and we’ll be such jerks about it that Obama won’t be able to get anything done. And when you complain, we’ll inform you that you’re being a NAZI who is ATTACKING OUR PATRIOTIC DISSENT!
Btw John, I am not sure anyone here would question your patriotism. Seems only the right wing wants to do that. That or scare you into voting for them. However, I’m glad that you have something to look forward to.
Believe me, PIP, if Obama gets in, you’ll be questioning our patriotism.
BTW, PIP, you sure are right about the right-wing trying to scare people into voting for them. Why just take a look at some of the stuff the right-wing says:
-If you don’t vote for conservatives, old people will be forced to choose between food and medicine!
-If you don’t vote for conservatives, women and minorities will be second class citizens!
-If you don’t vote for conservatives, every nation on Earth will hate us!
-If you don’t vote for conservatives, the polar ice caps will melt and all life on Earth will end!
That’s some crazy stuff, no? Why are conservatives always trying to scare us with BS like that?
Okay, John. I only hope he lives up to those standards.
Not sure, John, maybe you would know?
Yeah, PIP; I really don’t know why conservatives are always trying to make us afraid that if their opponents get in, old people will starve, women will be slaves, the world will hate America and the Earth will be destroyed by global warming. Why are conservatives always saying that stuff?
Gee John, I’m not very sure. But seeing as how I’m not conservative, I guess I can’t answer that question.
PIP…
*Facepalm*
John, you know I’m just trying to frustrate you right? Because you tried to start something?
PIP,
You not still voting for Obama, are you?
jasper, I’m waiting till general to truly decide.
Good, I’m glad you may be considering J.McCain..
hey, I thought Obama was for the little guy?
http://www.zombietime.com/obama_visits_billionaires_row/
Jasper-
It’s called “politics”
welcome to the game ;)
BUT he does have far more from small donors tahn any other candidate, and (I think) any candidate before him. He is mostly financed by those small donations, but you have to tap every resource. He mentioned going to events/talking to people like that to finance his first Senate run, it really isnt surprising, and it’s probably necessary and helps to try and reduce Clinton’s influence in Cali.
Dan,
Happy 18th!
18th birthday? Dan, get out of that cigarette store!
No, that’s me, Doug. Dan is in the porn shop!
:: laughing :: Right on, Erin.
When I was little, people would send their kids to the store for cigarettes all the time; a different age…. (I mean like kids in the 2nd grade.)
Mid-1990s, I was in Maryland, and these three kids about 16 years old outside a store asked me to buy cigarettes for them. They hand over some cash, I go in and make the buy. Come back out and give them the smokes, and all their money back.
My wife is horrified by this, and I now realize you can get in real trouble for it, but you should have seen the look on their faces – a total stranger giving them the pack for nothing….sweet.
Early 1970s, my brother and I stole some cigarettes from our grandmother, then headed out to the railroad tracks to smoke ’em.
Total little punks, trying to be cool. Didn’t know about inhaling or anything, but we got ’em lit.
A train comes, and there we were, roughly 12 and 10, posing away. Now, I can just see the guys in the locomotive coming at us: “Oh, would you look at this….”
As they went by, they nailed us with a bucket of water. We responded with every oath, imprecation, and lewd gesture we knew.
They had to be laughing their butts off. My brother and I laugh about it to this day.
Mid-1990s, I was in Maryland, and these three kids about 16 years old outside a store asked me to buy cigarettes for them. They hand over some cash, I go in and make the buy. Come back out and give them the smokes, and all their money back.
hmmmmm….harming children for your own desired satisfaction. Well, at least no one can accuse you of being a hypocrite!
Silly, JLM.
Ah, good, PIP! So you agree with me that the party that is always trying to scare everyone into voting for them is the Democratic Party.
John, if you want me to answer seriously, here goes:
1. Global warming is hardly a partisan issue, as you should surely know.
2. Everyone knows that our health care system sucks and democrats offer the solution. Maybe Republicans could do a better job advertising what they will do to overhaul our health care system. I don’t think I ever heard Obama say that it would be mass chaos without him-it just wouldn’t change.
3. Many nations around the globe don’t like us or care for us, although some still do. I don’t doubt that some sort of change in administration will be a sigh of relief to many countries but that alone won’t change it, that would require us helping undo what we have done wrong that caused those hostilities in the first place. I’ll give you a hint: probably involves peace, and listening. I don’t know much about McCain yet, except I never got that vibe from him.
4. Women and minorities are disadvantaged (though in the details of “what ways they are disadvantaged” I disagree with many counterparts in the Democratic party). Again, no democratic party nominee that I heard (correct me if I’m wrong I haven’t seen every debate) has said that things will be much worse-just that they won’t change.
Notice a trend? I see our candidates urging about the need for a change (you know, being progressive is what we do), and emphasizing what needs changing, while much of what I heard from the Republicans is “vote for me, or Vegas will be bombed.” “You’re either with us or against us.” Sounds a bit frightening to me. Not even in a “I’m scared” kind of way, but “I’m really concerned about where this is heading” kind of way.
In history SI we were talking about this. We were talking about WWII and how both Hitler and Stalin were dictators on both ends. We can see a little bit of these ideologies in our candidates: The emphasis on patriotism and the need to follow the presidents every word, etc etc form the Republicans (nationalism) and the idea of “collectivism” (trait of communism) that come from the Democrats. In either sense it is important to not let either of them get out of hand. I would be a little bit more amendable to McCain if he wasn’t out to exploit people’s fear of the unknown so much (in terms of foreign policy)
Everyone knows that our health care system sucks and democrats offer the solution.
PIP, did you mean to have a comma in there? I don’t think you mean that everyone knows Democrats offer the solution, do you?
IMO neither party offers the solution, and I don’t think there is a “good” one, anyway. What is possible is reduced services and care for a higher number of people than now receive care, but it’s not like we can just “give it to everybody,” without changing it.
I’m pretty cynical about gov’t-adminstered deals, so I imagine some additional waste and inefficiencies would enter the system under the gov’t. Not saying it’s good now, either – ridiculous lawsuit settlements and judgments, doctors paying over $100,000 per year in liability insurance….
I think that to include all Americans (or everybody in the country), services would have to be cut to the point that in the end it might not be seen as a good trade by most.
……
In either sense it is important to not let either of them (the major political parties) get out of hand.
Agreed, but I don’t see the most “danger” coming from the current parties. If anything, I’d say some really “bad” economic times could result in the possibility of a dictator or otherwise “strongman” gaining enough power to really change things.
“PIP, did you mean to have a comma in there? I don’t think you mean that everyone knows Democrats offer the solution, do you?”
Yeah, sorry, I did mean to have a comma in there.
“I think that to include all Americans (or everybody in the country), services would have to be cut to the point that in the end it might not be seen as a good trade by most.”
I think most countries are happy with their system.
PIP, I worked in Canada from 1986 to 1994, living there the last four years.
People were happy with the system, yeah, but you waited for things more than you do in the US. People abused it too, like going to the doctor “for somebody to talk to,” just as a transient cure for loneliness.
When I was there, talk was circulating of having to implement user fees and/or cut services to balance the books. Don’t know how that went.
Canada still spends significantly less than does the US per capita on health care, which surprised me.
Doug,
Most countries drastically reduce their spending when they switch to a universal system. While there might be more waiting, it would be preferred by many, including myself, to the crappy one we have now. If we institute a private counterpart those who have the money and “don’t want to wait” don’t have to-and it would promote the capitalist ideals regarding medical progress.
Interesting Doug….
I guess Canada’s done pretty well overall.
The US would worry me, due to my perception that our federal gov’t is nothing if not exceedingly wasteful.
Another problem we in the US have is the ludicrously high court judgments from lawsuits some people are receiving.
This means that doctors have to pay exorbitant insurance premiums, and that they often feel compelled to order expensive batteries of tests, even if not indicated, just to protect themselves against the “why didn’t you do so-and-so” deal if they get sued.
It means that a given area will have to have more CAT scanners, etc., machines often costing into the millions of Dollars, the costs adding up and adding up.