PDA

View Full Version : I think they're lying. And I think they know it.


Fast_Eddie
11-30-2009, 01:07 PM
This article is old, but I believe still relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/business/yourmoney/01view.html?_r=1

The crux of it is that, at least in December 2005, we're on the low end of the Laffer curve and that lowering taxes any more will only lower revenue. Every member of Congress surely knows this and yet I've not heard a single one mention it. Not only that, I've heard a hoard of them (all with the same letter after their name) scream that taxes are too high. Indeed there is a movement by citizens to drive taxes even lower and thus bankrupt our country.

Okay, the rank and file at the Teabagger Convention probably doesn't know. They just don't like taxes. But the folks organizing these things do know. And they're lying. Telling people what they want to hear in exchange for votes, even though they know it is running the country into the ground.

Just my thoughts.

Ed

By the way- I don't like taxes either. But I love America. As they say, freedom isn't free.

Boreas
11-30-2009, 01:25 PM
The crux of it is that, at least in December 2005, we're on the low end of the Laffer curve and that lowering taxes any more will only lower revenue. Every member of Congress surely knows this and yet I've not heard a single one mention it. Not only that, I've heard a hoard of them (all with the same letter after their name) scream that taxes are too high. Indeed there is a movement by citizens to drive taxes even lower and thus bankrupt our country.

The Rs have an issue that they can run on 'til the cows come home, just like abortion, and the Ds are too chickenshit to risk losing the votes of people who don't vote for them anyway.

Okay, the rank and file at the Teabagger Convention probably don't know. They just don't like taxes. But the folks organizing these things do know. And they're lying. Telling people what they want to hear in exchange for votes, even though they know it is running the country into the ground.

Just my thoughts.

Ed

In that lost 8 minutes of mine which you were wise enough not to watch a lady waiting at Palin's book signing said that Palin would "Clean up the spending, stop the spending."

When asked what were some examples of spending she'd like to see stopped, she said, "All of it. All of it."

Brilliant.

John

Fast_Eddie
11-30-2009, 01:47 PM
When asked what were some examples of spending she'd like to see stopped, she said, "All of it. All of it."

Brilliant.


I've asked the same question here over and over. Nothing.

Ironically, that woman's answer is the same as Palin's answer to what she reads.

BlueStreak
11-30-2009, 03:02 PM
This article is old, but I believe still relevant.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/01/business/yourmoney/01view.html?_r=1

The crux of it is that, at least in December 2005, we're on the low end of the Laffer curve and that lowering taxes any more will only lower revenue. Every member of Congress surely knows this and yet I've not heard a single one mention it. Not only that, I've heard a hoard of them (all with the same letter after their name) scream that taxes are too high. Indeed there is a movement by citizens to drive taxes even lower and thus bankrupt our country.

Okay, the rank and file at the Teabagger Convention probably doesn't know. They just don't like taxes. But the folks organizing these things do know. And they're lying. Telling people what they want to hear in exchange for votes, even though they know it is running the country into the ground.

Just my thoughts.

Ed

By the way- I don't like taxes either. But I love America. As they say, freedom isn't free.

Sounds about right.

Dave

merrylander
11-30-2009, 03:23 PM
I've asked the same question here over and over. Nothing.

Ironically, that woman's answer is the same as Palin's answer to what she reads.

Sarah sure did not mind spending the lower 48's taxes on that road to nowhere. Nor did she object to getting more back from the feds than they paid in.

doucanoe
11-30-2009, 03:27 PM
You could always move to the Western European Socialist country of your choosing and pay @29% in national income tax and an additional VAT of 20%. That is of course after you pay property taxes where they apply and then put gas in your Hybrid at $5-6 per gallon equivalent.

Or... Just hang around for a spell. Pelosi is working on that as we speak. Your wish is just a few bills away.

RC

Fast_Eddie
11-30-2009, 03:36 PM
You could always move to the Western European Socialist country of your choosing and pay @29% in national income tax and an additional VAT of 20%. That is of course after you pay property taxes where they apply and then put gas in your Hybrid at $5-6 per gallon equivalent.

Or... Just hang around for a spell. Pelosi is working on that as we speak. Your wish is just a few bills away.

Huh. Don't recall wishing for anything other than what's best for America. Reagan told me the Laugher curve was the be-all-end-all and we should shift our entire economic model because of it. Okay, I'm game Ronnie. What I do object to is people knowingly lying. We started this whole "lower taxes" deal with the idea that it would raise more money for the government and get us out of debt. Well, do we still want to do that or not? Is the Lafer curve wrong now if it says we need to raise taxes becuase that's what's best for America? Are we too greedy to do that? Just give me mine and to Hell with America? Just lower taxes and the concequences be damned?

Lowering taxes didn't work. If we care about America, it's time to stop digging. Raise taxes. Pay the bills.

Fast_Eddie
11-30-2009, 03:52 PM
Extra credit- find the Clinton administration on the chart above.

Boreas
11-30-2009, 03:53 PM
You could always move to the Western European Socialist country of your choosing and pay @29% in national income tax and an additional VAT of 20%. That is of course after you pay property taxes where they apply and then put gas in your Hybrid at $5-6 per gallon equivalent.

"Love it or leave it" is alive and well here I see. You know, if you Righties would open your eyes you'd see that some other countries have some things worth emulating.

You might also do well to remember what that "Good Ol' Yankee Ingenuity" actually was, (emphasis on "was"). It was the ability to take what was best from any source and craft a unique solution that was better than any of its predecessors. We don't do that any more. We're so besotted by the notion of "American Exceptionalism" that we believe there's no better way to do anything other than the "way we've always done it".

Or... Just hang around for a spell. Pelosi is working on that as we speak. Your wish is just a few bills away.

I wish we would take a few pages from the way some European countries handle the social contract but nothing has transpired to give me any hope of that. All you have to do is look at the pig's breakfast that's likely to be foisted on us as "Health Care Reform" to see just how far from a social democracy we are and how close to a corporatocracy.

John

d-ray657
11-30-2009, 05:56 PM
Let's see, the exponential growth in the national debt began in the Reagan years, continued during the Bush Sr. years, leveled out during the Clinton years, and accelerated to rocket speed during the Dub years. So all these years that the GOP has tried to label the Democrats as tax and spend, it was really a compliment. The Democrats paid for what they bought; the GOP spent more, but they put it on a credit card. Which one of those paths is fiscally responsible?

Not only did the Dub administration spend outlandishly on an unnecessary war, they took the resources away from a more justifiable war in Afghanistan, at a time when we were close to getting Osama Bin Laden, which means it will cost this administration considerably more to finish the job there. And now the GOP is going to do everything it can to keep the current administration from cleaning up the mess.

They must be wearing asbestos underwear, because their pants are on fire.

Regards,

D-Ray

Boreas
11-30-2009, 06:15 PM
Extra credit- find the Clinton administration on the chart above.

The thing I find astonishing is that Clinton didn't really get a handle on it until his second term when the shit really hit the fan. How that man got anything accomplished with the impeachment and Ken Starr and the Republican Congress digging into every aspect of his personal and professional life beggers belief.

John

doucanoe
11-30-2009, 06:56 PM
"Love it or leave it" is alive and well here I see. You know, if you Righties would open your eyes you'd see that some other countries have some things worth emulating.

You might also do well to remember what that "Good Ol' Yankee Ingenuity" actually was, (emphasis on "was"). It was the ability to take what was best from any source and craft a unique solution that was better than any of its predecessors. We don't do that any more. We're so besotted by the notion of "American Exceptionalism" that we believe there's no better way to do anything other than the "way we've always done it".



I wish we would take a few pages from the way some European countries handle the social contract but nothing has transpired to give me any hope of that. All you have to do is look at the pig's breakfast that's likely to be foisted on us as "Health Care Reform" to see just how far from a social democracy we are and how close to a corporatocracy.

John




We do need health care reform but I have not seen a palatable solution provided by either party yet. As far as whats being currently presented, one would have to assume that even the current admin. and congress doesn't appear to like it much as they have excluded themselves from the need to participate.

I understand that Germany's national health care program is starting to quake under the weight of it all. It's the oldest system of it's kind from what I have read.

RC

Boreas
11-30-2009, 07:15 PM
We do need health care reform but I have not seen a palatable solution provided by either party yet. As far as whats being currently presented, one would have to assume that even the current admin. and congress doesn't appear to like it much as they have excluded themselves from the need to participate.

I don't like what's being put forward either. I hesitate to say "by either party" because it's clear that the Republicans have no interest in effecting changes that aren't intended to benefit the insurance industry. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to want to make real improvements to our health care system but are too beholden to the health care monopoly to take things very far.

I understand that Germany's national health care program is starting to quake under the weight of it all. It's the oldest system of it's kind from what I have read.

I hadn't heard that. In any event, I'd want to hear it from multiple independent sources. The industry has been spreading false doom and gloom scenarios about other country's health care programs ever since this whole thing started. There's a lot of deliberate misinformation out there.

John

noonereal
11-30-2009, 07:23 PM
We do need health care reform but I have not seen a palatable solution provided by either party yet. As far as whats being currently presented, one would have to assume that even the current admin. and congress doesn't appear to like it much as they have excluded themselves from the need to participate.

I understand that Germany's national health care program is starting to quake under the weight of it all. It's the oldest system of it's kind from what I have read.

RC

I don't see how any supporter of universal health care can possibly support the current legislation. From what I can gather all the present legislation does is demand that all those that can afford health insurance be obliged to buy it in return for dropping some pre existing conditions exclusions.

noonereal
11-30-2009, 07:25 PM
I don't like what's being put forward either. I hesitate to say "by either party" because it's clear that the Republicans have no interest in effecting changes that aren't intended to benefit the insurance industry. Democrats, on the other hand, seem to want to make real improvements to our health care system but are too beholden to the health care monopoly to take things very far.





BINGO!

hillbilly
11-30-2009, 09:25 PM
Tennessee has been talking about it and has made a couple good points. They reminding folks of how fast the TN-Care system went to hell. They said anytime it is easy for folks to get free health insurance, more folks will lean towards the free rather than providing for themselves. Folks that got on TN-Care started going to the ER when they couldn't see their regular doctor the moment they wanted to see him, and when it's not an emergency it hurts the hell out of the system. Folks that got on TN-Care also started rushing to the doctor anytime they, or their child got a little sniffle that'd gone away in a day or two without the need to see a doctor.

Folks paying for their own insurance that have to spend their own money for a copay each doctor visit are far less likely to waste money over a little sniffle.

Boreas
11-30-2009, 09:44 PM
Tennessee has been talking about it and has made a couple good points. They reminding folks of how fast the TN-Care system went to hell. They said anytime it is easy for folks to get free health insurance, more folks will lean towards the free rather than providing for themselves. Folks that got on TN-Care started going to the ER when they couldn't see their regular doctor the moment they wanted to see him, and when it's not an emergency it hurts the hell out of the system. Folks that got on TN-Care also started rushing to the doctor anytime they, or their child got a little sniffle that'd gone away in a day or two without the need to see a doctor.

The thing about using the emergency room as your primary health care provider is that the uninsured do that too. Except they do it every time. At least with TN-Care folks could see their plan doctor some of the time. Also, I don't see a problem with people erring on the side of caution and seeing a doctor when it might not be necessary. That's far better than not seeing a doctor when it is necessary.

Folks paying for their own insurance that have to spend their own money for a copay each doctor visit are far less likely to waste money over a little sniffle.

But you see , none of the health care plans before Congress include anything in the way of free health care beyond Medicaid which already exists as a means tested program. The "Public Option" you hear about isn't free and it isn't "government health care". It's also a means tested program with private health care provided through private insurance companies.

John

noonereal
11-30-2009, 09:51 PM
But you see , none of the health care plans before Congress include anything in the way of free health care beyond Medicaid which already exists as a means tested program. The "Public Option" you hear about isn't free and it isn't "government health care". It's also a means tested program with private health care provided through private insurance companies.



Otherwise know as a get rich quick scheme.

Fast_Eddie
11-30-2009, 10:04 PM
Well, I'm always up to talk about health care reform, but I'm a little disappointed that our friends on the right haven't come to talk about my assertion. Teabaggers are out protesting historically low tax rates and calling for rates that would almost certainly doom the American economy. Not only that, they are being led by people who know this to be the case and are lying to them. Finally, history has shown that Democrats have indeed taken the debt issue seriously when Republicans have not.

doucanoe
11-30-2009, 10:14 PM
The abuses in our MN Care program would make even your most liberal minded bleeding hearts snarl with anger. I am probably wrong about that but would like to think it would be the case. If people really knew about the abuses and the wasted hundreds of millions annually, their would be blood in the streets.

I don't need supporting documentation for that statement. My wife lives in the heart of the beast as lead nurse (RN) for a very large clinic/hospital.

She used to be very liberal in her politics, but the reality of it all has changed her opinions a tad. The truth of reality trumps blind ideology I guess.

RC

Boreas
11-30-2009, 10:30 PM
The abuses in our MN Care program would make even your most liberal minded bleeding hearts snarl with anger. I am probably wrong about that but would like to think it would be the case. If people really knew about the abuses and the wasted hundreds of millions annually, their would be blood in the streets.

I don't need supporting documentation for that statement. My wife lives in the heart of the beast as lead nurse (RN) for a very large clinic/hospital.

She used to be very liberal in her politics, but the reality of it all has changed her opinions a tad. The truth of reality trumps blind ideology I guess.

RC

What can I say? Republican greed and corruption.

It's all back to St. Ronnie and the "nine most terrifying words in the English language": "We're from the government and we're here to help." When you have such a cynical view of government it's easy to permit yourself to pillage it for personal gain, from Halliburton to Abramov to "Duke" Cunningham the story's the same.

John

PS: Reality reinforces my "bleeding heart liberalism" every day.

noonereal
12-01-2009, 06:35 AM
The abuses in our MN Care program would make even your most liberal minded bleeding hearts snarl with anger.


I would tend to agree. I know how furious I am when I see the abuses in the banking and insurance industry for example.

I am probably wrong about that but would like to think it would be the case.

:rolleyes:

I don't need supporting documentation for that statement. My wife lives in the heart of the beast as lead nurse (RN) for a very large clinic/hospital.

I have little trouble believing this even if it is undocumented.


She used to be very liberal in her politics, but the reality of it all has changed her opinions a tad.

This part I don't understand at all. Why would mismanagement or abuse of one system change a persons personal values. (which is essentially what politics is)

The truth of reality trumps blind ideology I guess.



Again I don't understand the conversion in this case.

Charles
12-01-2009, 06:57 AM
The abuses in our MN Care program would make even your most liberal minded bleeding hearts snarl with anger. I am probably wrong about that but would like to think it would be the case. If people really knew about the abuses and the wasted hundreds of millions annually, their would be blood in the streets.

I don't need supporting documentation for that statement. My wife lives in the heart of the beast as lead nurse (RN) for a very large clinic/hospital.

She used to be very liberal in her politics, but the reality of it all has changed her opinions a tad. The truth of reality trumps blind ideology I guess.

RC

Is everyone's wife an RN?

If I had any sense, I'd go back to school and become one myself. And I guarantee you, the sight of me walking the corridor with a rectal thermometer would be enough to convince most people that they were healthy enough to become lumberjacks!!!!

Chas

doucanoe
12-01-2009, 07:44 AM
"This part I don't understand at all. Why would mismanagement or abuse of one system change a persons personal values. (which is essentially what politics is)"

"Again I don't understand the conversion in this case."




I know the both of you don't get it, I know you don't.

The required explanation would take to long and I fear it would fall on deaf ears anyway. I lack the patience for it.

I guess it just illustrates the vast differences in our thinking and how we process information.

RC

merrylander
12-01-2009, 07:56 AM
You could always move to the Western European Socialist country of your choosing and pay @29% in national income tax and an additional VAT of 20%. That is of course after you pay property taxes where they apply and then put gas in your Hybrid at $5-6 per gallon equivalent.

Or... Just hang around for a spell. Pelosi is working on that as we speak. Your wish is just a few bills away.

RC

And where you don't need to pay $10,000 per year for health insurance. Where public transportation is so pervasive the hybrid will spend most of its life in the garage. When I once asked the governor why we could not do property taxes like the Germans do I was informed that would be counter to the State Constitution. There the tax is governed by the load you place on the infrastructure not the value of your land - over which you have no control.

merrylander
12-01-2009, 08:02 AM
I hadn't heard that. In any event, I'd want to hear it from multiple independent sources. The industry has been spreading false doom and gloom scenarios about other country's health care programs ever since this whole thing started. There's a lot of deliberate misinformation out there.

John

Grassley and Hatch flat out lied about the Canadian system, not deliberate mis-information, they both lied and they know they were lying, and Hatch is a Bishop? Some Bishop.

merrylander
12-01-2009, 08:14 AM
The abuses in our MN Care program would make even your most liberal minded bleeding hearts snarl with anger. I am probably wrong about that but would like to think it would be the case. If people really knew about the abuses and the wasted hundreds of millions annually, their would be blood in the streets.

I don't need supporting documentation for that statement. My wife lives in the heart of the beast as lead nurse (RN) for a very large clinic/hospital.

She used to be very liberal in her politics, but the reality of it all has changed her opinions a tad. The truth of reality trumps blind ideology I guess.

RC

So if people are abusing the system they are doing it with the collaboration of doctors and hospitals, it takes two to tango.

When the Conservative party instituted Single Payer in Canada things were in a pretty bad state. Hospitals were hiring nurses from third world countries because they did not want to pay decent salaries. I saw some of this first hand when my Dad died. Things changed for the better afterward, sure some people might go to the doctor with imaginary ailments, hypochondriacs will ever be with us - big deal.

Back around WW II times people whose taxes had built the schools and roads could find themselves at retirement with scarce enough to live on. They could get a pension from the government but the means test said you can't own your own home (typical right wing stupidity take away the home and give them a pension that just covers the rent). Many parents deeded the home over to their children and got the pension. Then in the need for money the children sold the house out from under them. Oh ye generation of vipers.

Finally wiser heads prevailed and the means test was eliminated, replace by income tax well above the value of the pension. Even now if all a person has is the basic pension, a supplement of $635 per month is available.

Oh yes, despite some of the other blatant lies you were told by our estimable senators, Canada has negligable debt.

merrylander
12-01-2009, 08:25 AM
What can I say? Republican greed and corruption.

It's all back to St. Ronnie and the "nine most terrifying words in the English language": "We're from the government and we're here to help." When you have such a cynical view of government it's easy to permit yourself to pillage it for personal gain, from Halliburton to Abramov to "Duke" Cunningham the story's the same.

John

PS: Reality reinforces my "bleeding heart liberalism" every day.


Given our insane system the miracle is that government even works at all. Show me any other country that requires an incoming preident to make in excess of 8000 appointments (in the face of a recalcitrant Congress) and it is probably some corrupt dictatorship.

So there is John Q Civilservant trying to do his job and they change management - and direction - every four or eight years.

Then take that collection of imbeciles known as the Senate. One lone senator, old doc Coburn (who once said he was Senator Ensign's OB-Gyn - say what?) can hold up a bill designed to assist veterans from even being debated. One lone barking idiot in a nation of over 300 million people can block legislation from even being discussed, and you call this democracy?
Feh!

Boreas
12-01-2009, 09:17 AM
One lone senator, old doc Coburn (who once said he was Senator Ensign's OB-Gyn - say what?)

Yeah, you know, he takes care of Ensign's property.

John

merrylander
12-01-2009, 09:30 AM
Yeah, you know, he takes care of Ensign's property.

John

I knew Ensign was a wussie, I guess just change one letter.:rolleyes:

doucanoe
12-01-2009, 09:41 AM
So if people are abusing the system they are doing it with the collaboration of doctors and hospitals, it takes two to tango.

When the Conservative party instituted Single Payer in Canada things were in a pretty bad state. Hospitals were hiring nurses from third world countries because they did not want to pay decent salaries. I saw some of this first hand when my Dad died. Things changed for the better afterward, sure some people might go to the doctor with imaginary ailments, hypochondriacs will ever be with us - big deal.

Back around WW II times people whose taxes had built the schools and roads could find themselves at retirement with scarce enough to live on. They could get a pension from the government but the means test said you can't own your own home (typical right wing stupidity take away the home and give them a pension that just covers the rent). Many parents deeded the home over to their children and got the pension. Then in the need for money the children sold the house out from under them. Oh ye generation of vipers.

Finally wiser heads prevailed and the means test was eliminated, replace by income tax well above the value of the pension. Even now if all a person has is the basic pension, a supplement of $635 per month is available.

Oh yes, despite some of the other blatant lies you were told by our estimable senators, Canada has negligable debt.

People are abusing the system because they have been provided the means to do so. The free, unlimited health care for "those in need" in our state (very liberal) was underwritten by state legislature. We have people flocking to our state for handouts or all types because of it. Just a peek at the arrest record for a particular week of the month shows huge spikes in arrests of individuals from Illinois and Indiana for example. These multiple location "residents" show up to pick up their checks and go back home. Also estimated in the multiple millions. The subject gets broached periodically but is quickly swept under the rug. I don't even know where to begin with the medical aspect.

Our state rep. Nora Slawick (DFL district 55B) stopped by the house about three months ago. My wife and I listened quietly as she layed out her story and ask for our support. She got on to the subject of affordable state health care and mention how important it was to be on board with that. I had nothing to add. My wife smiled and told her that she was a RN and saw what was going on, on a daily basis on the state level and wanted to know how we would go about signing up for that program. Nora smiled a nervous smile, thanked us for our time (stepping backward while doing so), turned and walked away. That spoke volumes for me.

"...imaginary ailments, hypochondriacs will ever be with us - big deal."

If that were only the problem. With all due respect Rob, that doesn't even begin to scratch the surface.

I was watching C-SPAN a while back and listening to some House member pimp the National Health Care bill that was being paraded around at the time. He mentioned that part of the paying for it would be in recovering the 100's of millions in waste and fraud that they were all ready aware of in Medicare/medicare. Recovering??? If this has been apparent common knowledge, why has it not been taken care of already. We are dealing with fools and incompetents. Continuing to put more money and control in their hands is a bit of a concern for me.

RC

merrylander
12-01-2009, 10:00 AM
As I said there is collaboration, or rather collusion, that is allowing this to happen. There is nothing "liberal" about a thief or the people who aid and abet.

Systems can be run honestly, if the State legislature does not wish to do so throw them out.

Being seasoned citizens we are bombarded with the medicare thieves who absolutely guarantee us a power chair even if our insurance and medicare turn us down. Oh, and we don't need to worry about the paperwork, they will take care of it, sure because they don't want us to see what a scam they are running.

When Florence fell down the stairs because her knee gave out we approached the big name firm that advertises chirlifts - first estimate $17,000. When he saw to look on my face he "called the home office" - it came down to $13,500.

I got online and found excellent chairlifts for - first estimate $6,500. They shipped even before they got our check, and when they found it was cash and not credit card the price dropped to $6,000. There are more predatory people out their preying on seniors because they know they can screw the government in the process. Face it, like Franklin surmised, Constitutional government would work very well until we bacame so corrupt that we need a despot. There are also the honest ones like Summit who built our chairlifts. Relative piece of cake to install and the usual charge is $400 per lift, if I was younger I would become an installer, easy money.

Corruption does not wear a liberal or conservative label, its sole motive is greed, why do you think we are in this mess. The government desrves blame for having put the fox in charge of the chicken house. I guess all this crap about how we are a Christian country lulled them into believing everyone would obey the ten commandments, they forgot the eleventh commandment.

No system is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

piece-itpete
12-01-2009, 10:14 AM
Systems can be run honestly, if the State legislature does not wish to do so throw them out.

Corruption does not wear a liberal or conservative label, its sole motive is greed, why do you think we are in this mess.

No system is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.

Words of wise wisdom Rob :)

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 10:18 AM
People are abusing the system because they have been provided the means to do so. The free, unlimited health care for "those in need" in our state (very liberal) was underwritten by state legislature. We have people flocking to our state for handouts or all types because of it.

If we got rid of every system that was abused we'd have little left. Correction: we'd have nothing left. It's like people who argue that some law or other should be repealed because "people will do it anyway". Well people kill people anyway, but I'm not about to make murder legal. Nor am I prepared to give up on making health care more accessable due to the fact that some will abuse it.

BlueStreak
12-01-2009, 10:32 AM
As I said there is collaboration, or rather collusion, that is allowing this to happen. There is nothing "liberal" about a thief or the people who aid and abet.

Systems can be run honestly, if the State legislature does not wish to do so throw them out.

Being seasoned citizens we are bombarded with the medicare thieves who absolutely guarantee us a power chair even if our insurance and medicare turn us down. Oh, and we don't need to worry about the paperwork, they will take care of it, sure because they don't want us to see what a scam they are running.

When Florence fell down the stairs because her knee gave out we approached the big name firm that advertises chirlifts - first estimate $17,000. When he saw to look on my face he "called the home office" - it came down to $13,500.

I got online and found excellent chairlifts for - first estimate $6,500. They shipped even before they got our check, and when they found it was cash and not credit card the price dropped to $6,000. There are more predatory people out their preying on seniors because they know they can screw the government in the process. Face it, like Franklin surmised, Constitutional government would work very well until we bacame so corrupt that we need a despot. There are also the honest ones like Summit who built our chairlifts. Relative piece of cake to install and the usual charge is $400 per lift, if I was younger I would become an installer, easy money.

Corruption does not wear a liberal or conservative label, its sole motive is greed, why do you think we are in this mess. The government desrves blame for having put the fox in charge of the chicken house. I guess all this crap about how we are a Christian country lulled them into believing everyone would obey the ten commandments, they forgot the eleventh commandment.

No system is foolproof because fools are so ingenious.


Great post.

When my Mothers Alzheimers became unmanageable for the family, we went in search of a "nursing home". We went and looked at some that ranged from scary to lavish. Well, of course we weren't about to put mom in a place that we regarded as "scary" just because it was cheap. And there was no sense in putting her in a palace either. (Her mind was gone, most of the time she thought she was in the old house, it was the 1940s/50s/60s, and we were still little kids.) Point is, a decent, yet conservative "senior care facilty" was $6,500 a month. One place we looked at was over $20,000 A MONTH! Some were as low as $3,000 a month, but I wouldn't trust them with my dog, let alone my mother. Now, Medicaid payed the lions share of that $6,500, and my father paid the rest out of his Union pension.

Point is this; I had no idea just how much money is tied up in senior care, until we went through this with my Mom. And just how incredibly expensive everything is.

Dave

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 10:33 AM
Hundreds of millions in waste- let's examine that for a minute.

Federal Budget 2010 $3.55 Trillion.

Okay, how much is "hundreds of millions"? Let's say, what, seven hundred million. That's a big number.

700,000,000/3,550,000,000,000 = about 1.9

Not saying it doesn't matter. But if we refuse to make progress on health care due to 1.9% of the federal budget being "wasted" I think we're making a mistake. That's assuming the undocumented claim of "hundreds of millions" is accurate which it almost certainly isn't. I'm not saying we don't deal with it. Get the system in place and then work on any abuses we can. But to pass the opportunity over what in the scheme of things is so little would be a mistake.

You've all heard my rant on this before. If we want to cut spending there are only three meaningfull places to look. About 75% of the federal budget is Medicade/Medicare, Social Security and Millitary. You'll never get elected if you even hint that you would even look at possibly, maybe suggest that we should cut SS or MM. So there's only one answer. This isn't hard.

Actually, the health care reform plan is the first thing I've ever heard them talk about that starts to address any of the big three expenses. If they really succeed in making medical care less expensive it would have a substantial impact on MM.

Or we could do the responsible thing and quit whining about how much everything is and start paying our bills. When I go to Wal-Mart and buy a big screen TV, they don't much care if I think they paid too much for a Union trucker to ship the thing. They pretty much want me to pay for all of it. And I would, had I ever been to a Wal-Mart and if I owned a big screen TV. We need to run the country the same way. No money? No war.

BlueStreak
12-01-2009, 10:40 AM
"Corruption does not wear a liberal or conservative label, its sole motive is greed, why do you think we are in this mess. The government desrves blame for having put the fox in charge of the chicken house. I guess all this crap about how we are a Christian country lulled them into believing everyone would obey the ten commandments, they forgot the eleventh commandment.

No system is foolproof because fools are so ingenious."

Magnificent!

I would add, however, that what amazes me are the people that I know personally who think that corruption does "wear a liberal or conservative label", and that it is decidedly "liberal". This due in no small part to the "Christian country" nonsense to which you make reference. And, where, pray tell, does that come from?:D

Dave

doucanoe
12-01-2009, 10:51 AM
Our Health insurance that we pay dearly for is an pales in comparison to MN Care.

That said, my parents now once again (this time of the year) fall into the "doughnut hole" created by Bush and the pharmaceutical companys. My 76 yr old mothers medications are mind numbingly expensive. It saddens me to see hard working people like my parents being screwed over by a system they have spent their whole lives paying into. I also have sympathy for others that have been screwed over by a system that has created generational "poverty" and entitlements to perpetuate it.

"Our" generous social programs have been more instrumental in destroying generations that helping them I fear. It's a win/win for them (politicians). It allows them to wave the banner of compassion and at the same time, lock in votes by a constituency that has no other recourse than to vote handout.

They will have us all there eventually. With the exception of the money and power elite of course. Contrary to popular opinion here, the money and power elite reside on both sides of the tarnished coin.

RC

piece-itpete
12-01-2009, 11:01 AM
Lordy lordy. Here I studiously avoided reference to the Christian comment, but the Christians that designed our government were far more skeptical of government power than just about anyone alive today.

Increased government? Health care is what 17-19% of the economy? Just say no.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 11:13 AM
...the Christians that designed our government...

Which Christians are those?

"Question with boldness even the existence of a god." - Thomas Jefferson (letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787)

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of... Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and for my own part, I disbelieve them all."- Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error
all over the earth." - Thomas Jefferson (Notes on Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785.)

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed.'' - James Madison (Original wording of the First Amendment; Annals of Congress 434 (June 8, 1789).)

"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

There are loads and loads more. Got these from the first thing that popped up on a google search. Imagine someone who said some of these things running for office today. Our Founding Fathers couldn't get elected. Seems they were far more skeptical about God too.

Take care,

Ed

Boreas
12-01-2009, 11:34 AM
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams.)

As far as I know this is the only government document of any sort which addresses the issue of whether we are "a Christian nation". It couldn't be clearer. We're not, never have been and, God willing ;), never will be.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 11:37 AM
The most cursory investigation of the words of our Founding Fathers and the written works that influnced their opinions leaves absolutely no doubt at all that their intent was to create a country free from any national religion and indeed shows many of them were personally very suspect of any religion. Shoot, some of them appear to be down right atheist. Jefferson in particular was outspoken about his beliefs and mistrust of religion.

piece-itpete
12-01-2009, 11:50 AM
My brothers, examine those quotes carefully and you will find they aren't talking about Christianity or the Bible - as experts on government (as they largely were) they were talking about 'organized' religion of ANY stripe.

Now they would undoubtabley be striking at the religion of science & government.

READ SOURCE MATERIAL! It's obvious. Think about my current sig. And look at their actions. There were 3 national calls to a day of prayer and fasting during the Revolutionary war by the Continental Congress. 29 of the 56 signatories of the Declaration had ecumenical degrees (they were pastors). There has always - always - been a Christian Chaplin, paid by the Congress, at Congress. They authorized the 1st legal printing of the Bible here for pete's sake. How does this jive with the current mantra?

Sorry for going off topic so badly, I'll back away slowly :D

Pete

doucanoe
12-01-2009, 11:54 AM
The most cursory investigation of the words of our Founding Fathers and the written works that influnced their opinions leaves absolutely no doubt at all that their intent was to create a country free from any national religion and indeed shows many of them were personally very suspect of any religion. Shoot, some of them appear to be down right atheist. Jefferson in particular was outspoken about his beliefs and mistrust of religion.


Mistrust of religion was based on British Rule. In that context, I don't blame him. Government tyranny didn't set well with him either.

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."-----Thomas Jefferson

RC

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 12:04 PM
READ SOURCE MATERIAL!

I'd suggest you start with Thomas Paine's "The Age of Reason".

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html

BlueStreak
12-01-2009, 12:12 PM
No, I don't beleive they were ALL fervent, devout, bible thumping Christians any more than I believe any one given group of people today are totally like-minded. The mere premise of this is an absolute absurdity.

Yes, Pete, "organized religion of ANY stripe". ANY stripe, including CHRISTIANITY. Sure, one can believe in the teachings of Christ and never step foot in a church. I understand that.

But, are you really trying to get me to believe that the Church, any church, hasn't, isn't or wouldn't try to get it's claws into the government for the purpose of garnering undue influence over public policy? Please. They whine about it constantly. "Get God back into government.", "Christian Nation", "Put Prayer back into Public Schools", blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

Dave

Boreas
12-01-2009, 12:12 PM
My brothers, examine those quotes carefully and you will find they aren't talking about Christianity or the Bible - as experts on government (as they largely were) they were talking about 'organized' religion of ANY stripe.

Some, yes. Some, no. The Treaty of Tripoli specifically addresses the question of whether we are or are not a Christian nation. It states in so many words that we are not.

Now they would undoubtabley be striking at the religion of science & government.

Right! Those Luddites like Tommy Jefferson and Benjie Franklin woulda been on those "Evolutionists" like white on rice!

READ SOURCE MATERIAL! It's obvious. Think about my current sig.

I think the quotes Fast Eddie posted could be considered "source material". If by source material, you mean the Constitution, there isn't even a mention of God in it. The Declaration of Independence does mention God but not in a way that could be construed as an acknowledgment of his authority. Also, the Declaration of Independence wasn't written by the US Government. It was a manifesto written by rebels.

And look at their actions. There were 3 national calls to a day of prayer and fasting during the Revolutionary war by the Continental Congress.

We still have them. They're cultural but not governmental.

29 of the 56 signatories of the Declaration had ecumenical degrees (they were pastors).

So? None were women, by the way. Does that make us a male nation?

There has always - always - been a Christian Chaplin, paid by the Congress, at Congress. They authorized the 1st legal printing of the Bible here for pete's sake. How does this jive with the current mantra?

This one's a little tougher for me. That Chaplin bit has always bothered me. I think it walks right up to the edge of being an unconstitutional commingling of religion and government. Printing the bible doesn't really mean much, though.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 12:14 PM
My brothers, examine those quotes carefully and you will find they aren't talking about Christianity or the Bible - as experts on government (as they largely were) they were talking about 'organized' religion of ANY stripe.

Now they would undoubtabley be striking at the religion of science & government.


(edited to be less hostile)I think you're mistaken. They specifically site the Bible and Christianity. I don't see any ambiguity at all. For instance:

"Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we called it the word of a demon, than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness, that has served to corrupt and brutalize mankind." - Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason, 1794-1795.)

That is quite clear, and it is not unique. It specifically references "the Bible". I don't know how you could get anything else from it. Clearly has nothing at all to do with "the religion of science". Scinece is not a religion. Carl Sagen had a perfect quote that summs up the difference:

"In science it often happens that scientists say, 'You know that's a really good argument; my position is mistaken,' and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn't happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time someting like that happened in politics or religion.
Carl Sagan, 1987 CSICOP Keynote Address"

BlueStreak
12-01-2009, 12:14 PM
And, as a side note, "Mehomiten" was the word for Muslim during that period.

Dave

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 12:19 PM
29 of the 56 signatories of the Declaration had ecumenical degrees (they were pastors).

It's important to hold facts in historical context. You have to examine the role of religion at the time. Shoot, not really any different today. Can you imagine someone running for President saying "you know, I don't go to church. Shoot, I don't really believe in God". No way he would get nominated, let alone elected.

I'll stand by this- take any number of quotes from our founding fathers and ask if they could be elected today. Are we holding thier ideals true?

piece-itpete
12-01-2009, 12:28 PM
No, I don't beleive they were ALL fervent, devout, bible thumping Christians any more than I believe any one given group of people today are totally like-minded. The mere premise of this is an absolute absurdity.

Yes, Pete, "organized religion of ANY stripe". ANY stripe, including CHRISTIANITY. Sure, one can believe in the teachings of Christ and never step foot in a church. I understand that.

But, are you really trying to get me to believe that the Church, any church, hasn't, isn't or wouldn't try to get it's claws into the government for the purpose of garnering undue influence over public policy? Please. They whine about it constantly. "Get God back into government.", "Christian Nation", "Put Prayer back into Public Schools", blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum.

Dave

I never said they were Bible thumpers, many of them were taciturn in the extreme, part of the reason it's so easy to draw out this debate today.

It does include Christianity. Heck the thought (then) of it being any other would have been laughable to them, except for their taciturnity :)

Freedom OF religion was to keep the various denominations in check.

I'm not and have not encouraged religious takeover of government. Free expression however (at least as they saw it) has been trampled.

Some, yes. Some, no. The Treaty of Tripoli specifically addresses the question of whether we are or are not a Christian nation. It states in so many words that we are not.

Right! Those Luddites like Tommy Jefferson and Benjie Franklin woulda been on those "Evolutionists" like white on rice!

I think the quotes Fast Eddie posted could be considered "source material". If by source material, you mean the Constitution, there isn't even a mention of God in it. The Declaration of Independence does mention God but not in a way that could be construed as an acknowledgment of his authority. Also, the Declaration of Independence wasn't written by the US Government. It was a manifesto written by rebels.



We still have them. They're cultural but not governmental.



So? None were women, by the way. Does that make us a male nation?



This one's a little tougher for me. That Chaplin bit has always bothered me. I think it walks right up to the edge of being an unconstitutional commingling of religion and government. Printing the bible doesn't really mean much, though.

John

The treaty of Tripoli, that groundbreaking document? :p It shows we have always had a realpolitik view of foriegn relations.

2 of many, many, many. And Ben advocated Bible teaching in school.

Picked and choosy source material! And again examine what they are actually saying.

Back then it certainly governmental, a call from the federal government. Washington called for the 1st Thanksgiving in our new country, to Thank God for listening!

Yes, our form of government was designed exclusively by males.

Printing the Bible doesn't mean much?! What are we talking about here?

And you guys bringing up Thomas Paine should learn what happened to him.

Pete

Boreas
12-01-2009, 12:34 PM
Mistrust of religion was based on British Rule.

Not entirely. They had a memory of things like the Thirty Years War to show them how toxic religion could be, especially when mixed with government. They also had their own history during the colonial period to look to with witch burnings and religious persecution from almost the beginning.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 12:44 PM
If you don't like Thomas Paine, how 'bout Franklin:

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.”

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

How about John Adams:

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

Seems clearly to be speaking of Christianity.

Jefferson:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Shoot, lets go a little further along- how about Lincoln?

“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

merrylander
12-01-2009, 12:50 PM
Words of wise wisdom Rob :)

Pete

I got to 79, well in seven more days, by realizing I had two ears and two eyes but only one mouth, the 2:1 ratio is no accident.

Boreas
12-01-2009, 12:55 PM
The treaty of Tripoli, that groundbreaking document? :p It shows we have always had a realpolitik view of foriegn relations.

So, you got nothing, right? ;)

2 of many, many, many. And Ben advocated Bible teaching in school.

The comment was in regard to your contention that our founders would be assailing science.

Picked and choosy source material! And again examine what they are actually saying.

Okay, pick and choose your own comments where the founders advocated for a declaration that we are a Christian nation. More to the point, pick and choose the Government document which so states.

Back then it certainly governmental, a call from the federal government. Washington called for the 1st Thanksgiving in our new country, to Thank God for listening!

This really only has cultural significance, not governmental. In "a Christian nation" it would have been mandated, not suggested.

Yes, our form of government was designed exclusively by males.

And God! Don't forget God! :)

Printing the Bible doesn't mean much?! What are we talking about here?

Okay, tell me why it means anything.

And you guys bringing up Thomas Paine should learn what happened to him.

You haven't heard me mention him. I know what happened.

John

piece-itpete
12-01-2009, 01:01 PM
If you don't like Thomas Paine, how 'bout Franklin:

“The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.” Benjamin Franklin Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

“Lighthouses are more helpful than churches.”

“He (the Rev. Mr. Whitefield) used, indeed, sometimes to pray for my conversion, but never had the satisfaction of believing that his prayers were heard.”

“I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies.”

How about John Adams:

“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” John Adams

Seems clearly to be speaking of Christianity.

Jefferson:

"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

Shoot, lets go a little further along- how about Lincoln?

“My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures have become clearer and stronger with advancing years, and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.”

Ah but even Ben saw the wisdom of the Bible even if he didn't believe it.

And the thought that Adams WASN'T a Christian is remarkable.

I was involved in a discussion of Jefferson many years ago, the consensus was that he did fall away (and while fallen invented 'modern' negative campaigning!) but came back when older. I don't know if that is true (the campaigning is). But, 1 of many many.

Lincoln was born in 1809 :p

I got to 79, well in seven more days, by realizing I had two ears and two eyes but only one mouth, the 2:1 ratio is no accident.

I would do well to learn that a bit myself Sir.

Pete

merrylander
12-01-2009, 01:06 PM
I have posted this before but here goes again. Visit Colonial Williamsburg and you will see the church (at that time Church of England) abd the stocks. You attended service at the CofE or else. If you were not flat on your back in bed running a 102 degree temperature then you spent time in the stocks, day and night, summer or winter. This the founders thought was too much and they wanted no part of a state religion.

Heck, even in England people were getting a bit tired of the Cof E, my own father chose John Wesley and the Methodists over the CofE.

BTW if you wonder why I speak out against Murdoch's schemes Google 'free press jefferson' if you want some interesting quotations.

Boreas
12-01-2009, 01:12 PM
Ah but even Ben saw the wisdom of the Bible even if he didn't believe it.

So, he was an advocate ofr a Christian nation even though he thought it was bunk, even though useful bunk?

I was involved in a discussion of Jefferson many years ago, the consensus was that he did fall away (and while fallen invented 'modern' negative campaigning!) but came back when older.

"Fall away"? "Fallen"? If you want to see just how far Jefferson "strayed" read his "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".

I don't know if that is true (the campaigning is). But, 1 of many many.

If Jefferson invented negative campaigning it was by being the victim of it. Adams, that devout Christian, threw the kitchen sink at Jefferson, right down to the (accurate) rumors about Sally Hemmings.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 01:33 PM
I can tell you what I think, not that any of you asked. I am a Catholic and if pressed I would call myself a Christian, though I distain what that word has come to represent in our country. I think, like Franklin, the Bible is filled with unfathomable wisdom, though it is more often over looked in favor of quotes that can be used to stand in judgment of others.

I go to church every week. Okay, most weeks. I participate in communion and have received all appropriate sacraments. I also believe the Bible was written by men and the commonly held belief in the nature of "God" is absurd. For many years I considered leaving the church. Damn near became a Unitarian, like many of our Founding Fathers. Ultimately I found that many in the clergy believed things very much in line with what I believed. I figure if they can call themselves Catholic so can I.

Paine's writings helped me come to terms with my beliefs. I think where I am now is probably very close to where many of our Founding Fathers were. People want it to be black and white. They were Christian or they were not. I don't think it's that simple. But I do think it's quite clear that they went out of their way to avoid the implication that any religion should be included in political debate.

I also believe, as was the intent of this thread, that the people organizing the "Tea Parties" know they are misleading the citizens of this country. I find that very wrong.

doucanoe
12-01-2009, 02:04 PM
I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.



RC

merrylander
12-01-2009, 02:19 PM
I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.



RC

Well if we were to bring home ALL our troops, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, stop handing out defense contracts to foreign companies and tell the drug companies just how much they can charge,we could save quite a bit. And we still might be able to scare up the money to repair our crumbling infrastructure. If our indsutry spent more time exporting products and less time exporting jobs I would be inclined to give them the time of day.

Then we could have time to take the mickey out of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs et. al. Shoot we might even be able to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry. There is a line from Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem "The Children" that covers what will happen to people who allow that to happen.

"Do you hear the children weeping, oh my brothers, err the sorrow begins.

. . .

The child's sob in the darkness curses greater than the strong man in his wrath."

I imagine there are many children crying themselves to sleep because their father or mother came home through Dover.

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 02:23 PM
I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.

I'd love to see the specifics. Where exactly would they cut and how much would that save? Three places- 75% of the budget. Meicade/Medicare, Social Security and Millitary. If you don't cut from there it's unlikely to be significant enough to make a dent. Waiting for the Tea Plan. Haven't seen one. Just people complaining that they don't much like taxes and consequences be damned. If the country goes to hell, so be it. It's my money and I want it for me.

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 02:24 PM
Shoot we might even be able to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry.

Why should *I* have to pay for *your* hungry kid!? If you couldn't afford him he should have chosen to be born to a better family. That's the Christian way!

merrylander
12-01-2009, 02:41 PM
Why should *I* have to pay for *your* hungry kid!? If you couldn't afford him he should have chosen to be born to a better family. That's the Christian way!


When you say 'he' should have chosen to be born . . . I had a sudden recollection of the Eggbert cartoons of yore, later he got a sister Eggberta. Sorry, I just can't be serious all the time.:D

Boreas
12-01-2009, 02:48 PM
I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.

I was under the impression that the term "Teabagger" was adopted by the movement itself. Perhaps it has fallen out of favor since its alternative meaning has come to their attention. We "Libs", being the degenerates we are, knew the other meaning. We had a big laugh over the choice of names.

It seems your priority is more tax breaks for business. Is that true? Do you not think that middle class families and individuals - you know, Teabaggers - are more deserving?

Now, since spending cuts are a given in your plan, where would you cut and why? Since Defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid account for about 75% of all spending you'd really have to cut there, right?

Maybe not. Maybe you'd just basically wipe out the 25% that isn't mentioned above.

Or maybe you'd just do away with all new "stimulus packages" and "bailouts"? In future when key industries are about to implode we just let them? I suppose that would be okay. There are plenty of foreign corporations to fill the void.

Also, as we simultaneously cut spending and taxes, do we cut tax revenue more than, less than or the same as spending? Do we cut revenue more than we cut spending, thereby increasing the amount we must borrow from the Middle East and China? Do we reduce revenue less than we cut spending and borrow less or do we cut revenue and spending equally and continue borrowing at the same rate?

John

piece-itpete
12-01-2009, 02:56 PM
So, you got nothing, right? ;)

No, just my own eyes and thoughts ;)

The comment was in regard to your contention that our founders would be assailing science.

Not science, obviously not. The blind belief in science and government.

Okay, pick and choose your own comments where the founders advocated for a declaration that we are a Christian nation. More to the point, pick and choose the Government document which so states.



This really only has cultural significance, not governmental. In "a Christian nation" it would have been mandated, not suggested.

A clarifying question would be, what constitutes a nation? The founders would not have agreed it was the government, far from it. Their actions show their intent.

Okay, tell me why it means anything.

I'm at a loss here. Anyone?

You haven't heard me mention him. I know what happened.

John

Sorry, answering two posters in one :)

So, he was an advocate ofr a Christian nation even though he thought it was bunk, even though useful bunk?

Useful enough to advocate teaching the Bible in schools, yes.

"Fall away"? "Fallen"? If you want to see just how far Jefferson "strayed" read his "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".

That would be the definition of fallen, indeed.

If Jefferson invented negative campaigning it was by being the victim of it. Adams, that devout Christian, threw the kitchen sink at Jefferson, right down to the (accurate) rumors about Sally Hemmings.

Jefferson first, hired a slanderer.

I can tell you what I think, not that any of you asked. I am a Catholic and if pressed I would call myself a Christian, though I distain what that word has come to represent in our country. I think, like Franklin, the Bible is filled with unfathomable wisdom, though it is more often over looked in favor of quotes that can be used to stand in judgment of others.

I go to church every week. Okay, most weeks. I participate in communion and have received all appropriate sacraments. I also believe the Bible was written by men and the commonly held belief in the nature of "God" is absurd. For many years I considered leaving the church. Damn near became a Unitarian, like many of our Founding Fathers. Ultimately I found that many in the clergy believed things very much in line with what I believed. I figure if they can call themselves Catholic so can I.

Paine's writings helped me come to terms with my beliefs. I think where I am now is probably very close to where many of our Founding Fathers were. People want it to be black and white. They were Christian or they were not. I don't think it's that simple. But I do think it's quite clear that they went out of their way to avoid the implication that any religion should be included in political debate.

I also believe, as was the intent of this thread, that the people organizing the "Tea Parties" know they are misleading the citizens of this country. I find that very wrong.

I understand what you mean about personal belief. I liken it to the Statler Brothers, who were thrown out of the Baptist church for playing secular music. Anyone who writes a song like 'Whose birthday is Christmas' is very likely a born again Christian. Still, tossed out, freedom of religion and all that.

I can't get my mind around saying things like the Nicene Creed (that's in Catholic churches too right?) and then saying that the commonly held belief in the nature of "God" is absurd, not to be difficult Ed, perhaps I'm not understanding it.

"Many of our Founding Fathers" is a bit of a stretch, ain't it? :)

Paine was ostracized from these other folks who were "probably very close" to Paine's thoughts. They let him rot basically.

Obama certainly knew, or as Senator and Presidential nominee should have known, that we were going to leave troops in Iraq indefinately and Gitmo was neccessary. I find that very wrong.

Pete

Boreas
12-01-2009, 03:28 PM
Not science, obviously not. The blind belief in science and government.

Science is not a matter of belief but of discovery and observation. Government, on the other hand, (or politics) is all too often a matter of belief and faith. That's one of the biggest reasons it must never be mixed with religion.

A clarifying question would be, what constitutes a nation? The founders would not have agreed it was the government, far from it. Their actions show their intent.

Well, when the Right speaks of our being a Christian nation they say that entails being governed by Christian principles. Whether you accept that proposition or not, clearly they think of nationhood and government as aspects of the same whole.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 03:46 PM
Science is not a matter of belief but of discovery and observation.

There's a great Carl Sagan quote... Oh. Nevermind. "Nothing can be known. Just give up. Science is a cult. Stop educating the children".

Boreas
12-01-2009, 03:54 PM
Paine was ostracized from these other folks who were "probably very close" to Paine's thoughts. They let him rot basically.

Payne was a troublesome fellow. Everything for which he was once loved eventually made people hate him.

He was useful during the Revolutionary period and later useful to the French in their revolution. Like Che Guevara, however, he was too much the firebrand to ever be comfortable with comfort. He made those whom he helped gain power rather uncomfortable once they had power.

He was done in by the Federalists at a time when they were the dominant political force here. This was partly because of his Deist views and partly because of his links to France and the Terror following the Revolution. His friendship with Jefferson didn't help either.

John

noonereal
12-01-2009, 04:12 PM
"Teabagger"

I love how the right named themselves this. A real Palin moment. :D

doucanoe
12-01-2009, 06:13 PM
Gentlemen, I wish you all the best.

RC

Boreas
12-01-2009, 06:26 PM
Gentlemen, I wish you all the best.

RC

Jeeze, is that a goodbye??

John

HatchetJack
12-01-2009, 06:41 PM
Jeeze, is that a goodbye??

John

I think that may have been a finger raised in the air kinda like most of our
manufacturing companies did when they sailed overseas and left us to wade
in our own stink.

Fast_Eddie
12-01-2009, 06:58 PM
I think that may have been a finger raised in the air kinda like most of our
manufacturing companies did when they sailed overseas and left us to wade
in our own stink.

Maybe we need some regula...

Or maybe we should not give a tax advantage to....

Oh nevermind.

Charles
12-01-2009, 07:36 PM
Gentlemen, I wish you all the best.

RC

Thank you, Sir.

And best wishes to you and yours, especially during this time of year.

Chas

JJIII
12-02-2009, 05:46 AM
Gentlemen, I wish you all the best.

RC

Best to you, sir.

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 08:46 AM
Payne was a troublesome fellow. Everything for which he was once loved eventually made people hate him.

He was useful during the Revolutionary period and later useful to the French in their revolution. Like Che Guevara, however, he was too much the firebrand to ever be comfortable with comfort. He made those whom he helped gain power rather uncomfortable once they had power.

He was done in by the Federalists at a time when they were the dominant political force here. This was partly because of his Deist views and partly because of his links to France and the Terror following the Revolution. His friendship with Jefferson didn't help either.

John

Dang politicians, using folks :)

I find it interesting that, considering a movement online (and elsewhere) to brand founders as Deists, it was a problem for Paine :D

I find it strange that, as I would like us to do more on the science front, I am a luddite for questioning scientific claims :hdscrtch: I thought that was the proper approach vs blind acceptance? That's what I'm getting at. Show me the money! lol.


Gentlemen, I wish you all the best.

RC

And you too sir.

Pete

BlueStreak
12-02-2009, 08:58 AM
I think that may have been a finger raised in the air kinda like most of our
manufacturing companies did when they sailed overseas and left us to wade
in our own stink.

Okay, so you be the first to work cheaper and harder than anyone else in the world. Go ahead skippy, I'm right behind ya..................On second thought............Naw, f**k that. You're on your own with THAT bullshit.

Dave

Boreas
12-02-2009, 09:41 AM
I find it interesting that, considering a movement online (and elsewhere) to brand founders as Deists, it was a problem for Paine :D

Some were Deists and some weren't. There was no solid consensus among the founders on religion. That makes it pretty unlikely that they would have been able to establish our country along the lines of any set of religious principles.

I find it strange that, as I would like us to do more on the science front, I am a luddite for questioning scientific claims :hdscrtch: I thought that was the proper approach vs blind acceptance? That's what I'm getting at. Show me the money! lol.

I think I'm the only one who used the term Luddite and that was facetiously in regard to Jefferson and Franklin. Nobody called you a Luddite.

That being said, the evidence is there. The stolen emails haven't changed that.

John

doucanoe
12-02-2009, 10:11 AM
I think that may have been a finger raised in the air kinda like most of our
manufacturing companies did when they sailed overseas and left us to wade
in our own stink.



No, not in the least. It’s more like this… When a discussion about taxation, spending and possible cuts in spending (i.e.: holding spending at current levels) comes up, the hole card for liberals is to always challenge someone’s compassion. Usually, this is held out of the conversation until the argument wears thin but in this case, it was rolled out early. I’m up for an honest discussion of ideas, but I don’t have the patience when the “But what about the children” challenge is paraded out. Next think you know, things get ugly and people are being called out as being Fascist, Racist, Hitler, etc., links to youtube Save the Children and UNICEF videos, Sally Struthers makes an appearance…

I’m up for an open discussion of ideas but certain things, like I said, I just don’t have the patience for. It’s such a tiresome conversation to have. I’m not leaving the discussion mad, I’m just leaving the discussion. Trust me on this.

RC

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 10:29 AM
Some were Deists and some weren't. There was no solid consensus among the founders on religion. That makes it pretty unlikely that they would have been able to establish our country along the lines of any set of religious principles.



I think I'm the only one who used the term Luddite and that was facetiously in regard to Jefferson and Franklin. Nobody called you a Luddite.

That being said, the evidence is there. The stolen emails haven't changed that.

John

Many many Christians of different demoninations agree about a LOT of things.

Heck I wasn't calling you out on the Luddite thing, just using an expression. Christians are painted as backward all the time, I'm used to it ;)

If the preponderance of evidence is there, why fabricate it?

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-02-2009, 10:35 AM
Patriotic tea party protesters mock the death of an uninsured pregnant woman and her child.

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/midge-hough-and-the-chicago-tea-party-patriots/

Yeah. Those are some patriotic Americans there. Here's a though. Count your blessings and work to help your fellow citizens. Wonder how many of these people went to Church that Sunday and have "Pro-Life" stickers on their cars to claim moral superiority?

Figured I'd oblige.

Fast_Eddie
12-02-2009, 10:37 AM
Many many Christians of different demoninations agree about a LOT of things.

Many Christians agree with many Jews about a lot of thing. Many Jews agree with many Buddhists about a lot of things. Many Buddhists agree with many Muslims about a lot of things. A lot of Americans agree with me that none of it has anything to do with how policy should be decided in the United States.

Some Christians believe that God wants them to live in plural marriage. Some Chrisitans believe we should murder doctors who perform abortions. Commonality of religous beliefs has very little to do with morals. I'd wager more poor decisions have been made by socities who claim to be acting in the name of whatever God it is they worshim than good.

merrylander
12-02-2009, 10:45 AM
No, not in the least. It’s more like this… When a discussion about taxation, spending and possible cuts in spending (i.e.: holding spending at current levels) comes up, the hole card for liberals is to always challenge someone’s compassion. Usually, this is held out of the conversation until the argument wears thin but in this case, it was rolled out early. I’m up for an honest discussion of ideas, but I don’t have the patience when the “But what about the children” challenge is paraded out. Next think you know, things get ugly and people are being called out as being Fascist, Racist, Hitler, etc., links to youtube Save the Children and UNICEF videos, Sally Struthers makes an appearance…

I’m up for an open discussion of ideas but certain things, like I said, I just don’t have the patience for. It’s such a tiresome conversation to have. I’m not leaving the discussion mad, I’m just leaving the discussion. Trust me on this.

RC


AFAIK the children are already covered, forget the name of the plan but there is one. I am not emotionally tied to any part of this I simply find it assinine that we spend twice what other industrialized nations do and all that does is fill the coffers of the drug and health insurance companies.

We still ration health care, leave your job and and any illness you developed while at that job is now a pre-existing condition. Of course there is always COBRA, called that because its bite is near fatal. As I say screw the emotion I just hate being taken for a damned fool.

As far as the so called reform plan is concerned I will be royally screwed over. They say almost everyone will pay less - except for the self-insured, but we will get better coverage for the extra we will be charged. Excuse me? Our plan coveres damn near 99% or more now, so what is this extra coverage we will be getting.

If you want something right royally screwed up give it to Congress.

Boreas
12-02-2009, 10:57 AM
… When a discussion about taxation, spending and possible cuts in spending (i.e.: holding spending at current levels) comes up, the hole card for liberals is to always challenge someone’s compassion. Usually, this is held out of the conversation until the argument wears thin but in this case, it was rolled out early. I’m up for an honest discussion of ideas, but I don’t have the patience when the “But what about the children” challenge is paraded out. Next think you know, things get ugly and people are being called out as being Fascist, Racist, Hitler, etc., links to youtube Save the Children and UNICEF videos, Sally Struthers makes an appearance…

I’m up for an open discussion of ideas but certain things, like I said, I just don’t have the patience for. It’s such a tiresome conversation to have. I’m not leaving the discussion mad, I’m just leaving the discussion. Trust me on this.

RC

This post just didn't ring true so I went back and read through the entire thread. Nobody did any of the things you've accused us of. All I can think of is that you saw questions you didn't want to answer.

John

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 11:10 AM
Many Christians agree with many Jews about a lot of thing. Many Jews agree with many Buddhists about a lot of things. Many Buddhists agree with many Muslims about a lot of things. A lot of Americans agree with me that none of it has anything to do with how policy should be decided in the United States.

Some Christians believe that God wants them to live in plural marriage. Some Chrisitans believe we should murder doctors who perform abortions. Commonality of religous beliefs has very little to do with morals. I'd wager more poor decisions have been made by socities who claim to be acting in the name of whatever God it is they worshim than good.

They did agree enough to print the Bible! And hire a Chaplin for Congress.

... COBRA, called that because its bite is near fatal...

Lmao!!!

.-.-.-.-.

I suspect post 63 has something to do with things. RC, I just ignore it for the most part. It's so tough for folks to be multisided online, it tends to drive us all to extremes, even for us :)

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-02-2009, 11:24 AM
They did agree enough to print the Bible! And hire a Chaplin for Congress.

Well, we're talking in circles now. I mentioned before that you need to take things in their historical context, but as I havn't the resources to provide a study guide in that area and I suspect you're not inclined to do the research on it yourself I'll leave it at that.

doucanoe
12-02-2009, 11:27 AM
This post just didn't ring true so I went back and read through the entire thread. Nobody did any of the things you've accused us of. All I can think of is that you saw questions you didn't want to answer.

John


Believe what you wish.

RC

Boreas
12-02-2009, 11:56 AM
Believe what you wish.

RC

Harrumph! ;)

John

Boreas
12-02-2009, 12:12 PM
Patriotic tea party protesters mock the death of an uninsured pregnant woman and her child.

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/midge-hough-and-the-chicago-tea-party-patriots/

Yeah, that one has been around for a couple of weeks now. The official (???) Tea Party for the Chicago area has distanced itself from those responsible, calling them a "splinter group". As far as I'm concerned, the whole lot of 'em is a splinter group of humanity.

By the way, Charles Johnson, the blogger who started Little Green Footballs has become fed up with the Right and abandoned ship. What does that tell ya?

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/35243_Why_I_Parted_Ways_With_The_Right

John

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 12:38 PM
Well, we're talking in circles now. I mentioned before that you need to take things in their historical context, but as I havn't the resources to provide a study guide in that area and I suspect you're not inclined to do the research on it yourself I'll leave it at that.

I was pointing out that they didn't print a Koran, Tibetan Book of the Dead, etc, that they did indeed agree enough to decide on the Christian book for some reason.

Pete

Boreas
12-02-2009, 12:46 PM
Believe what you wish.

RC

RC, beyond "harrumph", I'd like to say that I don't post here just to hear the sound of my own voice. I try to engage people in a dialog and at least as much to learn as to "teach".

I want to hear your views and I want to believe that I'm open to persuasion if your views or anyone else's are sounder than my own. I would similarly hope that people with whom I might differ would give my views a fair hearing. Sadly, when someone absents himself from a discussion because he thinks he knows what someone else is about to say everyone loses.

Too many of these open forums end up as little more than echo chambers when one particular set of views becomes dominant and those with opposing views clam up or even just leave. I hope that doesn't happen here. There are many intelligent voices here with a wide variety of perspectives. I, for one, would like it to stay that way.

John

Boreas
12-02-2009, 12:48 PM
And hire a Chaplin for Congress.

Yeah, Congress sure can get "slapstick" at times. ;)

John

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 12:51 PM
Lmao!!

Pete

Boreas
12-02-2009, 01:23 PM
They did agree enough to print the Bible!

Hey, Pete -

When you first claimed that the first book the government printed was the bible I didn't really comment on it because it was news to me. I figured I'd better inform myself about it before I did.

Anyway, I finally did check it out. Turns out you're not exactly right.

The matter relates to an act of the Continental Congress during the Revolution. Because of the war, there was an embargo on all goods coming from England. That included bibles.

Beginning in 1777, the Continental Congress entertained several resolutions for the purchase of thousands of bibles from foreign countries but nothing ever came of them. Finally, in 1781, a printer and bookseller in Philadelphia by the name of Robert Aitken petitioned the Continental Congress to certify his version of the bible which was already in print.

The Continental Congress agreed to certify them as accurate but declined his further requests to allow them to be published under their authority or to appoint Aitken as the official publisher of sacred texts.

So, our government never printed or authorized the printing of a bible. The Continental Congress, our "revolutionary council", never did either. All they did was certify as accurate an American bible that already existed.

John

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 01:45 PM
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bible-leaves/aitken-1782-leaf-picture5.html





The Chaplains of Congress, Dr. White and Mr. Duffield, made their report on September 10, 1782. Two days later, on the 12th, the Committee reported to Congress, submitting copies of both their request to the Chaplains and the Chaplains' report. The same day Congress approved the "pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country," and recommended his Bible to the American people, graciously authorizing him to publish the recommendation "in any manner he shall think proper."

Note how many times schools are mentioned!

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/1st.htm

And 2 Chaps. I wonder why Jefferson didn't complain, hmmm.

Pete

Boreas
12-02-2009, 01:59 PM
http://www.greatsite.com/ancient-rare-bible-leaves/aitken-1782-leaf-picture5.html

The Chaplains of Congress, Dr. White and Mr. Duffield, made their report on September 10, 1782. Two days later, on the 12th, the Committee reported to Congress, submitting copies of both their request to the Chaplains and the Chaplains' report. The same day Congress approved the "pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion, as well as an instance of the progress of arts in this country," and recommended his Bible to the American people, graciously authorizing him to publish the recommendation "in any manner he shall think proper."

Note how many times schools are mentioned!

http://www.logosresourcepages.org/Versions/1st.htm

And 2 Chaps. I wonder why Jefferson didn't complain, hmmm.

Pete



1782

The American Revolution ended in 1783.

... and it took the Continental Congress more than a year and a half to get around to making a decision on Aitken's petition: January, 1781 to September, 1782.

So, when did our government ever print a bible as you initially claimed?

John

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 02:19 PM
Ah yes, the Continental Congress was not representative of the people, and the basis of our government?

My mistake in claiming Congress authorized printing the 1st Bible was a misread on my part, they only authorized their official approval of the Bible to be published.

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-02-2009, 02:21 PM
Um, who cares?

They also owned slaves and didn't allow women to vote. Ya'll need to move on.

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 02:30 PM
Are you suggesting women should get the vote? :eek:

Next you'll be saying they should be able to drive too :D

Pete

Boreas
12-02-2009, 02:36 PM
Ah yes, the Continental Congress was not representative of the people, and the basis of our government?

The Continental Congress didn't represent the people. It represented the rebellion which was embraced by many of the colonists but far from all of them. It was the precursor of our eventual government but not our government.

My mistake in claiming Congress authorized printing the 1st Bible was a misread on my part, they only authorized their official approval of the Bible to be published.

Pete

The Continental Congress didn't authorize anything. That implies they caused something to exist. They merely endorsed an already existing bible. Also, they specifically refused either to publish the bible under their authority or appoint Aitken as the official publisher of sacred texts, both of these things being requested in Aitken's petition. The Aitken Bible was in no way an official text of any US or prior government.

John

Boreas
12-02-2009, 02:37 PM
Um, who cares?

They also owned slaves and didn't allow women to vote. Ya'll need to move on.

Do we? Oh,okay.:rolleyes:

John

merrylander
12-02-2009, 02:41 PM
Out of curiousity I looked in the index of Madison's Notes. The sole mention of religion was about the wording for the final text of Article VI ". . . ; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any public office or public trust under the United States."

If the preamble does not indicate the formation of a government (ergo also a nation, else why have a government) I don't know what does.

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 02:47 PM
Iirc the religious test was kinda hardfought over the whole period. Folks wanted a requirement to be Christian (and some State constitutions had this)(and of course - we were a Christian nation ;) ) but the wiser Feds knew it was a door for a Federally sponsored denomination, which understandably was their biggest fear. They really did want freedom of religion, because they understood it went hand-in-hand with freedom of speech.

Pete

merrylander
12-02-2009, 02:56 PM
According to Madison's Notes it had little discussion, to wit;

"Mr. Pinkney moved to add to the article ( the actual wording I quoted earlier)

Mr Sherman thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality being a security against such tests.

Mr. Gouvernor Morris & General Pinkney approved the motion"

only North Carolina and one member from MD against, there were two Pinkneys present, father and son I believe.

Not exactly an overwhelming amount of discussion I would say.

Boreas
12-02-2009, 03:00 PM
Iirc the religious test was kinda hardfought over the whole period. Folks wanted a requirement to be Christian (and some State constitutions had this)(and of course - we were a Christian nation ;) ) but the wiser Feds knew it was a door for a Federally sponsored denomination, which understandably was their biggest fear. They really did want freedom of religion, because they understood it went hand-in-hand with freedom of speech.

Pete

Yes, Adams and others feared Federal influence over religion. Others, including Jefferson, feared the opposite, that we'd end up with a theocracy. The only consensus was that separation between church and state was essential to the survival of the nation, for whichever reason.

By the way, you do know that the words, "so help me God" aren't in the actual Presidential Oath of Office as it appears in the Constitution. You know that, right?

Article II, Section 1, Clause 8

John

Boreas
12-02-2009, 03:03 PM
"Mr. Pinkney moved to add to the article ( the actual wording I quoted earlier)

Mr Sherman thought it unnecessary, the prevailing liberality being a security against such tests.

It's a damned good thing we didn't end up relying on "the prevailing liberality" to protect us from religious interference in government.

John

merrylander
12-02-2009, 03:04 PM
It was added during the Eisenhower administration and was based on the story that Washington said it when he was inaugurated. There is certainly nothing wrong with a President asking for divine assistance, some of them needed all the help they can get.

That said for the Chief Justice to ask for it violates the Constitution.

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 03:14 PM
Yep, that non Christian gentleman (who was perhaps the most un-emotional person I've ever read about, almost cold-seeming) added 'So help me God!' and kissed the Bible.

Here's betting his contemporaries were surprised.

Hey, why do we swear on the Bible? (elbow in side)

Pete

piece-itpete
12-02-2009, 03:20 PM
Btw, I believe it was more his fervor for the Constitution.

Pete

Boreas
12-02-2009, 03:26 PM
It was added during the Eisenhower administration and was based on the story that Washington said it when he was inaugurated. There is certainly nothing wrong with a President asking for divine assistance, some of them needed all the help they can get.

What was added in the Eisenhower Administration were the words "under God" to The Pledge of Allegiance. (I'm old enough to have recited the Pledge in both forms.) There is debate over whether Washington actually said "so help me God" at his inaugural. No contemporary source mentions it.

The first actual record of a president using those words is in 1881 when Chester A. Arthur spoke them unbidden at the end of the oath. In this case the Chief Justice administered the oath by saying "Do you, Chester A. Arthur solemnly swear, etc." to which Arthur answered, "I do, so help me God."

That said for the Chief Justice to ask for it violates the Constitution.

Not according to Chief Justice Roberts. His contention is that the oath automatically ends at the last official word and anything anyone says after that is apparently okay because it's not said as part of the oath.

John

Boreas
12-02-2009, 03:35 PM
Yep, that non Christian gentleman (who was perhaps the most un-emotional person I've ever read about, almost cold-seeming) added 'So help me God!' and kissed the Bible.

No contemporary source or eye (ear?) witness confirms that.

Hey, why do we swear on the Bible? (elbow in side)

Tradition. Remember all the wing nuts who said Obama was planning on taking his oath using the Koran? Obviously, he didn't but it would have been legal (Constitutional). So would just not using anything.

John

doucanoe
12-02-2009, 03:46 PM
Harrumph! ;)

John

You kind of lost me there, John.

Boreas
12-02-2009, 04:12 PM
I wonder why Jefferson didn't complain, hmmm.

Pete

I don't know, maybe he did. He was livid about it when he mentioned it to me.

John

Boreas
12-02-2009, 04:13 PM
You kind of lost me there, John.

That can happen.

John

doucanoe
12-02-2009, 04:14 PM
RC, beyond "harrumph", I'd like to say that I don't post here just to hear the sound of my own voice. I try to engage people in a dialog and at least as much to learn as to "teach".

I want to hear your views and I want to believe that I'm open to persuasion if your views or anyone else's are sounder than my own. I would similarly hope that people with whom I might differ would give my views a fair hearing. Sadly, when someone absents himself from a discussion because he thinks he knows what someone else is about to say everyone loses.

Too many of these open forums end up as little more than echo chambers when one particular set of views becomes dominant and those with opposing views clam up or even just leave. I hope that doesn't happen here. There are many intelligent voices here with a wide variety of perspectives. I, for one, would like it to stay that way.

John


Oops, I responded to the "harrumph" comment before I read this.

I didn't completely absent myself from the discussion. Just quit adding my 2 cents worth.

I enjoy discussing a lot of things including politics. Even though I may not agree with them when its all said and done, I try to listen with an open mind. One thing I have found is that after all the conversation, there usually is not much offered to change my mind to a great extent anyway. There have been exceptions however. I would imagine, you could probably say the same if you were being honest.

I'm still curious as to what "harrumph" means??

RC

Boreas
12-02-2009, 04:52 PM
I'm still curious as to what "harrumph" means??

RC

It's an expression, verbal but not exactly linguistic. It's usually uttered in a sort of emphatic and guttural way. It's intended to convey a sort of haughty dismissiveness, usually in response to something someone as said.

At least that's my understanding of it.

John

doucanoe
12-02-2009, 05:00 PM
It's an expression, verbal but not exactly linguistic. It's usually uttered in a sort of emphatic and guttural way. It's intended to convey a sort of haughty dismissiveness, usually in response to something someone as said.

At least that's my understanding of it.

John


I see. Maybe I should be insulted then :D

RC

Charles
12-02-2009, 06:06 PM
It's an expression, verbal but not exactly linguistic. It's usually uttered in a sort of emphatic and guttural way. It's intended to convey a sort of haughty dismissiveness, usually in response to something someone as said.

At least that's my understanding of it.

John

I always like to resort to profanity.

That way everybody "gets it"!!!! Even people who don't speak the language.

Chas

hillbilly
12-02-2009, 08:00 PM
I always like to resort to profanity.

That way everybody "gets it"!!!! Even people who don't speak the language.

Chas


Hell, I'll drink to that :D

Charles
12-02-2009, 08:14 PM
Hell, I'll drink to that :D

Here's mud in your eye, buddy!!!!

Chas

merrylander
12-03-2009, 07:20 AM
Not according to Chief Justice Roberts. His contention is that the oath automatically ends at the last official word and anything anyone says after that is apparently okay because it's not said as part of the oath.

John

You don't want to know my opinion of Roberts.

piece-itpete
12-03-2009, 07:32 AM
No contemporary source or eye (ear?) witness confirms that.



Tradition. Remember all the wing nuts who said Obama was planning on taking his oath using the Koran? Obviously, he didn't but it would have been legal (Constitutional). So would just not using anything.

John

I would say that it would be a tradition - in a Christian country :D

Wiki says:

(snip) The phrase "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789 for U.S. officers other than the President. Although the phrase is mandatory in these oaths, the said Act also allows for the option that the phrase be omitted by the officer, in which case it would be called an affirmation instead of an oath: "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath." (endsnip)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_Stat es#.22So_help_me_God.22

So all officers under Washington used it, it was codified into law for them while he was President, therefore not unlikely he did say it? Although not proven.

Btw, how could that have been Constitutional, and doesn't it point to a Christian country - again? :)

And there's those radical Christians in the military. And the Judiciary! :eek: [edit: by direction of the Legislature]


I don't know, maybe he did. He was livid about it when he mentioned it to me.

John

Lmao!!

Pete

Boreas
12-03-2009, 09:53 AM
The phrase "So help me God" is explicitly prescribed in oaths as early as the Judiciary Act of 1789 for U.S. officers other than the President. Although the phrase is mandatory in these oaths, the said Act also allows for the option that the phrase be omitted by the officer, in which case it would be called an affirmation instead of an oath: "Which words, so help me God, shall be omitted in all cases where an affirmation is admitted instead of an oath." (endsnip)

That's what happens when people like you and me write wiki entries. It can't be mandatory and optional at the same time. Anyway, I was specifically talking about the Presidential Oath of Office, not Affirmation of Office, where the phrase isn't even listed as optional.

Btw, how could that have been Constitutional, and doesn't it point to a Christian country - again? :)

Nope. The fact that it's not mentioned in some oaths and optional in the rest tells you we're not a Christian nation. Plus, when it's used, the word is God, the same god the Jews and Muslims worship.

John

Fast_Eddie
12-03-2009, 10:05 AM
Btw, how could that have been Constitutional, and doesn't it point to a Christian country - again? :)

What does the word "God" have to do with Christianity? Doesn't every mainstream religion worship some vision of God?

piece-itpete
12-03-2009, 10:08 AM
I'm sure they meant Allah :p

Pete

Fast_Eddie
12-03-2009, 10:13 AM
I'm sure they meant Allah :p

Pete

So, what you're really saying is not that we're a Christian nation, but rather, we're a non-Muslim nation. Is that it? Or English speaking nation? If you use the right word for God you're good to go, but if you use the wrong word you're out? It's basically a semantic deal. We'll keep them out on a technicality.

Boreas
12-03-2009, 10:19 AM
I'm sure they meant Allah :p

Pete

Muslims embrace "our" god. To them, Christians, Jews and Muslims are all "People of the Book", all worshiping the same god. Interestingly, Muslims venerate Jesus as a prophet. They don't regard him as divine but they do honor him and his teachings.

John

piece-itpete
12-03-2009, 10:43 AM
So, back when they taught the Bible in grade school, when they said 'God' they were talking about a god in general. Hmm.

Pete

Boreas
12-03-2009, 11:06 AM
So, back when they taught the Bible in grade school, when they said 'God' they were talking about a god in general. Hmm.

Pete

Guess that depends on where you went to school but here in America it was usually the God of the Christians, Jews and Muslims.

John

merrylander
12-03-2009, 11:43 AM
They did not teach the bible in day school, only in Sunday school.

piece-itpete
12-03-2009, 11:47 AM
Praise be to Allah al-'Ab.

The Jewish God is certainly the Lord of Christians.

I'm sure our friends in the 1700s were referring to the Muslim god.

Pete

Boreas
12-03-2009, 11:54 AM
You don't want to know my opinion of Roberts.

I'm sure it's no more positive than mine.

Fast_Eddie
12-03-2009, 11:59 AM
Praise be to Allah al-'Ab.

The Jewish God is certainly the Lord of Christians.

I'm sure our friends in the 1700s were referring to the Muslim god.

Pete

I think we should assume what they intended. We should assume what they intended with the second ammendment too!

Boreas
12-03-2009, 12:02 PM
Praise be to Allah al-'Ab.

The Jewish God is certainly the Lord of Christians.

I'm sure our friends in the 1700s were referring to the Muslim god.

Pete

I'm sure Jefferson would have recognized that it's all the same god. Earlier, I mentioned that Muslims refer to themselves, Christians and Jews as "People of the Book". We have a term which unites the three religions as well. We call them "Abrahamic" religions because all three trace their roots back to the God of Abraham.

John

piece-itpete
12-03-2009, 12:02 PM
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.
- George Washington

Check this out:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/1777/index.htm

Pete

Boreas
12-03-2009, 12:20 PM
What students would learn in American schools above all is the religion of Jesus Christ.
- George Washington

One man's view.

Check this out:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/1777/index.htm

Pete

I hope they didn't teach arithmetic with that book! Check out the lists of 4 and 6 syllable words.

Also, what's the relevance of a Revolutionary War era text book? Especially one with a printing history which begins 90 years earlier?

None of this or any of the other "evidence" you've provided proves anything beyond the obvious fact that Christians have always lived here.

John

piece-itpete
12-03-2009, 12:39 PM
Of course they've always lived here ;)

Or since Columbus anyway! lol.

Interesting thing about the New England Primer - it was used as a standard textbook for decades and decades (and decades). My Grandma was a teacher in rural Iowa back in the early part of last century and she had a copy in with her kit.

Here's one from 1843:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/nep/nep00.htm

Pete