GOP leaders fed up with Rush Limbaugh...

ziggy wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:No, of course I don't. But I am honest enough to admit that I have such biases, and that virtually everything I do is affected by those biases. Why can't you and others be honest enough to admit likewise?

So you admit that you are incapable of examining an issue honestly?

Often I am less that fully objective, yes. We are all biased by a lifetime of actual experiences, as well as by perceptions based on what we hear and read. That is what biases are about- pre-formed notions that are "nourished" by our life experiences. There is nothing wrong with having biases. They are a natural part of all our psyches. But it is wrong to pretend that any one of us is somehow magically exempt from the natural pre-conceptions (biases) we have taken up along the way.

Hi Zig,

I certainly agree that there is nothing wrong with having biases and that all of us have them. I think, however, that there are certain "accepted" biases in academic circles that, simply because they are in academic circles, are treated as "facts" when they are really "prevailing beliefs" that are really more resultant from groupthink than from objective conclusion.

When I ask whether SUVs killed the dinosaurs, I make the point that "crap happens" sometimes and it is no one's "fault." I'd bet a dollar to a donut (and I love donuts) that if those dinosaurs had human abilities, they would have been blaming themselves for the destruction, when clearly whatever it was it wasn't them.

An ice age would suck right about now. And everyone agrees that earth has had them. And I don't think anyone has ever blamed humans for them.

To say that we are in a warming cycle is one thing, but to be SO SURE that humans have caused it is, as far as I can tell, scientists making proclamations based on what they believe rather than by what they know. You know about the pastor whose sermon notes read "point weak here, pound pulpit harder?" Obviously this is a joke, but I get the sense that so too are the statements of the GW community. I read more than once of some scientist saying that no reasonable person can disagree with anthroprogenic global warming. It makes me think of "poin tweak here, pound pulpit harder."

sodbuster wrote:
You, on the other hand, consider anyone who does not agree with you "an idiot".

That's not exactly true. There are many who disagree with me with whom I respect. The difference between them and you is they back their arguements up with fact. Additionally, they don't just chirp some party line, they explore what is being said.

You on the other hand and many like you, sing the party line. I doubt very seriously if you've considered the effect of that line on the population as a whole. While the party mantra may offfer help to some, it may also damage others. Like it or not what a person earn be alot or alittle is not yours or anyoneelses for the picking. To use the force of government to take from one proup to give to another is not noble, it is extortion. That is theft, plain and simple, which is wrong.

sodbuster wrote: And you consider poor people "parasites".

But the good book says "blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs shall be the Kingdom of Heaven"

Here again you more than prove my point about people like you. Here you take one of the beattitudes and use it out of context so to make and attempt to prove your point. That isn't intelligences it is both dishonest and ignorant. The beattitude you quote isn't talking about people who are financally poor, Jesus is speaking about people who are spiritually poor, those who are seeking rest for their soul, not for their pocket book.

You are alot like a guy I attend chruch with. He would give to anyone because it is also written "Give to him who askes" However, that has to be tempered with some other things that are also written. 2 Thessalonians 3:10: 10. For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, [size=18]that if any would not work, neither should eat[/size]. I just got through teaching 1 Timothy not long ago, I strongly suggest you read, 1 Timothy 5, which deals with widows. These also apply with equal force, either that or Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, was as you call them, a strippy pants fatcat.

Yes, I refer to those who continuely live off the government dole as parasites because that is what they are. There is no reason under the sun other than just plain laziness and entitlement mentality that anyone even in the wrost of time can't better themselves. In other words produce generation after generation that feeds at the public trough. As far as I'm cncerned that applies to the CEO of AIG and Morgan Stanley and the CEO of GM and Crysler as it does to a black welfare bady factory living in the projects. I have no use for any of them. When I or my kids have to borrow the money to attend college while I watch the parasites get a free ride, that 9 times out of 10 they squander because they are too lazy to apply themselves, my opinion is that they deserve nothing.

You, nor any other leftists, can give me one legitimate reason why I should have the fruit of my labor taken to support those who will not make the effort themselves. All any of you can do is cough up the party line of wealth envy and votebuying.

"Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me" Matt 25:40

The New Testament is rife with examples exhorting and encouraging us to treat poor people with love and respect Cato.

You know it as well as I do.

Do with it what you will.

Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what was Caesar’s Sodbuster.

I should not be forced to care for poor or downtrodden with my tax dollars simply because you think it's the right thing to do or because of the manner you interpret a biblical quote.

For what will probably not be the last time and is certainly not the first: Paying taxes is not charity. Giving your money away with no pre-conditions is charity. Paying taxes is legally a debt. You and Joe Biden can feel good all you want paying your taxes - you're not helping anybody. Get off your duff and go help somebody.

"Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me" Matt 25:40

The New Testament is rife with examples exhorting and encouraging us to treat poor people with love and respect Cato.

You know it as well as I do.

Do with it what you will.

Years ago I had heard a song called, "The ballad of Jesse James". More recently I ran across a same tuned ballad called "Jesus Christ".

And you know Sodbuster, sometimes I think the Limbaugh Gang would have fit right in with THIS gang:

Jesus Christ was a man that traveled through this land;
A carpenter, true and brave;
Said to the rich, "Give your goods to the poor",
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

Jesus was a man, a carpenter by hand;
Carpenter true and brave;
And a dirty little coward called Judas Iscariot
Laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

The people of the land took Jesus by the hand,
They followed Him far and wide;
"I come not to bring you peace, but a sword",
So they killed Jesus Christ on the sly.

He went to the sick, he went to the poor;
And he went to the hungry and the lame;
Said that the poor would one day win this world,
And so they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

They nailed Him there to die on a cross in the sky,
In the lightning, the thunder and the rain.
Judas Iscariot committed suicide
When they laid poor Jesus Christ in his grave.

One day Jesus stopped at a rich man's door.
"What must I do to be saved?"
"You must take all your goods and give it to the poor",
And so they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

They nailed Him there to die on a cross in the sky,
In the lightning, the thunder and the rain.
Judas Iscariot committed suicide
When they laid poor Jesus Christ in his grave.

When the love of the poor shall one day turn to hate,
When the patience of the workers gives away;
"Would be better for you rich if you never had been born",
So they laid Jesus Christ in His grave.

This song was written in New York City,
Of rich man, preachers, and slaves;
Yes, if Jesus was to preach like He preached in Galilee,
They would lay Jesus Christ in His grave.

Jesus Christ was many things.

A politician wan't one of them.

sodbuster wrote:"Inasmuch as you have done it unto the least of these my brethren you have done it unto me" Matt 25:40

The New Testament is rife with examples exhorting and encouraging us to treat poor people with love and respect Cato.

You know it as well as I do.

Do with it what you will.

It is also written

But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9: 6-7

Caring for the poor or giving is not something it is the responsibility of the government to mandate. It is an individual responsibility. If you want to give to a welfare mommy or the CEO of AIG feel free, but don't force your desires on me using the force of government.

Oh by the way, I'll go out of my way to help someone that ruly needs help. I have in the past and will do it in the future, but I will not give so much as a penny to someone that will not raise a finger to help themselves or that feels they are entitled.

I am not "forcing" you to do anything Cato.

I am just appealing to your sense of right and wrong.

The down side is that right or wrong choice is not constitutionally backed and as such, is theft of the American taxpayer.

sodbuster wrote:I am not "forcing" you to do anything Cato.

I am just appealing to your sense of right and wrong.

I beg to differ. You may not personally be forcing me, but the people you owe your loyalities to are. You have defended the likes of Byrd, Rockefeller, and Obama. They extort, which is theft, the fruit of my labor to give to the likes of people who will not work. They tell me that the money my wife and I worked for and have earned needs to be given to illegals in the form of free healthcare, free school. Yet, the same politicans offer no relief for me when I, or my wife or my children have to borrow or go without. Your beloved politicans had no problem bailing out the likes of Fannie and freddie and AIG, but if I were to get in the same situation, These same self-righteous politicans would have no sympathy for me or the many thousands like me and would expect us to go bankrupt.

As far as appealing to my sence of right and wrong. It is absolutely immoral to help a person who will not extend the effort to help themselves. All one does when they help a person who will not help themselves is to make even more dependant. Read 1 Timothy 5. The inspired apostle Paul is saying exactly the samething.

Let me appeal your sence of right and wrong. I hope you will agree that theft is wrong. If you do, then you have to agree that supporting either the republican or democratic party you are supporting theives. These people are theives because they extoret the frout of one's labors to redistribute to another. Sonething they have no right or authority to do. Thus the only alternative you have is to seperate yourself from these people and work to remove them from office at the next voting cycle.

I have a question.

I am not nearly as well versed in the Bible as most of you are. This question is directed towards sodbuster, but if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

Where in the Bible does it say people who have the fruits of their labor stolen from them by the government for redistribution to those less fortunate receive any kind of blessing?

I'm going to parapharse Jimmy's wise words, just in case you missed them:

Taxes are not charity. Tax payments are not charitable donations.

Stephanie wrote:I have a question.

I am not nearly as well versed in the Bible as most of you are. This question is directed towards sodbuster, but if anyone can point me in the right direction I'd appreciate it.

Where in the Bible does it say people who have the fruits of their labor stolen from them by the government for redistribution to those less fortunate receive any kind of blessing?

I'm going to parapharse Jimmy's wise words, just in case you missed them:

Taxes are not charity. Tax payments are not charitable donations.

The bible doesn't say that people are to have their money extorted from them anywhere. What is said in regard to giving is found in 2 Corinthians 9: 6,7 But this I say, He which soweth sparingly shall reap also sparingly; and he which soweth bountifully shall reap also bountifully. Every man according as he purposeth in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loveth a cheerful giver.

The thing of it is Stephanie, Sherman and many and many other like him think they can use the power of government to force their view and agenda on the public as a whole. They think it is a noble cause, or want us to think it is a noble cause anyways, to take from one group and give to another, when in reality it is first theft and 2nd and worse, tyranny. It is nothing short of tyranny to force a person to support policy to which he disagrees. That was one of the founding principles of this nation.

If you notice Sherman didn't reply to or refute what I posted in regard to Paul's teachings. Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ, who spoke with the authority of Christ, said that if a person will not work he should not eat. He also said that if a person's family will not take care of their own, they are worse than an infidal. That is to say the even Infidals took care of their own. Paul knew quite well that when a free handout was a available some would take it and refuse to support themselves, which would lead to sin. It happen then and we see it happening today.

The bible does say more about giving and helping people. Things like treat others as you would be treated, help the needy, open your bowels of compassion. We need to do just that but NOT as a cooperative govenrment. The commands aren't to the government they are to each of us individually. It is left to each of us individually to do as we purpose in our hearts to do. That may not let us off the hook, so to speak, because we are to sow plentifully, and greed condemned.

I hope that answers your question.

Cato

You know Cato, there are a lot of very wealthy Democrats holding federal office and most of them profess some variety of Christianity. I suggest they tap into their bank account for all these wonderful programs and leave ours alone. Seems to me that would please the God of Abraham far more than what they are doing.

Of course, what do I know? I'm agnostic.

Take Joe Biden. Please...take Joe Biden. He's preaching at us to step up and "be part of the deal". And yet, when you look at his charitable donations, there aren't any. Like many democrats, he equates paying taxes with being charitable.

Stephanie wrote:You know Cato, there are a lot of very wealthy Democrats holding federal office and most of them profess some variety of Christianity. I suggest they tap into their bank account for all these wonderful programs and leave ours alone. Seems to me that would please the God of Abraham far more than what they are doing.

Of course, what do I know? I'm agnostic.

It might surprise you what you know. You are abslutley correct in what you are saying. However, if you've watching the news you'll notice it seems our democrat brethern don't practice what the preach all that well. Tom Dashle, Charles Rangel, and our new Treasury Secretary seem to have kinda cheated alittle bit on their taxes. I think that makes these clowns, now what's the word I'm looking for Oh yes, hypocrits. It also makes their supporters hypocrits.

It is nothing short of tyranny to force a person to support policy to which he disagrees. That was one of the founding principles of this nation.

And that applies to "foreign policy" as well, right?

ziggy wrote:

It is nothing short of tyranny to force a person to support policy to which he disagrees. That was one of the founding principles of this nation.

And that applies to "foreign policy" as well, right?

It applies to alot of things. Foreign policy, Religion in government, Education, Federally Funded studies, and on and on.

All the Federal Government should be doing is what is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. That would solve many of the divisive issues we face.

For example, you and I have argued the religion and government involvement in it, i.e. the seperation of church and state. If I remember correctly, you are an agnostic. I on the other hand am a professing christian. Neither of us have the right to use the force of government to push our views on the other. However, because of the size, scope, and influance the federal government is, it just cannot be helped. No matter which side the government takes it alienates the other. That is because government has become such a monster.

The real problem is not with you or I, it is with the size and influance of government. If the Federal Government was of the scope and size the framers intended we won't be having the discussion, because of the government would be of little consequence to us. It would be doing its thing of delievery the mail, keeping the states from going to war with each other, dealing with interstate commerce, and that would be about it. We would not have the influance of government interference.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

It is nothing short of tyranny to force a person to support policy to which he disagrees. That was one of the founding principles of this nation.

And that applies to "foreign policy" as well, right?

It applies to alot of things. Foreign policy, Religion in government, Education, Federally Funded studies, and on and on.

All the Federal Government should be doing is what is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. That would solve many of the divisive issues we face.

For example, you and I have argued the religion and government involvement in it, i.e. the seperation of church and state. If I remember correctly, you are an agnostic. I on the other hand am a professing christian. Neither of us have the right to use the force of government to push our views on the other. However, because of the size, scope, and influance the federal government is, it just cannot be helped. No matter which side the government takes it alienates the other. That is because government has become such a monster.

The real problem is not with you or I, it is with the size and influance of government. If the Federal Government was of the scope and size the framers intended we won't be having the discussion, because of the government would be of little consequence to us. It would be doing its thing of delievery the mail, keeping the states from going to war with each other, dealing with interstate commerce, and that would be about it. We would not have the influance of government interference.

You forgot the most important reason for the constitution Cato and that is providing for our national defense which would include a strong setting military in conjunction with strong state militias.

The government would also set foreign policy as set forth in the treaty clause of the constitution. The President would negotiate treaties, which would then have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate.

But the clear goal of our founding fathers was to remain neutral throughout the world. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Unfortunately, about the turn of the 19th century, we abandoned that philosophy and have since entered into two world wars and since 1945, troops have been deployed 71 times to 42 countries, with more than 98,000 U.S. dead and more than 279,000 wounded. A declaration of war was not obtained for any of these conflicts.

Interestingly enough, while Republicans get the credit for being 'war mongers', it was Woodrow Wilson-Democrat who got us involved in World War 1 and FDR-Democrat who got us involved in World War 2. Ironically both campaigned (lied to America) about keeping the US out of war in the Presidential election immediately preceding our entry to both wars.

Since then, Harry Truman-Democrat got us involved in Korea and Vietnam while both Kennedy and Johnson-democrats escalated that war.

Of all military interventions by the US, only GWB's current commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded a year’s involvement.

Aaron wrote:

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

It is nothing short of tyranny to force a person to support policy to which he disagrees. That was one of the founding principles of this nation.

And that applies to "foreign policy" as well, right?

It applies to alot of things. Foreign policy, Religion in government, Education, Federally Funded studies, and on and on.

All the Federal Government should be doing is what is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. That would solve many of the divisive issues we face.

For example, you and I have argued the religion and government involvement in it, i.e. the seperation of church and state. If I remember correctly, you are an agnostic. I on the other hand am a professing christian. Neither of us have the right to use the force of government to push our views on the other. However, because of the size, scope, and influance the federal government is, it just cannot be helped. No matter which side the government takes it alienates the other. That is because government has become such a monster.

The real problem is not with you or I, it is with the size and influance of government. If the Federal Government was of the scope and size the framers intended we won't be having the discussion, because of the government would be of little consequence to us. It would be doing its thing of delievery the mail, keeping the states from going to war with each other, dealing with interstate commerce, and that would be about it. We would not have the influance of government interference.

You forgot the most important reason for the constitution Cato and that is providing for our national defense which would include a strong setting military in conjunction with strong state militias.

The government would also set foreign policy as set forth in the treaty clause of the constitution. The President would negotiate treaties, which would then have to be ratified by 2/3rds of the Senate.

But the clear goal of our founding fathers was to remain neutral throughout the world. As Thomas Jefferson said, "Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto." Unfortunately, about the turn of the 19th century, we abandoned that philosophy and have since entered into two world wars and since 1945, troops have been deployed 71 times to 42 countries, with more than 98,000 U.S. dead and more than 279,000 wounded. A declaration of war was not obtained for any of these conflicts.

Interestingly enough, while Republicans get the credit for being 'war mongers', it was Woodrow Wilson-Democrat who got us involved in World War 1 and FDR-Democrat who got us involved in World War 2. Ironically both campaigned (lied to America) about keeping the US out of war in the Presidential election immediately preceding our entry to both wars.

Since then, Harry Truman-Democrat got us involved in Korea and Vietnam while both Kennedy and Johnson-democrats escalated that war.

Of all military interventions by the US, only GWB's current commitment to Iraq and Afghanistan exceeded a year’s involvement.

Sorry about that, but your right. Thanks for bring that up however.

The point I was trying to make was that the Federal Government is doing far far far more than it was ever intented or authorized to do.

Cato

Just as Patrick Henry said it would. Seems he was spot on.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:

It is nothing short of tyranny to force a person to support policy to which he disagrees. That was one of the founding principles of this nation.

And that applies to "foreign policy" as well, right?

It applies to alot of things. Foreign policy, Religion in government, Education, Federally Funded studies, and on and on.

All the Federal Government should be doing is what is found in Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution. That would solve many of the divisive issues we face.

For example, you and I have argued the religion and government involvement in it, i.e. the seperation of church and state. If I remember correctly, you are an agnostic.

No, I believe in the Natural God of the universe.

I on the other hand am a professing christian.

So am I. And as there is seemingly no universal agreement on what it is to be a "professing christian", we may or may not have common spiritual values- though I suspect we have more in common than might appear on the surface.

Neither of us have the right to use the force of government to push our views on the other.

I agree.

However, because of the size, scope, and influance the federal government is, it just cannot be helped. No matter which side the government takes it alienates the other.

So why does government need to take any "side" of religion? Neutrality in matters of religion is too often misinterpreted as being "against" or "for" one religious faction (side) or another. That is an unfortunate mindset.

But what is neutrality?

Neutrality isn't neutrality when certain things can be said or posted but other things cannot.

When a Valedictorian is prevented from mentioning Jesus but she can mention whatever else she likes, that is not neutrality.

ziggy wrote:
So why does government need to take any "side" of religion? Neutrality in matters of religion is too often misinterpreted as being "against" or "for" one religious faction (side) or another. That is an unfortunate mindset.

SheikBen wrote:But what is neutrality?

Neutrality isn't neutrality when certain things can be said or posted but other things cannot.

When a Valedictorian is prevented from mentioning Jesus but she can mention whatever else she likes, that is not neutrality.

SheikBen is correct, there is no such thing as neutrality. What you may interpret as being neutral is interpreted by another as against. What I interpret as neutrality you may interpret as "for". We can go back and forth on this all day and in the end we are going to end up right where we are now.

There are so many things the Federal Government does that goes against ever moral fiber in my body. From much of what you post you are in the very same boat as me. While the issues may be somewhat different for us, we are both forced to support policy for which we disagree. That isn't freedom, it is tyranny.

The only solution is to shrink government back to what the original intent was. On the Federal level shrink government back to the confines of Article 1 Section 8. Demand that those on the Surpreme Court interpret law based on the original intent of the framers of Constitution, and honor the 10th amendment. While this isn't a perfect solution, it is certainly far better than what we have allowed ourselves to become.

On a personal note, I would like to see the polticians out of everything, other than providing protection against criminals and foreign governments, taking care of the interstate system and highways, keeping the states from fighting amoung themselves and that is about it. I believe eduation would be far better with the government out of it, I think the business climate would be far better without government regulation, and I know we'd be far better off.

SheikBen wrote:But what is neutrality?

Neutrality isn't neutrality when certain things can be said or posted but other things cannot.

When a Valedictorian is prevented from mentioning Jesus but she can mention whatever else she likes, that is not neutrality.

Can you cite us an example of the mention of "whatever else she likes" that is "not neutrality" on the part of the government?