Big Comments from Pig

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]AynRandLuvr wrote:
George Washington:

"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked:

Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.

Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle."
— Farewell Address
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/washing.htm

Obama’s supporters would vote against him. OMG, he believes in God and morality!! He’s a religious psycho! Move to Canada!!!

[/quote]

This is the point I was making last week, though feebly attempted it was when viewed next to the words of the father of our country.

62

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

By the way, it may interest you to know that you can rearrange the letters of the phrase “President Barack Hussein Obama” to spell “A Democrat speaks inane rubbish.”
[/quote]

WHOA. That’s fucking awesome. I am going to write this all over my schools bathroom stalls. I mostly see OBAMA 08 in the stalls, now I have a witty comeback! Thanks!

63

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

It represents my PERSONAL FUCKING CHOICE of religion. You know, the one that doesn’t influence foreign policy, that I generally keep to myself, and don’t spew all over and try to force on others.

I’m not saying that Palin does this- I have no idea about that. It doesn’t seem like it just yet, but then not much is known about her.

Again, I don’t want someone in the White House babbling about missions from God when we’re dealing with sensitive situations involving a multitude of religions.

There is no room for the right-wing, envangelical Christian “I’m better than you” attitude here. Again, I worry about that because I see signs in her of that.[/quote]

Ok, I think I understand what you’re saying overall, especially in regards to foreign policy complexities. But allow me to nitpick a couple things. Actually, just one thing…

‘evangelical Christian “I’m better than you” attitude’–this is something that bothers me to a great extent, but not for the reason you stated above. It bothers me when people throw it around as if it were part and parcel with being an active and publicly professing Christian.

This is because it is so far removed from what the REAL evangelical attitude is that it is laughable. Now, I will grant you that there are many right-wing people who claim to be Christians who have this attitude.

But it is NOT the proper attitude, and should not be ascribed to the Christian religion as such. It should, rather, be ascribed to self righteous arrogant idiots, rather than a religion.

The real attitude it much more that of Mother Theresa, or the volunteers in inner city soup kitchens, or any number of other HUMBLE active Christians. And there are quite a lot of them. Tons.

I think one thing that many people confuse with the ‘holier than thou’ attitude is the conviction to stand up for your values, based on your beliefs. To be steadfast in your values is a virtue.

It is normally recorded as such, except when it’s readily apparent that the person being steadfast is an actively practicing Christian. Then it becomes “don’t force your morals on me you ‘holier than thou’ right winger”.

This just strikes me the wrong way. Perhaps it’s because I grew up in what many would consider an evangelical right wing church and saw precisely the opposite of what you describe. Or perhaps it’s because I’ve seen an innumerable amount of self avowed ‘rational humanists’ with the same problem you just mentioned above.

It just sticks in my craw that people ascribe this attitude to others just because they are vocal in their religious convictions and also happen to hold views that other people disagree with.

It’s not religion, it’s hubris–and everyone is equally vulnerable to hubris. It’s not fair to characterize it as an exclusively, or even primarily, right-wing Christian attitude.

But yes, I do understand what you’re trying to say.

64

Hey Aragorn, I’ve seen people of all denominations do tremendous things. I’ve written articles about half of them I think in NJ, haha.

And truthfully, I meet so few of the types of Christians I describe that I don’t understand why the GOP insists on putting up candidates like Palin, or Bush (during the first election… thankfully he forgot about that bullshit during the second one, one thing I can commend the man for).

The problem is, the loud, obnoxious ones are the ones who garner the most attention, and who leave a lasting impression. The Christians in the soup kitchens are doing just that- helping the people that the loudmouths profess to care about.

One of the big influences in my life was a Catholic priest who started the famous Eva’s kitchen in Paterson. I don’t agree with all his political views, of course, but the man genuinely cares about the people that the politicians turn their backs on, and the people that dhickey wants to let starve.

It is a shame.

65

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Lincoln was, by all means, a progressive, and in this day and age, would have not been a Republican. [/quote]

I can’t possibly leave this hanging curve ball out there.

Uh, no - while the issues don’t line up perfectly, Lincoln was not a “progressive” in the modern definition for many reasons (thoughts on why slavery was bad, enemy of judicial activism, relentless warfighter, etc.), perhaps the most important being he was a frontiersman who knew what it was to have dirt under his fingernails, and such “hillbillies” are the hated scum of “progressives” nowadays.

66

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Lincoln was, by all means, a progressive, and in this day and age, would have not been a Republican.

I can’t possibly leave this hanging curve ball out there.

Uh, no - while the issues don’t line up perfectly, Lincoln was not a “progressive” in the modern definition for many reasons (thoughts on why slavery was bad, enemy of judicial activism, relentless warfighter, etc.), perhaps the most important being he was a frontiersman who knew what it was to have dirt under his fingernails, and such “hillbillies” are the hated scum of “progressives” nowadays.

[/quote]

That may be.

As I think Mufasa said, I don’t know that either party could lay claim to Lincoln.

67

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Lincoln was, by all means, a progressive, and in this day and age, would have not been a Republican.

I can’t possibly leave this hanging curve ball out there.

Uh, no - while the issues don’t line up perfectly, Lincoln was not a “progressive” in the modern definition for many reasons (thoughts on why slavery was bad, enemy of judicial activism, relentless warfighter, etc.), perhaps the most important being he was a frontiersman who knew what it was to have dirt under his fingernails, and such “hillbillies” are the hated scum of “progressives” nowadays.

That may be.

As I think Mufasa said, I don’t know that either party could lay claim to Lincoln.[/quote]

Since when is anyone in this election doing that? Palin uses part of his speech before she was even seriously considered as a running mate, and you equate that with thinking the republicans are laying claim to the guy?

Please - even your own bullshit detector should be blaring over that crap.

68

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Lincoln was, by all means, a progressive, and in this day and age, would have not been a Republican.

I can’t possibly leave this hanging curve ball out there.

Uh, no - while the issues don’t line up perfectly, Lincoln was not a “progressive” in the modern definition for many reasons (thoughts on why slavery was bad, enemy of judicial activism, relentless warfighter, etc.), perhaps the most important being he was a frontiersman who knew what it was to have dirt under his fingernails, and such “hillbillies” are the hated scum of “progressives” nowadays.

That may be.

As I think Mufasa said, I don’t know that either party could lay claim to Lincoln.[/quote]

Neither party today can lay claim to anything even vaguely resembling the original intent or world view of the great (though flawed) men who shaped this country pre 20th century. A Theistic Judeo-Christian code of morals and ethics was the foundation upon which every other thing they believed was built. If people don’t like that then just keep doing what we’ve been doing. They believed that this country would last as long as that foundation did and no longer. We are witnessing the truth of that belief.

69

RJ:

Lincoln, from buttons to impersonators, was ALL OVER the GOP convention.

Also, more than one speaker (including McCain) made it a point to call the GOP the “party of Lincoln”.

Pudits, and again McCain on “Face the Nation”, stated that the GOP was the party of Lincoln.

I don’t know about anyone else; but I’m using a “reality” detector.

Mufasa

70

[quote]rainjack wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

And I’m sure I don’t have to tell you that Lincoln was, by all means, a progressive, and in this day and age, would have not been a Republican.

I can’t possibly leave this hanging curve ball out there.

Uh, no - while the issues don’t line up perfectly, Lincoln was not a “progressive” in the modern definition for many reasons (thoughts on why slavery was bad, enemy of judicial activism, relentless warfighter, etc.), perhaps the most important being he was a frontiersman who knew what it was to have dirt under his fingernails, and such “hillbillies” are the hated scum of “progressives” nowadays.

That may be.

As I think Mufasa said, I don’t know that either party could lay claim to Lincoln.

Since when is anyone in this election doing that? Palin uses part of his speech before she was even seriously considered as a running mate, and you equate that with thinking the republicans are laying claim to the guy?

Please - even your own bullshit detector should be blaring over that crap.

[/quote]

No one said that either party was. It was a statement I made responding to someone else.

71

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
RJ:

Lincoln, from buttons to impersonators, was ALL OVER the GOP convention.

Also, more than one speaker (including McCain) made it a point to call the GOP the “party of Lincoln”.

Pudits, and again McCain on “Face the Nation”, stated that the GOP was the party of Lincoln.

I don’t know about anyone else; but I’m using a “reality” detector.

Mufasa[/quote]

The republican party has been called “The Party of Lincoln” for years - probably since right after Lincoln ate a bullet. Every convention there are Lincoln impersonators, as well as really ugly fat women wearing even uglier hats.

That is what happens at conventions. I didn’t catch any of the Dem convention due to my responsibilities with our football team - but I am sure there was similar convention-time fervor.

I certainly don’t see this going on on the campaign trail.

And to get one’s panties wadded up over the fact that Palin used Lincoln’s words in a speech - before the fact - is grasping at straws, in my opinion.

Besides - Irish is a guido-assed God-hating union man. That’s 3 strikes in one sentence. He needs to be put out of my misery.

72

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Neither party today can lay claim to anything even vaguely resembling the original intent or world view of the great (though flawed) men who shaped this country pre 20th century. A Theistic Judeo-Christian code of morals and ethics was the foundation upon which every other thing they believed was built. If people don’t like that then just keep doing what we’ve been doing. They believed that this country would last as long as that foundation did and no longer. We are witnessing the truth of that belief.[/quote]

This country was much shittier pre-20th century. I can’t see how you don’t think we’ve been progressing all this time.

Great, they believed in God. That’s fine. But their “code of ethics” left out the fact that many of them owned other humans, degraded and destroyed a race, and committed a mass genocide on the people that were living here before they got here. It’s nice having a bible in one hand and a gun in the other, but its full of hypocrosy.

This country had miners working dangerously long shifts deep underground with no benefits and no caring whether they died or not. It had seamstresses locked in rooms in the cities just to “produce”. It had children working 12 hour shifts, and guys falling off beams building the cities and working the docks.

This country, and the world, was far more brutal back then, and don’t tell me that it was in any way better because the guys who wrote the Constitution believed in God, because that’s a bunch of horseshit.

I know you wanted to throw in the “great but flawed” bit as an umbrella over your statement, but these points must not be forgotten. Christianity didn’t make this country better and safer- unions, worker’s rights activists, and progressives did.

Now that we’re trying to pull God out of politics means nothing- the country will not fall apart like you desperately want it to just to say you were right. We have steadily been moving in a great direction, and that will not stop if someone gets ridiculed for standing on their soapbox on the corner saying we’re on a mission from god.

To be honest, we should be happy this country doesn’t resemble what it did at it’s inception.

73

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Besides - Irish is a guido-assed God-hating union man. That’s 3 strikes in one sentence. He needs to be put out of my misery. [/quote]

Better than an inbred web-toed facist hillbilly like you homey.

74

Since I’m in my fantasy football state of mind, maybe we should have a presidential draft. We’ll have a coin toss to see who picks first, the Democrats or Republicans. And whoever drafts Lincoln, can claim him, unless traded for 2 Bush’s or a Coolidge.

75

I’m okay with it, R…

The reason I stated that the Modern parties need to stick with Clinton and Reagan as “standard bearers?” is because they more closely represent todays politics, politicians and world.

Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson…even FDR and Truman (many still debate their legacies); TO ME are just in a class of their own.

Mufasa

76

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
RJ:

Lincoln, from buttons to impersonators, was ALL OVER the GOP convention.

Also, more than one speaker (including McCain) made it a point to call the GOP the “party of Lincoln”.

Pudits, and again McCain on “Face the Nation”, stated that the GOP was the party of Lincoln.

I don’t know about anyone else; but I’m using a “reality” detector.[/quote]

As I said earlier, I don’t think the issues line up perfectly, but I see no inherent problem in the current GOP claiming to be the “Party of Lincoln”. As for guiding principles and politics, there isn’t an enormous departure - but I do think the GOP has some work to do.

And, just for comparison’s sake, Democrats still have “Jackson-Jefferson Days” and dinners, and neither would likely be a modern Democrat.

77


By the way;

You may have forgotten, RJ; but Palin spoke of “Give 'Em Hell Harry” at almost the very beginning of her speech.

She had my attention from that point on.

Mufasa

78

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
<<< This country was much shittier pre-20th century. I can’t see how you don’t think we’ve been progressing all this time. >>>[/quote]

This country will never be stronger than it’s families. Families or the lack thereof are the soil out of which a society’s citizens grow.

Your measure is essentially money and it’s related issues. Mine is the fact that I have to sleep with a shotgun next to my bed because the once mighty motor city is now a cesspool of sickness and violence where you’re just as likely to be killed by somebody’s child as you are in an automobile accident.

Where a solid monogamous family is the rare exception and over 40% of the population is under 30 years old because they reproduce at will without a thought to commitment, sacrifice or responsibility. Qualities of character that cannot be legislated or picketed for, but must be taught by responsible self sacrificing parents.

Unlike many here I view social issues like abortion (and others) as the MOST important because they adversely effect the strength of our families and hence adversely effect everything else. The foundational issues that make a society great are exactly the ones that cannot be forced at the point of a jail cell. They must be voluntarily practiced because the preponderance of it’s citizens agree that they are right. It requires only a cursory perusal of early American thought to expose this as the bedrock of the principle of self governance they espoused.

That once Judeo-Christian preponderance is dying fast in direct proportion to our families. It is no wonder to me that the last 40 years have seen an explosion of the most unspeakably depraved forms of violent and sexual crimes. The most depraved of all, the murder of an entirely defenseless unborn human being, who’s only crime is being the involuntary product of somebody else,s lack of principled self control, is legal… sorta. What a glorious message of progress that sends to our children.

Look, I stayed out of this forum for 2 years because I believed these kinds of things cannot be meaningfully debated in a place like this and I still believe that. We are never going to agree, but it’s an election year so I’m here giving my views.

Like Washington says above by unavoidable implication, [quote]if there is no supra human court beyond which there is no appeal all else is meaningless.[/quote]

79

I think I’m startign to get this whole republican democrat thing. My theory:

A white, working class, rural, low income individual who supports the republican party is simply a white trash, inbred, gun totin’, racist, hillbilly, shit kickin’, bible thumpin’, web toed?, stupid hick.

But if the same white, working class, rural, low income individual supports the democrat party, then he is hardworking, honest, simple, no BS, down-to-Earth, real, common man who has been neglected and exploited by the republican party.

It is starting to sink in now…

80

[quote]skaz05 wrote:
I think I’m startign to get this whole republican democrat thing. My theory:

A white, working class, rural, low income individual who supports the republican party is simply a white trash, inbred, gun totin’, racist, hillbilly, shit kickin’, bible thumpin’, web toed?, stupid hick.

But if the same white, working class, rural, low income individual supports the democrat party, then he is hardworking, honest, simple, no BS, down-to-Earth, real, common man who has been neglected and exploited by the republican party.

It is starting to sink in now…[/quote]

CONGRATULATIONS!!!