From Rasmussen:
…A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that President Obama would enjoy a modest 44% to 39% lead over Texas Governor Rick Perry. Given that choice, 10% would opt for a third-party candidate and eight percent (8%) are not sure.
A separate survey shows that if Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is the nominee, Obama holds a 46% to 39% advantage. In that case, seven percent (7%) would choose a third candidate and eight percent (8%) are not sure…
Any of you Democrats out there can be happy that Obama is in the lead, but anyone out there who knows politics understands that this is deadly news…outside of us news and politics junkies, probably not half the American people know who Perry or Bachmann is while Obama has 100% name recognition. Also, any incumbent who is polling under 50% is always in danger – for Obama to feel safe about 2012, he’d have to poll 52% or so against the best known GOPer…and that is Romney, who bests Obama in this poll, 43% to 42%.
The usual caveats – it is way early and just about everything can change over the next 16 months. Of course, they can also change for the worse as far as Obama is concerned. The key here is for every last person in the United States to cease thinking of Obama as unbeatable…someone we’d better tailor our candidate to in order to have a ghost of a chance of beating him. He’s beatable – by anyone. He could also win against anyone, so don’t look for some sort of perfect candidate either on ideological or marketing grounds. Look for the person you think will make the best campaigner and the best President…that is whom we must find and nominate. And then get out there and fight like mad.
After that, it is all in God’s hands and it will be as it will be.
Blogs For Victory 
while Obama has 100% name recognition.
I’m not sure that’s an accurate statement given that less than half of the average man on the street can name the Vice President, and I’m really only half joking.
Spook,
You might have a strong point there…
Question. If you know who the Vice President is does that make you above average?
Green,
no it doesn’t. it makes you the smartest of the dumb people, which isn’t saying much.
The american electorate is known and has shown itself to be the most ignorant and reactionary of all modern democracies.
Look at the TEA party for example. They were nowhere to be found for 20 years, through different eras of tax increases and decreases. But as soon as Obama takes office, they constitute and want to drop taxes, when in reality, Federal taxes levied on citizens has not gone up since Jan 20, 2009.
So in short, nobody should be thrilled they are above average in this nation these days, it’s not saying much.
The universal excuse for not taking any responsibility for anything is to claim god directs all human activities. God must have a real sadistic sense of humor since both Perry and Bachman claim god speaks directly to them. I suppose he / she / it tells them what condiments to put on their hamburgers and what color sox to wear.
Hmmm must be why the donkrats haven’t had a budget in 800 some days. God told them not to?
mitch,
Actually, the universal excuse for not doing the right thing is to make absurd, ignorant statements about God and then claim that the absurd, ignorant statements get one off the hook for following God’s laws.
I could respect your ideas about god but your attitude prevents me. There is no evidentiary proof she he / she it exists nor is there any that he / she / it does not. You choose to believe in the affirmative. It is a matter of faith for you; which is fine, but the fact that you belittle anyone who doesn’t share in this allegiance to an idea indicates that deep down inside your faith is weak.
When people “talk to god” it’s called prayer. When god responds, it’s schizophrenia.
Mitch,
I agree with your statement. Just finished reading a classic Hitchens book, God is not great.
It’s amazing the lengths people will go to in order to believe that this “God” of theirs actually cares about their personal lives and wants to reward them as long as they grovel long enough to him.
I would say, it’s almost as if you’re in a state of perpetual begging and pleading with this benevolent god to throw you a bone.
Must be a sad existence to experience.
I too am a Hitchens fan although I am not an atheist. My perspective on the nature of religion has had many influences. Richard Alpert, Joseph Campbell and most recently Frank Shaffer jr. An escapee from toxic dominionism. I find that the absolute assurity that the religiously zealous express and the contempt they hold towards any challange that may undermine their faith to be a stark example of how primitive this sort of thinking is.It is intolerant,unaware and demonizing.
I would say, it’s almost as if you’re in a state of perpetual begging and pleading with this benevolent god to throw you a bone. – thomas
Seldom do you see anyone with this level of ignorance towards Faith.
Here it comes, the defenders of the cross attacking those who don’t believe in their magical old white lord sitting on a cloud somewhere planning humanity’s destiny.
Cluster, tell me, what compelling evidence do you have which leads you to believe in God?
I was wondering how long it would take to get to the reference to the old white guy sitting on a cloud. As this is a fundamental element of anti-religious bigotry, I knew it wouldn’t take long. And it didn’t.
Does it matter to the bigots that not one person actually believes there is an old white man sitting on a cloud? Of course not. Why would a bigot include fact, reason or fairness in a bigoted rant?
There are people who believe in a random universe with no reason, no plan, no coherence, no direction and no authority. They believe in a life with no meaning or reason beyond whatever span of life they are allotted, and that there is nothing for them beyond it. It seems a bleak and dismal existence, but they do seem to cherish it.
Though it is odd that this belief is so fragile and flimsy it can only be justified by inventing a lie, such as the “old white guy on a cloud” invention, or by otherwise misrepresenting the true beliefs of people of faith.
If one does believe that there IS reason, a plan, coherence, direction and authority, that there IS a meaning and reason for our lives and that they do not end in oblivion when the span of our physical lives is completed, then one HAS to see reason, coherence, direction, authority, and meaning in what happens during that span of physical existence.
If the randomness people are so convinced of the correctness of their own viewpoint, why do they need to distort the beliefs of others to create cartoonish stereotypes they then ridicule? They never seem to address the symmetry of applying an overall belief in reason, coherence and a plan for the universe to ones’ own life as well, and assuming that events in that life are also not random and meaningless. No, they drag out that other old cliche that is such a stand-by, the “if God answers” silliness.
I have found that most, if not all, of those randomness fans who spout these hoary old bigoted cliches do seem to be exactly what one might expect of people who find no meaning in life beyond their own fleeting presence, no authority above their own will, no future beyond their own existence. But I don’t care. My own is a life of meaning, reason and anticipation of the next chapter, and I am not so threatened by the randomness folks that I have to attack them, ridicule them, and invent silly lies about them.
Mitch and Thomas,
Once again, just completely ignorant statements – I hope Hitchens’ book had a bit more in it than that because if the level of argument is “Christians begging and grovelling in front of a magical lord”, then my respect for his intellect just dropped to zero. Seriously, if you are going to discuss God, you should at least learn what believers believe – and especially what we Christians have always believed ever since there was a Christianity.
If you did bestir yourself to learn, then you’d at least know what believers are talking about when they say things like “seated at the right hand of the Father” and “born of the Virgin Mary” and “begotten, not made, one in being with the Father”. You could still reject what we say, but you’d be rejecting something you know, not something you’ve never considered. There would be more honesty in your view – because all you’ve got right now is an excuse for not going to Church on Sunday…a pretend sophistication which puts down religion without knowing anything about it.
I’ll give you a little hint of what your missing – and it is a rather nice thing for me to do, because it took me a long time of prayer, failure and starting all over again before I got it right. When Jesus says that the greatest commandment is to love God with all our being it is not because God needs it but because when we do that, we will then start to love every person and every thing as they should be loved…it is the key to a rational, peaceful life…but you can only get it if your knee will bend and your tongue confess…the slightest of self-surrender, and it will all be open to you.
B..er Mirch & tommiegasbag
figures two know nothing, atheist, baby killing, sodomite loving, LOONS – PREACHING to US about their “religion” of nothing.
ENJOY HELL
You prove my point. Unless I believe exactly what you believe and surrender my free will and ability to question and doubt, then you are saying that there is something wrong with me. I am confident enough in myself not to have to become subservient to an idea of a supposed person who may or may have not lived over 2000 yrs ago. Another gross failing of religion’S (the plural) is that they all claim the same thing! They each contend that the express lane to absolute truth must first go through their toll both. I am not Catholic. Nor am I Christian or any sub-species or derivitive thereof. I don’t believe in heaven. I don’t believe in hell. I don’t believe in original sin and i don’t think man has “fallen”. But since your entire life is based on these unfounded and unprovable premises, you have no other choice but to take the ideological and authoritarian position you have when it comes to governance. You remind me of Marcus Bachman when he views people as barbarians who have to be disiplined. You have a very dour view of humanity
Bmitch
I believe exactly what you believe and surrender my free will and ability to question and doubt, then you are saying that there is something wrong with me.
I believe what the bible says, not what I say.
you can accept or reject it, If you are correct then I have lived a good clean honest wholesome life.
If I am correct and you followed your own ways proven to be evil by all leftists, communists, by too many standards to list here you are screwed.
YOUR choice, I could give a flying F if you take the wrong path after being warned not to.
Bmitch
Bmitch your presence soils this blog. I gave up long ago trying to understand why your slime is permitted.
Faith does not require that I “…surrender my free will and ability to question and doubt…”
Mark did not refer to the surrender of free will, but of the arrogance of egoism.
Questioning and doubting and the exercise of free will are essential parts of faith. God gave us free will for a reason. It is part of the inherent dignity of man. Doubting, questioning, seeking, are all ways to learn.
And none of them have the slightest thing to do with the lesson Mark shared.
An extremely non-traditional fundamentalist Christian, Edgar Cayce, rejected something he later learned to accept as a gift from God given to him for him to use to help his fellow man, and in the use of this gift also learned that the most important lesson we can learn, MUST learn, in our lives is to somehow find that spark of the divine in others and love it.
To this day, some feel Cayce traveled the path God put him on and wanted him to travel, and some believe he was a heretic and evil. Yet he came to the same lessons others have learned, that shared by Mark, that of needing to find the presence of God in everyone.
And we believe that this spark of the divine exists in everyone, even those who have chosen to present themselves to us only in the context of calling us “filth” and “vile”. It is often rather deeply buried, and obscured by various layers of denial, rejection, and in some cases evil, but it is there.
Neo your presence soils this blog. I gave up long ago trying to understand why your slime is permitted. You reflect poorly. Sorry to spoil you stereotyping, but as I said earlier I am not an atheist. I just could care less about religion in general and fundamentalism of any sort in particular. Do you actually think that your mindless screeching about things you know nothing about intimidates me? Perhaps you should revisit the thread of last weekend and re-read my pithy comments.
and re-read my IGNORANT comments.
sorry the smell of BS once is enough for me.
Bmitch
When people “talk to god” it’s called prayer. When god responds, it’s schizophrenia.
talk about toxic slime, you make love canal look like holy water.
outside of us news and politics junkies, probably not half the American people know who Perry or Bachmann is
the 48% who pay NO federal taxes
and the 53% who pay LESS than 3% of total taxes all know who the kenyan, marxist, muslem is.
they do care anything past their innercity welfare checks and handouts from OPM about who the GOP will run.
PATHETIC
A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage.
The bible was originally an oral tradition. Creation myths and stories of the past spread by the spoken word. With the invention of language these words were written down again and again and again. Sometimes translated from one language into another and edited who knows how many times. So if you want to place your faith in this book of dubious pedigree then go ahead. But don’t freak out when others laugh at you for being so unquestioningly naive. Just because the bible says something, doesn’t make it so. There are far more religions than “the big 3” and each one can’t be correct. But since you are tribal, it’s no wonder that this concept escapes you.
Bmitch
actually your religion is secular humanism, no holds, nothing barred, sex drugs rock n roll, followed by murder,mayhem and homosexuality, and anything else that you think is for your own personal pleasure.
you are deceived, so there fore you you are deemed a fool by Gods word.
The epitome of the blind leading the blind and both falling into the ditch.
Bmitch
Just because the bible says something, doesn’t make it so.
but hitchens book does?
the guy dying of cancer has the answers?
Riiiiiight!!
you follow this Fn LOON talk about being laughed at….
Hitchens contends that organised religion is “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children”, and that accordingly it “ought to have a great deal on its conscience.”
although if he was ranting about islam he may be on to something as he described it to a T.
the rest is just plain NUTS!
Mitch,
Once again, astounding ignorance – if it began as a collection of stories then why did it begin so much differently than all the other collections of stories people used to explain how things got started? Have you ever actually sat down and read it?
Other creation stories have gods using materials ready to hand to make the world and then creatures….the Judeo-Christian story goes:
God created everything out of nothing – willing the entirety of existence as we know it in to being. No ready-made materials, no team effort…Just God causing it to be. This is vastly different from any other creation story out there. How did one small, Semitic tribe in the middle of nowhere come up with a story so vastly different than anyone else? It is still ok if you want to reject this story, but if you reject it don’t reject it for the false reason that it is just like other stories…it isn’t; no other story even comes close.
You’re in the sad position of condemning something you know nothing about. I don’t know if this is because you were not instructed as a child in it, or not properly instructed. However it may be the thing you should try to grasp is that while you are feeling all superior to us supposedly benighted Christians who refuse to think, we’re actually dismayed by the lack of thought on your part. For those who used to be like you it is even more painful – because it is remembered how thought was banished while smug ignorance about God reigned…we know better than you what position you are in. We’d laugh at you but we know that isn’t the proper way for a Christian to behave…some how or another we have to keep trying to break the logjam and get you to start thinking…
“why did it begin so much differently than all the other collections of stories people used to explain how things got started?”
It didn’t. “Supernatural force creates universe”–how startlingly original! At least the oral traditions the Bible cribs from made the effort of trying to connect that story to the observable world. The Bible just says, “There was nothing, then God made everything.” How lazy.
But this all goes back to your idea that believing what you’re told to believe is “thinking” and actual thinking is…well, something else.
Every time Neo types, his astounding irrationality is highlighted. What does Hitchen’s cancer have to do with his perspective on the toxicity of religion? If you actually read what I say instead of reading into it, you will note I don’t specifically mention any religion, just the overtly zealous fundamental adherents who insist that they have the patent on insight into the will of the universe, with their idea of a manifest deity as being the only true one. It’s a bunch of crap.
Mark employes a hybred form of logic and projection in order to justify his beliefs.Which are totally subjective and not subject to any scrutiny because if you question his beliefs and the supposed logical path that he used to arrive at them, he accuses you of being a non-believer. When you use the word “instructed” do you really mean “disciplined” or brain-washed? Then you move on to say that you know better than I, which again is another way of stating that if I surrendered my critical thinking skills and became a mindless automaton unquestioningly accepting an eons old book of tales and parables, then I would feel better about myself. A few glaring errors in this hypothesis Mark. I feel very good about myself. I do not have to have the crutch of the bible to give my life meaning and the fact that you try to equate these things with objective, absolute truth only goes to reinforce my studied views. To your presumptuous chagrin and stereotyping, I had a religious education as a child, but my parents were enlightened enough and secure enough in themselves as to allow me to think for myself. In fact, they encouraged it.(I know; sooooo liberal.) They; unlike you, did not feel threatened if I was not a carbon copy of them.
And that’s the way I see it. The kind of world view that you hold is threatened if anyone questions it or points out the flaws in it. My critique has nothing to do with the specific school of thought rather the mechanics and irrationality of it.
I feel this lack of cognitive strength allows a person to claim that “god” is responsible for all things that one is either to lazy to explore or is so deeply invested in a belief system that all dissent must be eradicated before it even has an opportunity to express itself. That’s why on so many occasions science is rejected in favor of religion and why some people claim that god talks to them personally. As i said above thread, those people will not take responsibility for their lives because if they fail at an endeavor or were wrong about something they can blame god.
Evolve Mark. Being smug and cock-sure is not a becoming trait. It only encourages people to challenge you because what you claim to be intellectually and how you come across are diametrically opposed.
Interesting. To a Lib, even a pseudo-Lib like this mitch, “evolving” is defined as moving backward to lack of belief in anything but randomness and lack of meaning.
But then “liberal” has been redefined as Liberal, one of the most illiberal political models in human history, and “Progressive” refers to a completely REgressive political ideology which wants to return to an always-failed system.
So I guess it is consistent to think that to “evolve” means to become more primitive and animalistic.
mitches and monty are mere bigots trying to cloak their bigotry as some kind of intellectual superiority. Racial bigotry does this, sexual bigotry does this, cultural and regional bigotry do this..
Bigotry is always ugly, whether directed at people of faith or people of color or any other target.
What makes the peculiarities of mitches and monty, and Casper and tommy, stand out, is their obsession with coming to a conservative blog and hurling insults. We don’t go to their blogs and attack them. We don’t CARE what they talk about amongst themselves. But they persist in hanging out here, dumping their ugly bigotries on the blog like sewage. Why?
They are clearly not here to learn how conservatives think or why we think the way we do. They are clearly not here to have rational coherent comparisons of the two opposing political systems in the country—on the contrary, they refuse to discuss the actual blueprints for running the nation that ARE its politics, and should be the only criteria considered by voters.
It’s an odd pathology, which all the Lib commentors have in common.
You are a sad, tired old woman who is absolutely convinced of her own intellectual superiority. I suggest that you proof read your comments. Better yet, allow me.
Pseudo means fake. So by projecting upon me your difficulties with expressing yourself coherently, you are stating that I am not liberal. (Pseudo-lib. i.e a “fake: lib. So according to your misappropriated definition I am what politically?)
You then went on to say that that I equated evolving with moving backwards to a belief in anything but randomness and a lack of meaning. Oh contraire mon amie!
I do not think linearly. Nor is the universe linear. Quantum physics and controlled nuclear reactions proves this.
I have stated repeatedly that the meaning I derive from my conscious existence is not dependent upon a set of self-imposed arbitrary rules that require; at the minimum, a belief system based upon faith in the aforementioned.
Your personality requires a set of boundaries and you cannot function without this algebraic equation that A begats B which begats C.
Mine does not! I am free. You are in a self imposed prison.
One of the reasons I post here is that I like to challenge myself. I am not afraid of your condescending derision. You, on the other hand are a quaking rabbit. You cannot function on the internets unless you surround yourself with the like minded who are impressed with your wit and your vocabulary. In my estimation, big whoop.
Why don’t you expose yourself to people who might challenge you? My guess is that you lack the guts and don’t really have the conviction in your Gestalt to take on all comer’s. If I am wrong, I will be glad to suggest some. And no, they are not Daily Kos, Media Matters, Huffpo or any other of the more popular forums. They are much more selective and focused.
Who knows, as the saying goes “Try it. You might like it.”
“Bigotry is always ugly, whether directed at people of faith or people of color or any other target.”
Except for when it’s right wingers being bigots, in which case it doesn’t count as bigotry to you.
1. Define “right winger”.
While you’re at it, define “left winger”.
You are correct, I forgot that you, of all the posters here, have actually identified yourself as a Liberal. I withdraw the Pseudo Lib appellation from you. It still applies to your fellow travelers.
You know nothing about any aspect of my political or intellectual or blogging life outside this particular blog, so your speculations are baseless. However, those sites you seem to love don’t seem to have done you any good. You are still politically illiterate, hate-driven, and reeking of bigotry.
I gave specific examples of your own bigotries, so why not start there?
Let’s see: You have expressed disdain for people here based on zip code, occupation, age, gender, weight, health, and religion, as well as an amazing range of bigotry against a political model you don’t even come close to understanding, much less addressing on objective ideological grounds.
And what kind of “right wing bigotry” have you seen here? Contempt for people who substitute personal attacks and spasms of irrational rage and loathing for reasoned political discourse—do you count that as bigotry? And, of course, the comment that Liberalism is a mental disease. But the latter is based on the observation of Freud that insanity is described as doing the same thing and expecting different results, so there is some professional substance to that observation.
“You know nothing about any aspect of my political or intellectual or blogging life outside this particular blog, so your speculations are baseless.”
As are yours, and nobody (outside of neocon, of course) speculates more on people’s lives outside the blog. So it was nice of you to admit that the bulk of your commentary is baseless.
“You have expressed disdain for people here based on zip code, occupation, age, gender, weight, health, and religion, as well as an amazing range of bigotry against a political model you don’t even come close to understanding, much less addressing on objective ideological grounds.”
Hahaha! No. I’ve pointed out where conservatives are wrong. The above shows that you just don’t know how to handle that other than to pretend to be some sort of aggrieved victim.
“And what kind of “right wing bigotry” have you seen here?”
Well, let’s see, there’s all sorts of anti-Muslim bigotry, there’s plenty of anti-gay bigotry, neocon provides a nice dose of racism, and this blog’s general tenor is one of hating liberals. But I expect you to grasp precisely none of this. If it doesn’t line up with your beliefs, then you reject it, often angrily.
Mark: “…because when we do that, we will then start to love every person and every thing as they should be loved”
But exactly how is it that we should love every person and every thing, Mark? I mean, in what manner, what is the criterion for that kind of love?
You also know, of course, that the second Great Commandment is that one should “love your neighbor as yourself” Mark 12:31. To love your neighbor as you love yourself is a very tall order – are you up to it?
As for who that neighbor is, Christ’s parable of the good Samaritan showed it is the other – those our peers might consider inferior, or even their enemy. That is our neighbor, at least it’s the Scriptural definition. We also are commanded to “love your enemy, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who despitefully use you” Luke 6:27. That’s simply reinforcement of the second Great Commandment, that you brush by so lightly in your post above.
When you consider that Christ consistently criticized the acquisition of great wealth, and advised the rich young man to sell all he had and give to the poor, it seems you would welcome a policy of limited redistribution in order to rectify some of the great inequality that exists in America today. You cannot credibly tell me that the average corporate executive works harder than a hotel maid, a coal miner or public health nurse. He or she just has a better leverage on big money.
And when you learn the early Christian church depicted in the New Testament “had all things common, and sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men as every man had need” (Acts 2:44, 45) you can’t seriously impugn the efforts of Democratic legislators to take an extremely modest additional portion of the income of the wealthiest to insure those who are truly struggling to get by aren’t further impoverished. To sneeringly demonize this as “socialism” equally demonizes the early Christians, who surely weren’t power hungry or politically minded.
And it won’t wash to try and separate the civic and religious realms on this issue. On this blog there’s no firmer believer in the separation of church and state than me. But when you already are on record as favoring the legislation of morality, to reject the moral principles clearly established by the teaching of Christ on this matter gives the lie to your belief that America should be guided by its “Judeo-Christian” values and heritage.
The truth is, there was a separation between the “Judeo” and the “Christian” even back then – the Jews didn’t accept Christ’s teachings and dealt with him quite harshly, as do their spiritual descendants today. The evangelical right and its conservative Pharisees protect the wealth and privilege of the “haves and have-mores” – George W. Bush’s acknowledged constituency – just as zealously as did the Pharisees of Christ’s day. And even with two terms, GWB was only a transitory figurehead – the GOP marches on with the same values and same constituency today. And to be sure, there are plenty of selfish liberals as well – only they don’t tend to make scorning of the poor and downtrodden such a hardcore political doctrine.
When individual like Neo claim to believe what the Bible says, yet comport themselves and relate to their political enemies and the poor in the manner they do, it’s no wonder people like Thomas and Mitch reject the religiosity that parades under the banner of Christianity now. I reject it as well, but I’m fortunate enough to realize everything that takes the name of Christianity isn’t the actual thing. And in the final judgment, those who bring reproach on the cause of Christ by taking his name in vain will have to answer for themselves.
Dennis:
That was one of the most brilliant, well thought out and exquisitely expressed posts I have ever read. Anywhere. A magnificent take-down. Mohammed Ali would be both proud and humbled. I am honored that you mentioned my name.
Something that I have never mentioned but since you brought up the historical dichotomy and subsequent skepticism, my families religious background is Hebrew. I am a non-believing Jew. But since we are god’s chosen, I have a get out of jail free card!
Mark; in my opinion, suffers from an extreme case of self-loathing. It must be sad to go though life with this easily curable affliction but I arrived at the conclusion that he actually enjoys his suffering. Makes him more christ-like in the full length vanity mirror of his self-absorbed mind.
Anyway, thanks again for expressing yourself. It was truly great.
Bmitch
Dennis:
That was one of the most brilliant, well thought out and exquisitely expressed posts I have ever read. Anywhere
of course the wolf would fall in love with the wolf in sheeps clothing.
“I am a non-believing Jew.”
who is a lefty commie what a surprise.
Yeah, and you probably think I look like Woody Allen in the dinner scene in Annie Hall.
It’s easy to hide behind a keyboard, isn’t it? You’re a real tough guy, aren’t you?
Someday you’ll mouth off to the wrong person and get your empty skull split open.
Bmitch
I CCW
hope some turd like you tries.
Amazona seems obsessed by having everything defined within a political framework.
But Mark makes this blog a forum for his religious views as well as political ideas, and his supporters often weigh in to support these views. So there should be latitude here to think outside political boxes and examine value systems that move people toward their political attitudes and decisions.
I don’t adhere to any political line of thought, but generally try to base my civic values on the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, and the values of historical Christianity. It’s necessary to make a distinction between these values and those of the evangelical right, which often are at striking odds with the Gospels. It’s why my political opinions often conflict with conservatives, although my religious views might not be shared by many other liberals.
The thread above hints at the general religious bias of Mark, Cluster, Amazona and Neocon, if not their specific theological beliefs. Neo has been known to cite scripture here often. He is particularly fond of applying Psalm 109:8 to President Obama.
Verse 8 is extracted from a longer, scathing condemnation and here is the reason the author gives for the cursing his enemy: “For he never thought of doing a kindness, but hounded to death the poor and the needy and the brokenhearted. He loved to pronounce a curse – so may it come back on him. He found no pleasure in blessing – so may it be far from him.” verses 16, 17.
Based on this Psalm alone I would think it’s wise to be sparing in your curses and generous with your praise. And always be quick to help the poor and needy. Because all through the Bible God seems to take special notice, and care deeply, how the poor and needy are treated.
dennistooge
you are a wolf in sheeps clothing, that makes you a liar.
your core beliefs are 180 degrees diametrically opposed to Gods word.
you read to much into Psalm 109:8
New International Version
May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership
dennistooge
. And always be quick to help the poor and needy. Because all through the Bible God seems to take special notice, and care deeply, how the poor and needy are treated.
STEALING money EARNED at the point of a gun and giving it to others is not charity.
It is THEFT; a SIN!!
> “Amazona seems obsessed by having everything defined within a political framework”
Not “everything”. Just political commentary on political matters on a political blog.
“…there should be latitude here to think outside political boxes and examine value systems that move people toward their political attitudes and decisions. ”
However, there is no reason to assign invented “values” to others because they view the permitted scope of the federal government as less permissive of legislating those values as some would wish.
We all want the poor to be fed, housed, clothed and cared for. Wanting this done within the clearly stated boundaries of the Constitution does not mean we do not want them done, just a disagreement on how this should be accomplished.
A subtext of this is a desire to define “the poor” in a way that does not include the indigent, the slothful, and the social parasite, but to use the term to cover people who, through no fault of their own, cannot provide these things for themselves.
However, once you establish a wish list of what you feel should be done, this HAS to be fitted into what you dismissively refer to as a “political box” because politics IS the blueprint for governing the nation. At this point, it is necessary, even mandatory, to find political solutions to the problems, if you want government involved. I just don’t see how you can say you want the government to do things and then say you don’t want this government involvement or control to be political.
“I don’t adhere to any political line of thought, but generally try to base my civic values on the teachings of Christ in the Gospels”
Well, if you don’t “adhere to any political line of thought” then no wonder you are so confused when it comes to political action. How can you ACT in ways that determine the political direction of the country without having a “political line of thought”? Because this is what you are doing.
This entire statement shows such intellectual, political and emotional confusion, it goes a long way toward explaining your other posts. I suggest that perhaps you should refrain from any political act, such as voting, until you actually find or develop a “political line of thought”.
“It’s necessary to make a distinction between these values and those of the evangelical right, which often are at striking odds with the Gospels.”
This is, quite simply, a lie. It may be based on a sincere acceptance of a series of lies told to you by others (who DO, by the way, have a “political line of thought” and find people like you very easy to sucker into their agendas) but it is not only completely lacking in truth, it is remarkably vicious and hateful.
Thank you for so clearly explaining that your entire political position does not have a political thought involved, but is based on a combination of your smug assumption of spiritual superiority and a willingness to accept a truly vicious and vile mischaracterization of millions of people.
But since you have chosen to accept this lie, please do go on and explain it. What IS the “evangelical right”, what ARE their values, and in what way do any of these values differ in any way from the Gospels?
“This is, quite simply, a lie”
Just because it hurts your feelings doesn’t make it a lie. Just for fun, explain why it’s a lie.
I like your comments Dennis. You express yourself very well and come across as a sane and reasonable person. Someone to have an actual conversation with. Congradulations. I hope you don’t get banned.
Bmitch
I hope you don’t get banned.
why would dennistooge get banned?
his views are kooky but thats about all.
Neo, you might sometime make an honest attempt to understand the Bible’s meaning instead of using out-of-context quotes as maledictions against others.
http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_curses_luc.html
It’s a waste of time Dennis to try to have a conversation with this morbidly obese diabetic.
Only a mitch could find anything even remotely comprehensible in dennis’s litany of balderdash, such as the tortured references to “the second Great Commandment” or the out and out lies, much less “exquisite” and “great”.
No matter how the dennises of the Left try, they simply cannot find a single word of Christ’s directing anyone to take the property of OTHERS to give to the poor, etc.
The lessons of Christianity include the simple fact that redemption is personal. Salvation is not, and can not, be obtained through the works of others or the property of others.
There is an effort on the anti-religious Left to distort the words of Jesus to give the impression that redemption, like the Left itself, is a matter of collectivism. Through a lot of highly selective cherry-picking of the Bible for references to helping the poor, etc., they try to convey the message that salvation demands the redistribution of other peoples’ property instead of the personal sacrifice of giving of your own.
In their assumed piety, they manage to forget or ignore “Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye” and set themselves up as judges and moral arbiters of others.
dennis is in charge of his own redemption, and of no other. I am responsible for my own salvation, and no other. I can see how it would be terribly convenient to believe that you can be saved if you just force other people to do what you think they should do, if you can just redistribute enough of their property. But there is nothing in the Bible to support that fantasy.
So the self-proclaimed Christians on the Left have two big jobs: They have to convince people that Jesus taught things He never actually said, and that what they want Him to have said would, even if He HAD said them, would be allowed by our Constitution.
Or they can just spew hate and call names and wallow in personal attacks.
Amazona if someone gave you a million dollars you’d find fault with the way they handed it to you. You also have an inability to color outside the lines. Not everything in life is defined through a political prism. You are neither a constitutional expert nor the Pope in waiting. You herd cattle and read allot. Unfortunately you are also rigid, intolerant and absolutely convinced of your own intellectual superiority.
Has it ever occurred to you that many people reject the concept of a need for redemption? That the idea of original sin is false? It is an act of gargantuan egoism to claim that only you know what Jesus meant. And what is this hang-up you have about the anti-religious left? You seem to operate from the presumption that it is some nefarious plot. There are plenty of right-leaning anti-religious folks as well. You also have a hostility towards collectivism. If being 100% self-sufficient fuels your self image, go off and be a hermit. Power in numbers, a house divided, 2 heads better are than one, threads combined into rope, do these phrases have any meaning to you? Or are you just that fervently ideological that you’d choose against your own self interest while reality laughs in your face.
I think Dennis is absolutely correct. He is sane and reasonable in the way he expresses his understanding of the teachings of Jesus. You, in contrast are hostile, vindictive and unnecessarily defensive. It is an indication that your faith is weak.
You also said something about my bigotry towards religion. You are correct. I am a bigot. But only under certain circumstances, such as getting lectured by a fundamentalist. Or when I politely inform them I reject their medieval superstitions they then claim I am infringing on their 1st amendment rights.
I have said this before. I think religion is a panacea. It does not mean that I am an atheist. No, I am more like Thomas Jefferson. A Deist.
You should try to be a nicer person.