dudejcb wrote:I was "raised" in a church, but the church didn't raise me. In fact I was president of our church youth league for about 4 years unitl I was confirmed... and by that time had witnessed enough hypocrisy--people being areses all week, and then saying good things on Sunday only--that I didn't think I need the church. I just needed to be a good person. My take is that most people take their kids to church so they will learn about the Bible and learn the lessons of charity, tolerance, and good deeds. It's not about hero worship.
I don't recall any of my friends (who went to church almost every Sunday) as necessarily being raised by the church. We all talked about the wierd aspects of our ministers and Fathers... especially my Catholic friends, who when we had snow days with no school, and we'd go to the Catholic schools to play basketball... they always said to "watch out for Father Feeney." So, while we repected church people, we didn't necessarily respect them individually unless their actions drew respect.
You know, the old saying: Authority is given but respect is earned. that applies to everyone, supervisors, managers, politicians, and clergy. Even though I was involved in lots of church activities, it was mostly with other church goers (my peers) with the subtle supervision (as best they could) of the Pastors. But I never got too chummy with the pastors on an individual level.
dudejcb wrote:The only "lousy" churches I can think of are the televangelists, all those individuals who cloak themselves in some faith (Christianity, Judaism, or Muslim) yet preach hatred or superiority of thier faith over others; also I don't much care for "cult churches like the LDS or the notion the 7th Day Adventist's have about giving up your children to be raised by the church (as happened to a cousin of mine who married a 7th day whacko). I don't want to go on listing churches that I think are flawed cuz therre are too many, and it's usually not the church itself, just certain individuals or small groups.
BTW, don't you mean devolve back to the old status quo ante. Isn't that exactly what Obama is proposing? Sure, he's putting a little lipstick on that old pig, but it's old ideas and not new ideas that he is selling. The old ideas were failures, the new ideas haven't been tried before and it is way to early to declare failure, but maybe they will. I know much of the left has been rooting for failure and Obama will give them their failure.dudejcb wrote:Haviung said that I also think McCain would do a fine job. I do hope, if he wins, his opinions on how to deal with the Iraq war, Iran and other flashpoints (and our economy) will evolve a bit more.
SpinnerMan wrote:Dude, you are hard to follow. Your church if full of hypocrits, weird pastors, and the Catholic church you hung out at, you imply had a pedophile priest. But they weren't lousy churches. If that's not the definition of lousy, then I'm not really sure what it means..
No. that's not what I meant, and I'm not rooting for failure in Iraq. I would like the war to be successful in a timely manner, and for our kids to stop dying trying to police a civil war that we unleashed and that we may not be able to stop. Ever. Whether those two things will happen remains a question mark. It would be nice to see democracy sprout and take root in Iraq. but looking at all the other countries in that region it doesn't seem to be their usual manner of governance.SpinnerMan wrote:BTW, don't you mean devolve back to the old status quo ante. Isn't that exactly what Obama is proposing? Sure, he's putting a little lipstick on that old pig, but it's old ideas and not new ideas that he is selling. The old ideas were failures, the new ideas haven't been tried before and it is way to early to declare failure, but maybe they will. I know much of the left has been rooting for failure and Obama will give them their failure.dudejcb wrote:Having said that I also think McCain would do a fine job. I do hope, if he wins, his opinions on how to deal with the Iraq war, Iran and other flashpoints (and our economy) will evolve a bit more.
Which ones? Turkey, Israel. I think even Egypt is not that bad. Wouldn't the same have been true of Europe up until recent history? How about Japan? I know a lot of Middle Easterners. There is not some inherent desire for a dictatorship.dudejcb wrote:It would be nice to see democracy sprout and take root in Iraq. but looking at all the other countries in that region it doesn't seem to be their usual manner of governance.
By a solid 58 percent to 42 percent margin, county voters approved Hyperion's request to rezone 3,292 acres of farm land for a new classification, Energy Center Planned Development.
While conceding defeat, opponents vowed to keep fighting the controversial project on every imaginable front, pressing on with a lawsuit it filed against the county over the zoning procedures and opposing Hyperion as it applies for a bevy of state and federal permits.
"We have strategies in place to slow or delay all the permit processes," Ed Cable, chairman of the anti-Hyperion group Save Union County, said after the vote.
The totalitarians always come to power with the ideas of the collective. The things that are good for "society" and if we have to harm some individuals, then that's just what is necessary. I know you don't think taking 30, 40, 50% or more of someones income is harm. If that's not harm then I don't know what is. They justify this exhorbanant harm to some inidividuals in the name of the common good and disparage them as being greedy, etc. if they don't want to go along. They don't "need" that much. Of course, about 99% of Americans have more than they truly need.dudejcb wrote:PS: I am tired of the continuing lame assertion that anyone more liberal on certain issues is somehow non-democratic, socialist or communist. If I recall correctly, most totalitarian type goverments are not left leaning or pro individual rights. liberals are pro democracy, pro individual rights, and progressive. Opposing democracy is not progressive.
I almost guarantee they will delay the process significantly. Show me one new refinery that hasn't been delayed and the lawsuits were dismissed summarily. Remember time is money. They have a very simple strategy. Delay, delay, delay until the investors decide it's better to invest their money elsewhere, say in China. All they have to do is find one "progressive" judge to slam the breaks on the entire project and force the cost of the project to rise by millions of dollars. Then they will get over that hurdle and very likely the same judge will come up with another excuse to slam the breaks on again.dudejcb wrote:However, in our country, if someone feels they have been damaged, and have some evidence supporting that claim, they do have redress in the courts. I doubt the lawsuits these guys threaten will have the legal grounds to get past summary judgement.
dudejcb wrote:PS: I am tired of the continuing lame assertion that anyone more liberal on certain issues is somehow non-democratic, socialist or communist. If I recall correctly, most totalitarian type goverments are not left leaning or pro individual rights. liberals are pro democracy, pro individual rights, and progressive. Opposing democracy is not progressive.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
I have to disagree with a part of this statement. There is nothing at all from the right in the formation of the government of the Iranian Revolution. The socialist message of the NAZI party only put them to the right of the communists. The absolutely essential element of a totalitarian government is the idea of group over individual. It doesn't matter what that group is. If being religious made you right leaning, then the Democrats wouldn't have a chances. There are a lot of very liberal "religious" people and very conservative secular people. Totalitarianism requires eliminations of individual rights.seastreet wrote:Your are definitely wrong on that one. Totalitarian regimes can arise from socialism style or theocratic style governments. Hugo Chavez and Fidel Castro are prime examples from the left, while the Iranian Revolution is one from the right.
SpinnerMan wrote:There is a lot of semantics about left and right, but the fundamental difference is the relative importance of the collective and the individual. Hard left is totalitarianism and hard right is chaos. Far too many people are extreme right-wingers with regards to themselves and extreme leftists with regards to everyone else. The stereotypical groups that fall into this category are the aging pot-smoking hippies and religious zealots.
seastreet wrote:dudejcb wrote:
Originally, the Democrats were set up to envision mob rule mentality. Republicans, by the very definition, believed in the founding fathers' intent for a representative republic. Unfortunately, bith parties have drifted left, so that Democrats have become the visionaries of socialism, and the Republicans have become big government bureaucrats. Liebrals do not believe in indvidual rights. They believe in a collective brand of government. Everything for government, instead of the individual. Union labor is a prime example. Individuality is not allowed.
Locked&Loaded wrote: I got out shot by a 13 yeard old girl.
jrockncash wrote:Is that mask only for ghosts or can fat guys with little weiners use it too?
LIGHT12 wrote:Rev. Wright: spiritual advisor radical church leader.
William Ayers: worked with Obama on a commitee in Chicago. is a domestic terrorist. Had McCain had a similar with David Koresh would you give him a slide.
Rev. Michael Pfleger: $200,000 in federal earmarks to his organization do to Obama. Another radical church leader.
If McCain or any republican had such connections, would you not be asking for there heads. But obama allowed to rest on i'm for change.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."
On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.
While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.
Glimmerjim wrote: I may be slow but I'm dumb!
Users browsing this forum: MSNbot Media, SpinnerMan and 5 guests