GOP Presidential Debate

[cariad]

I couldn't possibly do anything more than skim the last three pages of this thread, but personally I've never been offended by even the most rabidly divisive political discussions. I actually think sometimes they are quite humorous and entertaining even when the topics are not. Oh well...

On the other hand, I want to say that I am a follower of Jesus Christ and also what most would call a right-wing conservative (a lower-case "L" libertarian actually). But there are decent and civilized standards for making conversation. I just want people who disagree with me to know that I do not think you are bad people who are going to burn in hell just because you disagree with me. That is between you and God (if you believe in God...if not I guess it shouldn't matter if someone consigns you to hell  ). And it seems ironic that the loudest Christians or Conservatives (and to be fair, Liberal/Progressives too) seem to have the least ammunition and least effect on converting the "opposition."

I can't help but think of the old proverb: "A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger."

(Ooops, I hope quoting the Bible doesn't offend anyone!) 

 

 

Hi Willis! I agree with almost all of this, and feel similarly to you. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, of course not, but as you've said there is a certain standard for civility, and for me, bigotry does not fall within those boundaries. Some of the problems that MM mentioned - violence against women, for example, or women being shut out from testifying before Congress on an issue that does not physically affect men in the slightest - are fueled by dehumanizing women into body parts, sending that message that our only value comes from our anatomy.

Also, let me clarify, it DOES matter to an atheist when someone 'consigns you to hell'. This is an important point I feel, because while I cannot speak for all atheists, as far as I know we all feel the same about this. We know that when a Christian says it, they really believe what they're saying. So, to me, it is akin to someone saying 'I hope you are locked away in an Iranian prison for life' or 'I am so glad you have a painful disease', only it is far worse. It is saying "You deserve to be tortured for all eternity" . There is really no nice way out of this, either. It does not matter that it won't be that person's decision. The speaker is the one expressing the sentiment, and when it is expressed, it is usually over a difference in belief. It is not that we (atheists) are worried this will actually happen, it is the malevolence of the statement that is being directed at us that is quite shocking. 

I do appreciate you making clear that you don't harbor ill-will toward those that disagree with you. I am sure that we would disagree on most things, but I feel I can learn a lot from people on the other side of the political spectrum who are able to make their points calmly and rationally. You couldn't be more right about the most vocal (and I would add most extreme) being the least effective. I've noticed that, too.

[MooseMom]

Well, once again I caught the tail end of an interview that I wish I had been able to see in its entirely, but what I did see got me to thinking, and I wanted to quickly post about it here.

It was an interview of Kah Wallah (sp?) who is a women's advocate from Cameroon.  She was being interviewed by Andrea Mitchell about the role/plight of women in the world today.  She is, I would guess, American trained as she speaks English with a perfect American accent.  They showed a clip of a speech Meryl Streep recently made about role models, and she said that being a role model was more than being polite and perfectly groomed; it was about being what others aspire to be.  That dovetailed nicely with the next question of the interview in which Andrea Mitchell asked Ms Wallah about her thoughts on current American politics and the role of American women.

She had an interesting reply.  She said that women throughout the world still do look to America for role models and like the idea that American women have the freedom they do, but they are baffled by how few women are in high positions in government.  She also said that they are "reeling" from the reproductive rights controversy we are having here at the moment.

There is a lot of debate still about whether this is all a religious rights issue or a reproductive freedom issue.  It's not just about birth control.  It's about so much more; it is STILL about the debasement, devaluation and dehumanization of women, especially if they are pregnant, in which case it seems like a newly fertilzed egg is more important than the woman herself; she has become a mere vessel.  When derogatory words are used by any man of any party to describe any woman, it is indicative of the still-present violence against women.

How many time have we been told that we should be exporting American ideals and values to the world, that we are the heralds and the footsoldiers of democracy, that peoples of the world want to be like us and have governemt like us?  Well, if this is true...if we are that shining beacon on the hill, then we have to be particularly careful in the messages that we are sending, and to the rest of the world, we look like we are back in the Stone Age where women once again have no value unless they either are servicing men or having babies.

If you think that this is a fight about "religious freedom", I can pretty much assure you that the women of the rest of the world do not see the battle in those terms at all.

Quick question...more and more states are requiring that women who want a legal abortion must have an ultrasound "to give them more information".  Do the taxpayers of that state really want their money going to fulfill this mandate?  I thought that Americans were supposed to be against mandates, against the state requiring action taken in any aspect of health care.  Does this not seem hypocritical to anyone?  It's like it is just fine to require OTHER people to do things as long as YOU are not required to do the same.  How about for any woman required to have this ultrasound, her male partner/husband be required to pay for it?  That's about $500 down the drain!  I'm sure MEN would just LOVE to be required to pay THAT! 

If anyone would like to quote Bible verses, could someone explain to me why Christianity is NOT misogynist?  1 Timothy 2:11-15?  Is this the Christian basis for relegating women to the second division?  What does something like this mean in today's world? 

[Willis]

Hi Willis! I agree with almost all of this, and feel similarly to you. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, of course not, but as you've said there is a certain standard for civility, and for me, bigotry does not fall within those boundaries. Some of the problems that MM mentioned - violence against women, for example, or women being shut out from testifying before Congress on an issue that does not physically affect men in the slightest - are fueled by dehumanizing women into body parts, sending that message that our only value comes from our anatomy.

Also, let me clarify, it DOES matter to an atheist when someone 'consigns you to hell'. This is an important point I feel, because while I cannot speak for all atheists, as far as I know we all feel the same about this. We know that when a Christian says it, they really believe what they're saying. So, to me, it is akin to someone saying 'I hope you are locked away in an Iranian prison for life' or 'I am so glad you have a painful disease', only it is far worse. It is saying "You deserve to be tortured for all eternity" . There is really no nice way out of this, either. It does not matter that it won't be that person's decision. The speaker is the one expressing the sentiment, and when it is expressed, it is usually over a difference in belief. It is not that we (atheists) are worried this will actually happen, it is the malevolence of the statement that is being directed at us that is quite shocking. 

I do appreciate you making clear that you don't harbor ill-will toward those that disagree with you. I am sure that we would disagree on most things, but I feel I can learn a lot from people on the other side of the political spectrum who are able to make their points calmly and rationally. You couldn't be more right about the most vocal (and I would add most extreme) being the least effective. I've noticed that, too.

Yes, I can see your point about the disrespect it shows "to consign an atheist to hell." I suppose it isn't a fear of hell that is the problem, but rather that someone makes themselves somehow superior (in their minds). I was being a bit flippant trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I appreciate the point you make. Now believe it or not, my views about "hell" depart significantly from most in Christendom and I take a lot of heat for my "heretical" views from the same people we are both referring to in these example scenarios.

Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi was right when he has been quoted as saying: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

[cariad]

There is a lot of debate still about whether this is all a religious rights issue or a reproductive freedom issue.  It's not just about birth control.  It's about so much more; it is STILL about the debasement, devaluation and dehumanization of women, especially if they are pregnant, in which case it seems like a newly fertilzed egg is more important than the woman herself; she has become a mere vessel.  When derogatory words are used by any man of any party to describe any woman, it is indicative of the still-present violence against women.

Yes! I had that exact complaint with my first pregnancy, and used that exact term - vessel. You've probably never read What To Expect When You're Expecting, as anyone who had a baby 20 years ago was probably spared that particular bit of nonsense. I finally found an article that expressed my views on that book perfectly. The authors of the book dictated that you must watch your weight obsessively and only eat kale and drink purified water, or similar. So condescending, so controlling, so unrealistic - and yes, it was written by 3 women in the healthcare field, and I do believe they were all mothers. This is what we refer to as internalizing messages of bigotry and oppression. It can happen to any of us. For my second pregnancy you'd better believe I ignored that book completely.

I would like to know why the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is always interpreted to mean "right to be born" but not "right to have any life-threatening disease treated free of charge". This is not a religious interpretation question, so I do not expect that any serious attempt at an answer will need to include biblical references.

[cariad]

Yes, I can see your point about the disrespect it shows "to consign an atheist to hell." I suppose it isn't a fear of hell that is the problem, but rather that someone makes themselves somehow superior (in their minds). I was being a bit flippant trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I appreciate the point you make. Now believe it or not, my views about "hell" depart significantly from most in Christendom and I take a lot of heat for my "heretical" views from the same people we are both referring to in these example scenarios.

Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi was right when he has been quoted as saying: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

That quote is amazing. It is sadly true as a generalization, but of course, some of my favourite people on IHD and out in the world identify as Christian, although they would nod right along with that statement, too.

The only religion in my family is Judaism, and Jews don't really believe in hell or even necessarily an afterlife. Plus, I don't think there are any practicing Jews left among my relatives. I would love to hear more about your views on hell, Willis. This is going to undoubtedly offend some people, but I have always thought that the whole idea of hell is pretty sick. You have a finite number of sins that any person could possibly commit on earth, and yet you have punishment that is infinite. And once you commit those sins and die, you have no way to redeem yourself. So, yeah, if you feel like sharing, I would look forward to reading your views.

Oh, and I definitely took your comments in the spirit in which they were intended. I can certainly understand why people who are not atheists would come to the conclusion you did, and although I know it was just a lighthearted comment, I saw the opportunity to get the word out, and I grabbed it! Thanks as always for hearing me out. 

[cariad]

I want to marry every lady on this forum.  They are something to behold.

Why you smooth talker.... 

[Willis]

Yes, I can see your point about the disrespect it shows "to consign an atheist to hell." I suppose it isn't a fear of hell that is the problem, but rather that someone makes themselves somehow superior (in their minds). I was being a bit flippant trying to lighten the mood a bit, but I appreciate the point you make. Now believe it or not, my views about "hell" depart significantly from most in Christendom and I take a lot of heat for my "heretical" views from the same people we are both referring to in these example scenarios.

Unfortunately, Mahatma Gandhi was right when he has been quoted as saying: "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

 

That quote is amazing. It is sadly true as a generalization, but of course, some of my favourite people on IHD and out in the world identify as Christian, although they would nod right along with that statement, too.

The only religion in my family is Judaism, and Jews don't really believe in hell or even necessarily an afterlife. Plus, I don't think there are any practicing Jews left among my relatives. I would love to hear more about your views on hell, Willis. This is going to undoubtedly offend some people, but I have always thought that the whole idea of hell is pretty sick. You have a finite number of sins that any person could possibly commit on earth, and yet you have punishment that is infinite. And once you commit those sins and die, you have no way to redeem yourself. So, yeah, if you feel like sharing, I would look forward to reading your views.

Boy oh boy is this going to be off-topic! 

It's kind of tough to discuss something like hell without a lot of context! Perhaps you have studied the Torah and other related Jewish writings so a theological point from what Christians call the "Old Testament" may mean more to you than the average Christian who knows very little about any of the Judeo-Christian writings except what they've been told by someone else.

In short though, it's my opinion and that of a small but significant number of other Christians that the concept of "hell" as a place of eternal torture for the "lost" was a fabrication of the early church years and stolen from Greek mythology. The Jews did not hold such a view and Jesus--despite rabid arguments that may well show up here--did not teach such a view either. He was, after all, a Jew and would have been teaching from the precepts of the Torah and other prophetic writings (Ezekiel, Jeremiah, Daniel, etc.). Jesus, it will be argued, supposedly taught about "hell" more than any other single topic.

Unfortunately, the first and greatest translation of the Christian Bible with the widest dispersion was the 1611 King James Bible. It was a brilliant scholarly work for its time, but many mistranslations and just simple errors worked their way into the massive work and some are still there today. The translation of "hell" is one of those errors. There was I think at least three different words in the Greek, Aramaic, and Latin copies available that had no direct English equivalent and all of these somewhat similar terms were thus translated as the word "hell." I do not believe that in the Hebrew scriptures that the concept of a place of eternal torture can be found. Rather, through Adam mankind became a mortal being and lost his spiritual immortality. Now whether Adam was an actual living person or just an idea is irrlevant to me since the same point is made. Now of course some just consider the whole thing a fairy tale. Well, so be it. I'm just trying to give some background to what and why I and other people believe certain things. And that point is that all men and women, because of Adam, do not have eternal life.

Now the big difference between my views (and Judaic views too) and the bulk of Christendom is that it is more commonly believed that ALL people have eternal life. If not, how could they by conscious of eternal torment? It doesn't make sense and is self-contradictory. The first four sections of the New Testament called the "Gospels" are about Jesus and his life. Jesus DID talk about eternal destruction a lot and said that all of us should not fear anyone but G-d, the one with the ability to destroy both body and soul in "hell." For more than a thousand years one particular branch of Christianity dominated theology and thus equated "hell" as an actual place. So the terms "destroy" and "destruction" throughout the Christian writings had to be euphemistically re-interpreted to mean something other than ACTUAL destruction and turned the idea into a terror weapon. Well, people of earlier ages with no access to the actual Scriptures knew only what they were told. So the threat of suffering forever and forever in an actual place was quite powerful as a means of keeping people in line!

What is actually taught in the later Christian writings is that because of Jesus Christ's death and resurrection he (Jesus) conquered death for all humanity past, present, and future. In a manner of speaking he "undid" what Adam had done. Making it possible for the faithful of all ages to be "made alive" at some point. The Scriptures teach that there will someday be a judgment of all mankind. So my view (a more positive and loving view I believe), is that those who lived a life in a knowledgeable and intentional rejection of G-d will simply not be granted Eternal Life. They will just cease to exist (without life of any kind)--that is, they will be destroyed. It will be a final and one-time destruction but it will be forever. It may be so that to those who remain and are given Eternal Life that it will be as if the "lost" never existed. Also, my view on this makes allowance for the billions upon billions of non-Christians or mentally-handicapped or children who die young that never heard the Christian "Gospel." I think the Jews and those who have become followers of the Jewish Messiah Jesus will be given some special roles to play in eternity and perhaps that will be the difference between those who heard and believed while alive and those who did not have that chance.

People who want to use eternal torture to scare people into following their religion do not like this idea because they don't think it's punitive enough! Well, I think IF in fact I come face-to-face with a being we call G-d and see that Eternal Life is a reality, the prospect of being snuffed out will be terrifying enough. I'm just one man fortunate to have been born in America and I'm ultimately responsible for my own actions. I'm not going to be the self-righteous fanatic who insists that everyone who fails to do it "my way" will suffer horribly forever. No, it was THAT kind of thinking that made people so mad in the days of Jesus and why he was crucified on a Roman cross.

I'm sure these thoughts will stir up a hornets nest, more so among those who call themselves Christians than anyone else! I can tell you that is so from sad, personal experience. For those of other faiths or of no faith at all I merely hope this gives a small bit of enlightenment or if not, at least a chuckle.

 

[Gerald Lively]

Ya see, Willis, King James was at odds with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church at the time the research on the King James Version Bible began.  The idea for the translation was a result of a dispute with the old church (religion) and the Church of England, who held great sway over the populace.  The idea was to provide any interested Englishman, a bible so they might interpret the “word” for themselves, thereby minimizing the importance of the clergy. 

It is my opinion that King James wasn’t much interested in the content of that particular Bible.

Soon after, the Pope had his own version printed up – the Duway Version.  It was all politics.

Just for the hell of it, Edward Lively was one of the three translators directly appointed by the King.  Yep, he was Great Grandpappy several times, nine to be more exact.  He died right in the middle of the work.  I think he didn’t have Universal Healthcare or Blue Cross.  He did have time for other things.  We know this because he had eleven kids.  No Planned Parenthood Clinics were in his neighborhood then.  He shoulda bought a TV to fill in his spare time.

gerald

[Willis]

Ya see, Willis, King James was at odds with the Pope and the Roman Catholic Church at the time the research on the King James Version Bible began.  The idea for the translation was a result of a dispute with the old church (religion) and the Church of England, who held great sway over the populace.  The idea was to provide any interested Englishman, a bible so they might interpret the “word” for themselves, thereby minimizing the importance of the clergy. 

It is my opinion that King James wasn’t much interested in the content of that particular Bible.

Soon after, the Pope had his own version printed up – the Duway Version.  It was all politics.

Just for the hell of it, Edward Lively was one of the three translators directly appointed by the King.  Yep, he was Great Grandpappy several times, nine to be more exact.  He died right in the middle of the work.  I think he didn’t have Universal Healthcare or Blue Cross.  He did have time for other things.  We know this because he had eleven kids.  No Planned Parenthood Clinics were in his neighborhood then.  He shoulda bought a TV to fill in his spare time.

gerald

Yep! Though not the actual first English translation (Wycliffe had made a translation into Middle English around 1390), the Tyndale version was the first in what would be considered modern English and the first Bible to be printed in large quantities. It was also the first English Bible to be divided into verses for easier reading. However, the Tyndale Bible was not actually finished because after translating the New Testament and about half of the Old Testament, William Tyndale wrote a paper criticizing Henry VIII and was imprisoned and eventually burned at the stake. After that I suppose the English Royals and the Vatican both decided they better get their own "authorized" versions out before some other heretic followed up on Tyndale's efforts.

It's also interesting (at least to me) that the Apostle Jacob (Yakov) got a name change in the King James "Authorized" Version. What? Who? The Apostle Jacob? Oh, King James had Jacob re-named to James and thus he remains to this day. It has also been speculated without proof that Shakespeare inserted his name into Psalm 46. Shakespeare was 46 years old in 1611, the year of publication, and the 46th word from the top of the Psalm is "shake" while the 46th word from the bottom is "spear." Coincidence? 

 

[Gerald Lively]

A side note;  Shakespeare mention Edward Lively in one of his plays.  I have forgotten which one.

gl

[cariad]

A fascinating read, Willis. I (sometimes) believe in the possibility of an afterlife or at least another life, but that belief is based on my very crude understanding of physics, and friends' personal experiences that have been related to me. My head starts to hurt when I think that we (the planet) are such a tiny speck in this universe that is some 18 billion light years across. I am a very visual person, so to me, if it cannot be rendered somehow, it is very difficult for me to think about the concept. So the idea of eternity or an infinite universe or a finite universe that would have to have SOMETHING on the other side - I just cannot think about it because my brain automatically tries to create an image.

I have so many questions for you, but don't want to derail this discussion any further than I already have. I have never studied the Torah myself, my father is the Jewish one who went through the various rituals as a kid. I don't know when he gave it up, but he's always been an atheist in my memory. I have read the works of Jack Miles (God: A Biography and Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God.) and it is interesting that you mentioned mistranslations as he is fluent (for lack of a better word) in those ancient languages. He spends the first section going over what was meant by certain words back then - who knew you could take so many meanings out of a word like 'book'. He also explained the difference between the Torah, the Tanakh (?) and The Old Testament. I am truly fascinated by religious texts, but I will only read works that do not editorialize to try to convince me how magnificent a certain belief system is. 

MM, I looked up your question about the Bible passage and found a great blog about Feminist Christianity. OK, they did editorialize a bit, but for the most part, they were able to come up with a somewhat plausible translation of that passage that is less insulting. I don't think I buy it, and there were males who were furiously decrying their interpretation in the comments, which was kind of icky.

At any rate, thanks for indulging me.

[Willis]

A fascinating read, Willis. I (sometimes) believe in the possibility of an afterlife or at least another life, but that belief is based on my very crude understanding of physics, and friends' personal experiences that have been related to me. My head starts to hurt when I think that we (the planet) are such a tiny speck in this universe that is some 18 billion light years across. I am a very visual person, so to me, if it cannot be rendered somehow, it is very difficult for me to think about the concept. So the idea of eternity or an infinite universe or a finite universe that would have to have SOMETHING on the other side - I just cannot think about it because my brain automatically tries to create an image.

Last comment in this thread on this subject. If someone wants to start another thread I'd be happy to chime in!

I think the common perception of "heaven" is also a misconception picked up by Greco-Roman mythology. I don't see it (nor do I think the Hebrew or Christian Scriptures see it) as some ephemeral place with angels and people floating on clouds with harps. The Scriptures always refer to  the "afterlife" as a REAL place. It goes back again to what I said about Adam. Whether or not the written story is mere analogy or literal truth doesn't matter to me. There was a time when God created the Earth and populated it with at least one pair of perfect and immortal people. Now I know some just consider this all a fairy tale. Oh well, whatever.

But in the story the REAL world never came to an end--only Adam and Eve were "expelled" and unable to see what had been their previous abode. To me, this means they simply became mortal, i.e., subject to the laws of physics as we know them including the dimension of time and degeneration of the body, etc.. I think there is a world beyond our perception in which these laws do not apply. We are merely unable for the most part to see that world due to the limitations of our physical bodies.

Now this may all sound strange (certainly contrary to commonly held ideas about "heaven" based on faulty ancient assumptions), but if one takes the time to read about modern string theory and quantum physics you will find much discussion about the possibility of a "multiverse." M-Theory postulates something called "Brane Cosmology" that makes our puny 4-dimensional "universe" just a small subset of an infinitely larger multi-dimensional space. Pick up a Bible and read the story of Adam and Eve again with that concept in the back of your mind as you do so. Maybe the story isn't such a fairy tale after all!

 

[Gerald Lively]

I have tomorrow off, so I was sitting in front of the TV watching the film “Casino Jack” when I clicked over to MSNBC to watch the deep southern GOP primary results.  The linkage was startling.

A couple of days ago I watch the Sarah Palin flick “Game Change”, then this story on Jack Abramoff – but it wasn’t just about Jack Abramoff, it was about Republican politics during the George W. Bush administration, in particular, the Senate and House plus a mix of White House.  Then I recall Frank and Lon argue that national elections are about character.  I should say here that Tom DeLay played a prominent role in this story, Casino Jack.  If that doesn’t get to you, see the flick “To Big To Fail”.

Let that term “character” roll around a bit.  Then think - - yes, think about the character of the GOP leadership.  Begin with Nixon followed by Spiro Agnew, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, and don’t forget George W. Bush.  There is more, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft. Yes, the team that brought America to it’s financial knees.  Those Republicans on Wall Street are too many to mention but if we read page two of the news, we see these guys going to jail every week.  How about the Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour?

I think about the Special Prosecutor with wholesale support from the GOP who was supposed to investigate Whitewater and came up blank, but spent $57 million to entrap the President of the US on a denial of a personal infidelity. It wasn’t America’s business.  Character.  Ken Starr didn’t have anything good to say when he jail one lady for 12 months for not telling him what he wanted to hear, or threatening the same to Monica.  Now we have the cow-tow King, Rush Limbaugh and his very strange sense of ethics.  I fondly remember the CREEP bunch for tricky Dick.

We went to war in Iraq for no good reason.  What did that cost?  Afghanistan, why are we there – after all we killed Osama and wasn’t that the idea?  (Okay, GOPers started it, Dems have to finish it albeit too slow)  This one is the longest war in US history.

Richard Clarke may have been the only saving grace from the Bush administration, God bless him.  Yet, there was Ollie North who intentionally broke a law that Congress passed to prevent the very thing he did.  Poindexter too.  The list goes on and on and I see no contrition on the GOPs side of the aisle,  and I see no comparison to Democratic politicians. 

No contrition?  Just look over the field of GOP candidates today and point out the man with character (or female).  It wasn’t Sarah Palin, we just watched a film on who she was; it isn’t Santorum, he wants to subvert the Constitution on the mix of religion and government to say nothing of his support of voter ID designed to suppress minority voting (per the various courts) and in conflict with the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  Does that make the GOP racist?  Does it?  And Gingrich, your family values man.

Racism isn’t just a buzz word, it means something.  Racism, doesn’t the GOP politic smell like something very bad?

Whatever happened to the Nelson Rockefellers of politics?

[Willis]

Just look over the field of GOP candidates today and point out the man with character (or female).

Ron Paul.

 

[Gerald Lively]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and is in last place.

[Willis]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and is in last place.

That's not what the question was!

 

[Gerald Lively]

Ah yes, the Silly Season is here.  This is a time when dubious no substances charges are tossed out.  Wait until the political convertions are over before evaluating the candidates.  LIsten for substance and see if that matches up to your beliefs. 

gl

[MooseMom]

How do all of you feel about SuperPACs?  I just cannot believe the amount of money that is being spent on the candidacies of everyone who is running for elected office this year, not only for the Presidency but also for Congress.  Millions upon millions of dollars.  I am just horrified at the reality of these offices being essentially bought.  Do you think that there will ever be any kind of reform in this regard?

And one other issue...the Post Office.  Congress has required that the Post Office pay for health insurance and pension benefits for their employees for the next 10 years, NOW.  So, the Post Office has to pay billions of dollars NOW, up front, for benefits to employees that aren't even born yet.  I am not really sure why this particular business has been targeted this way.  The result will probably be the privatization of the Postal Service.  Do you all think this is a good idea or not?  I've heard some people speculate that this is a union busting move by the GOP, but I'm not sure that's true (although it might well be).  Anyone have any thoughts or information on this?

I've always found politics to be interesting and important, particularly in a democracy where we all have a duty to be informed and engaged, but I am getting royally sick of the punditry and the increasing silliness.  I don't want to hear about Ted Nugent or Hilary Rosen or Seamus the Dog any more.

[Gerald Lively]

Using my superior deductive powers, I have figured out what is happening in our government.  Yes indeed!  It’s 2012.

The GSA is the watchdog in our federal government, you see, and they have their fingers (all ten of them) on the pulse of the government itself.  They know things.  They know that a government shutdown is on the horizon over a broken deal on the debt ceiling and they know nobody cares. So, a quick examination of the calendar (that’s the thing on your wall with the squares and numbers in it) revealed the GSA secret.  Of course the Secret Service is paid to know everything (so is the CIA but, well, they should be called CRS) and they found out.

Yep, this is 2012 and the World ends in December.  It’s all over then, folks.  We’re dead meat, gonzo gone, packed it in, swallowed by a mean Mother Nature and that is probably a result of Global Warming (that was for my GOPer friends).

What does it matter that we spend $863,498. 27 on an Eat, Drink, and Be Merry last ditch party?  Can’t raise taxes in time to pay off the party debt.  They probably charged it all on a government credit card anyway.

Hell of an idea, said the Secret Service Dude who quickly interviewed 20 virgins who were willing to be sacrificed in the land of the Maya’s. Tradition!  So, screw it became the word of the day.  And they did.  But they forgot to tell Maybelline who wanted $800 for her pulsating body part quivering act.  But she was talking to the wrong guy.  She shouted, the other SS Guys looked for a hiding place and someone called the cops.  Ho boy!

Who cares?  The party is over in a few months anyway.  Some Bozo will get elected in November and some clown from Alabama will object on religious grounds, it’ll go to the Supreme Court and they’ll defer to Santorum and just as he is about to speak, it’ll be all over.   

[MooseMom]

LOL!  Lord, between the GSA and the Secret Service not being able to keep their collective pants on, no one's paying attention to any serious topics.  And now there's CookieGate...

It's like a bad version of "The Hangover 3".

[Gerald Lively]

Aw yes, the US Supreme Court.

Back when the Supreme Court decided who should be president, I undertook a complete review of what our government was and is, and what the Constitution seemed to be saying through 200 years of political finagling.  Conclusion: Our government is no longer interested in the people.

If you are one of those who needs a singular simple truth, have a look at our campaign laws and what the US Supreme Court did to those.  Jesse Unruh, a California politician once said, “Money is the Mother’s milk of politics.”  In deciding that corporations are people in the sense that they have free speech rights under the first amendment, meaning, they can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns, the Court marginalized you and me.  The money now rolls in like a Tsunami. 

Where are you in this political spectrum?  Let’s just say that your $100 contribution will go unnoticed – but the big oil corporations million dollar contribution will not go unnoticed.

Despite Lincoln’s well understood mantra, “A government by the people, for the people, and of the people,” it just isn’t true anymore.  The new truth is: Campaign contributions are not bribes; Congress exempts themselves from law that apply to you and me; The US fights needless wars; The President lies to Congress;  Congress regularly stops government operations; There is the left and right but no one represents the moderate voice; We pave highways in Afghanistan but no in America; and some people are starving, are homeless, are sick, and the middle class is gradually being blocked from higher education because it is becoming too expensive.

So what does the future hold?  Is there hope?  Within the last two weeks a Florida Congressman claimed that all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives are communists; and twice members of the GOP made a comparison of the President to Adolf Hitler; and there has been that War on Women thing too.

Unfortunately, I my assessment of the Federal Government is - - the inmates have taken over and are running things.

[YLGuy]

Speaking of the Secret Service...On the news this morning they talked about the fact that since Newt has not dropped out of the race he still has Secret Service protection.  The cost was estimated at $40,000.00 a day.

The money spent on the election alone is so staggering it is beyond ridiculous.  I do not remember what the figure was that has already been spent on the primaries but it is rumored that Obama will have a billion dollar "war chest."

[Jean]

Right, Marc, there is so much money spent on this election it just blows your mind.

[Willis]

Aw yes, the US Supreme Court.

Back when the Supreme Court decided who should be president, I undertook a complete review of what our government was and is, and what the Constitution seemed to be saying through 200 years of political finagling.  Conclusion: Our government is no longer interested in the people.

If you are one of those who needs a singular simple truth, have a look at our campaign laws and what the US Supreme Court did to those.  Jesse Unruh, a California politician once said, “Money is the Mother’s milk of politics.”  In deciding that corporations are people in the sense that they have free speech rights under the first amendment, meaning, they can contribute unlimited funds to political campaigns, the Court marginalized you and me.  The money now rolls in like a Tsunami. 

Where are you in this political spectrum?  Let’s just say that your $100 contribution will go unnoticed – but the big oil corporations million dollar contribution will not go unnoticed.

Despite Lincoln’s well understood mantra, “A government by the people, for the people, and of the people,” it just isn’t true anymore.  The new truth is: Campaign contributions are not bribes; Congress exempts themselves from law that apply to you and me; The US fights needless wars; The President lies to Congress;  Congress regularly stops government operations; There is the left and right but no one represents the moderate voice; We pave highways in Afghanistan but no in America; and some people are starving, are homeless, are sick, and the middle class is gradually being blocked from higher education because it is becoming too expensive.

So what does the future hold?  Is there hope?  Within the last two weeks a Florida Congressman claimed that all of the Democrats in the House of Representatives are communists; and twice members of the GOP made a comparison of the President to Adolf Hitler; and there has been that War on Women thing too.

Unfortunately, I my assessment of the Federal Government is - - the inmates have taken over and are running things.

I certainly won't dispute that there's way too much money spent on brib..uh...re-relecting politicians. But concerning the ruling on corporations, if I remember right, the main point was that the Constitution also prohibits restrictions on peaceable assembly--that corporations are as much a voluntary collection of free citizens as are unions, political "action committees," religious or educational institutions, or ANY group. If all of these other groups have a collective right to spend their money to express their opinions (through advertising or lobbying), then why should corporations be singled out? The ruling just leveled the playing field. Personally, I'd have preferred to silence all of those left-wing organizations who also spend millions on politicians or to shut down the public sector unions who negotiate their benefits with the politicians they spend so much money on to get elected. But then, silencing anyone--even "corporations"--seems just plain un-American.

(I think the one major action for reducing the bidding war for politicians would simply be to enact term limits. Alas, those who need term limits are the ones who would have to vote them into effect. Ain't gonna happen.)

 

[MooseMom]

Willis, my gut reaction (which is not enshrined in the Constitution, sadly.  LOL!) is that the reason why corporations shouldn't be allowed to express their opinions via giving gobs of money to re-electing certain politicians is because they AREN'T in fact "voluntary collections of free citizens" in the first place.  They are in existence for profit and only for profit, and the people who work for them are not volunteers at all.  The CEO of BigBob Corp may not have the same political stance and philosophy as the mail guy, so you get an uneven playing field that is made even more uneven.

That said, I personally agree that unions shouldn't be allowed to give big contributions in the same way.

I'm curious...what is the advantage of allowing corporations, comprised of many people of many different opinions, to give large amounts of money to any candidate?  I can see where a Pac or an educational group or a religious institution might be populated with like-minded people, but I don't see corporations that way.  I would be very resentful if I worked for a corporation that gave a lot of money to a candidate of whom I did not approve.  I might not be in the position where I could easily leave that job, and I don't think I should have to suss out the political ideology of the board members of any company I may work for.

So, I don't see it as "silencing" corporations, rather, I see it more as not allowing the heads of corporations (who are the ones who are going to be deciding to whom to give money) to financially contribute funds that were earned through the labors of people who might not have the same political opinion.  That seems un-American, although it does seem that the volumn of your voice is defined by how much financial sway you have, so maybe it's becoming very American in a sad way.