Kerry a Republican in disguise??

"This country is founded in a covenant with God...."

That statement certainly assumes many facts not in evidence.

Here are but 3 basic assumptions:

1. That the God we have may have formed a covenant with is necessarily the right God to form a covenant with, where is our proof that we made the right decision?

2. That we are actually in a covenant with God, where is our proof of that?

3. That we are actually acting according to God's will, where is the proof of that?


Why is it that while we in fact base our constitution on the separation of Church and State, yet hacks like Coulter argue that we should evaluate right and wrong on HER religious bias?

Coulter is 100% self righteous.

Self righteous people work from the proposition that their beliefs are right for not only themselves, but right for all people.


Quote from max401:

You're reading it out of context (what else is new?).

"No matter how many of our European allies may surrender to the terrorists, America will never be alone. This is a country founded in a covenant with God by people who had to flee Europe to do it.

Sailing to the New World in 1630 on the ship Arabella, the Puritans' leader and governor, John Winthrop, said Americans were entering into a covenant with God to create a "city upon a hill." We would be judged by all the world if we ever broke that covenant. But if we walked with God, "We shall find that the God of Israel is among us, when 10 of us shall be able to resist a thousand of our enemies." He has intervened in our affairs before, such as in 1776, 1861 and 1980."
More...
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

"This country is founded in a covenant with God...."

That statement certainly assumes many facts not in evidence.

Here are but 3 basic assumptions:

1. That the God we have may have formed a covenant with is necessarily the right God to form a covenant with, where is our proof that we made the right decision?

2. That we are actually in a covenant with God, where is our proof of that?

3. That we are actually acting according to God's will, where is the proof of that?


Why is it that while we in fact base our constitution on the separation of Church and State, yet hacks like Coulter argue that we should evaluate right and wrong on HER religious bias?

Coulter is 100% self righteous.

Self righteous people work from the proposition that their beliefs are right for not only themselves, but right for all people.
More...
You see that which does not exist. Read the quote from Winthrop in context with the timeline and the politics at the time.

Yes, there is separation of Church and State, that's a separation of power, not spirit. For example, that's why it still says "In God we trust" on the money. Coulter is simply reflecting the values that this country was founded on, values that still exist.
 
This country was founded on racism, sexisms too.

So what?

We do evolve.


Quote from max401:

You see that which does not exist. Read the quote from Winthrop in context with the timeline and the politics at the time.

Yes, there is separation of Church and State, that's a separation of power, not spirit. For example, that's why it still says "In God we trust" on the money. Coulter is simply reflecting the values that this country was founded on, values that still exist.
More...
 
Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

I want to respond to the comments regarding parties versus candidates. I know a lot of voters think this way, and consciously or not reduce the Presidential race to a question of which candidate they view as the "better" man or perhaps I should say "person." I think this is a mistake and ignores how our government is actually run.

The vast majority of policy making is done by the army of political appointees the President appoints. The President knows maybe a handful of these himself and is forced to rely on recommendations to select the remainder. Most are party hacks, campaign workers, big contributors or their relatives and out of work ex-congressmen ( see "political hacks"). Particularly in Democrat administrations, people from activist groups are comprising a larger percentage of these appointees. Often, they are considerably more extreme in their views than the President, who has to worry about gewtting elected after all.

When you vote for a candidate, you are therefore not just voting for him. You are voting for this army of Cabinet and sub-Cabinet appointees, as well. This is where the party affiliation comes in. Frankly, I will vote Republican if there is any way to justify it, not out of blind party allegiance, but because I profoundly distrust the activists the Dem's will put in these slots.

There are additional considerations. Judicial appointments are at the head of the list. A Democrat, any Democrat, is going to appoint significantly more liberal jdges than any Republican. The Dem's have a litmus test that judicial candidates have to pass, beginning with unfailing allegiance to any and all forms of abortion, a strong commitment to racial quotas, total disregard for union thuggery and , at least for the Clintons, willingness to make messy campaign finance violations disappear.

No candidate is going to stray too far from the fundamental planks of his party's platform. For Dem's, that means high taxes,weak defense and an intrusive nanny state. The Republicans are basically the opposite. I'm sure soemone will say the Republicans are for the rich and ignore corporate wrongdoing, but all these major corporate scandals involve behavior that took place during the Clinton administration.

So bottom line, whenyou vote, you are voting for far more than candidate A or canidate B. Each carries a lot of baggage with him, and to make an informed decision, you need to understand what's in that baggage.
More...

F*cking a, great post AAA. This about sums it up. Hats off to you. Go get yourself a cookie.
 
ART,

Ann Coulter is a commentator. She is entitled to a point of view. The same goes for Krugman. He has a point of view and cites or makes up evidence as he sees fit to support it. Both no doubt are biased, but we expect that from a commentator. So really, when you say she is "biased", you are engaging in....gasp... an ad hominem attack.
 
it's funny to see you criticize Ann Coulter. Molly Ivins and Paul Krugman are just as bad. Don't you get it man. All these people are extremists. Stop posting articles by extremists to get your point of view across, it does not help your argument. For a guy as logical as you claim to be, I can't believe you don't see this. Absolutely amazes me.
 
Quote from ARogueTrader:

This country was founded on racism, sexisms too.

So what?

We do evolve.
More...
First of all, you surely are not equating the founding of a nation on religious freedom and belief in God with sexism and racism and then hoping we "evolve" from that?

As far as the racism, again, the times of the day. Like I tell some bigots, "Goddamn those slave traders, why couldn't they get their supply from Scandinavia?" In any event, that was the norm of human culture at the time handed down from eons before, based on the necessities of survival. And if you ask the Jews, the world still has some "evolving" to do.
 
Coulter is a hack for her party, just like Carville is.

She is "biased" by her religious views as they relate to affairs of state.

You support this?

Why is it necessary at all to bring God into the disucssion of affairs of state?

As long as freedom of religion is supported by the state, why do we need to go beyond that to begin to declare what is the right religion, or non religion for the citizens to be practicing?

As much as some people want to make this a war between Christianity (the version that many Americans subscribe to) and other religions, on non religions, that is the wrong way to go.

We must keep this on the level of what brings people together, not what divides them.

All people want food, shelter, clothing, etc., even though they may be Christian, Atheist, Jew, Hindu, Muslim, etc.

THIS SHOULD HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGION!!!

I certainly support the rights of people to believe whatever they want. However, when they bring their religious beliefs into the political process, I have a problem.

See. the bottom line with bringing religious belief into the process is that invariably you reach a point at which people will no longer be able to have discussions about what is right or wrong, as they KNOW what is right or wrong on the basis of their religious beliefs.

We are being attacked by religious extremists, the Muslim fanatics, yet we find Coulter and others who are religious extremists of the Christian religion saying what is RIGHT, not on the basis of common sense, but on the basis of her religious views.

Remove all discussion of God from the political arena is my wish.

Leave religion to the people to practice as they see fit, not to proclaim what God should be, what faith should be, as it relates to public policy.

Quote from AAAintheBeltway:

ART,

Ann Coulter is a commentator. She is entitled to a point of view. The same goes for Krugman. He has a point of view and cites or makes up evidence as he sees fit to support it. Both no doubt are biased, but we expect that from a commentator. So really, when you say she is "biased", you are engaging in....gasp... an ad hominem attack.
More...
 
I support religious freedom, freedom for women, freedom for minorities.

I don't support a state religion, i.e. Coulter's version of Christianity.

Quote from max401:

First of all, you surely are not equating the founding of a nation on religious freedom and belief in God with sexism and racism and then hoping we "evolve" from that?

As far as the racism, again, the times of the day. Like I tell some bigots, "Goddamn those slave traders, why couldn't they get their supply from Scandinavia?" In any event, that was the norm of human culture at the time handed down from eons before, based on the necessities of survival. And if you ask the Jews, the world still has some "evolving" to do.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top