Hot Air poll: Who would you rather have on the ticket, Huckabee — or Lieberman? Update: Poll fixed
posted at 12:59 pm on May 19, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
Inspired by this morning’s New York Sun editorial, arguing that the surest way to put Maverick over the top in battleground states is to add a Democratic apostate to the ticket. Yes, he’s excellent on the war and always delivers a tender cut of red meat when opining on his own party, but do we really want a guy who voted no on Alito one 72-year-old heartbeat away from the presidency? If we’re willing to tolerate a pro-choice VP, toss Ridge on there and pick up Pennsylvania.
Even so, I’m intrigued by this as a test of right-wing blog readers — not their admiration of Liebs, necessarily, but of their abiding antipathy to Huck. How’s about it, HA commenters? Imagine Maverick’s shortlist is down to two; either one’s going to piss off a lot of people. Let’s see, in our own highly unscientific way, who’ll piss off more.
Update: Whoops, last poll was broken. Sorry for the hassle. Please re-vote!
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »
Spirit of 1776
It never ceases to amaze me when I watch those who want so desperately to dismiss the idea that the founders had a deep and abiding belief in God. The contortions and mental gymnastics are impressive even going so far as to parse the word Creator. And through all of the twisting and muddling as an attempt to cleanse the founders of such beliefs I watch an exercise designed to establish not the truth of the matter but to establish some form of academic bona fides.
But invariably what is often missed at the end of the day is the people. The people who stood behind the founding fathers and made up the country the founders worked to establish. The deeply religious, boldly faithful founding citizenry who knew God and relied on his mercies and generosity on a daily basis.
To speak of the founding fathers as though they were somehow plucked from a Godless universe wherein they could apply their miraculously thoughtful and revolutionary ideas is no less than astonishing. These men who lived amid people who embraced religion and but who remarkably had no influence on the founders and were clearly unlike them in the practice of religion. We are expected to believe that the American people supposedly thought nothing like the founding fathers and yet somehow managed to adopt, embrace and in many cases die for those allegedly secular ideas outlined in the defining documents of our country.
To say that such documents and such men had inspiration from anything but a benevolent Creator or God is to espouse a type of religion that requires greater faith than any practice known to man.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:45 PM
You need to read without your own predjudices so close to the fore. This is exactly what I said:
I never stated anything about anti-anything. Some Christians are angry with him because he mentions Christ Jesus but falls short of a great example of a Christian.
Some non-believers are angry with him because they dislike that he seems to be wrapping politics in faith.
I made the above statement because in some way, he touches wrong buttons BECAUSE of the Christian faith in one way or another.
Understand?
You attacked without understanding my post.
But you made a strong point, no?
Skidd on May 19, 2008 at 11:49 PM
Not so much. More that he justifies his nanny-state and amnesty policies by speaking using the liberal Christian worldview.
misterpeasea on May 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
unseen
Your rights may have been granted to you by some paper or benevolent government but mine derive from the fact that I was endowed with them by my Creator. As such they are inalienable. These truths need no paperwork or acknowledgment from any man but are manifest by the fact that I exist and my soul claims them by birth. To forfeit such human dignity under the assumption that they come from man is exactly contradictory to the Declaration of Independence.
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
SaintOlaf on May 19, 2008 at 11:18 PM
I don’t see how that’s any of your business!
(I kid)
Raised Baptist w/a smattering of Lutheranism. Went to a Pentacostal Bible College (where I first met Perfectionists) on the West Coast (West Coast white Pentacostals can be quite a bit different than Southern & Midwest Pentacostals if that’s what you’re used to) as did my wife.
I currently attend a small non-denominational (Conservative Christian) church. The pastor was raised and educated Southern Baptist but doesn’t ascribe to their more legalistic doctrines.
I have called myself a Bapticostal in the past but don’t really care what I’m called now. I’m a five-point Calvinist who believes in the modern manifestation of the charismatic gifts of the Holy Spirit (but not that Baptism in the Holy Spirit will necessarally “be evidenced by speaking in tongues”).
When you’re a Calvinist going to a Pentacostal college you either spend four years arguing and making people mad and calling names and stomping off, or you learn to overlook (relatively minor)theological differences and love your brothers and sisters in Christ and then argue, make each other mad, call names and then go out and have a beer (except they wouldn’t let us drink beer).
I suppose that’s why I love my church so much. We all come from different Christian traditions, but we all love Jesus and each other and we love helping people. And after all of the arguing and study of Scripture, I’m pretty sure that that is what pleases God the most.
So… Sanctificationist? Morally perfect?
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 11:52 PM
Play nice. The snake-handling, holy-rolling, whirling dervish stereotype isn’t representative of the great majority of Pentacostals, they are just the ones that 60 Minutes likes to do stories about.
29Victor on May 19, 2008 at 11:58 PM
As between the two of them, the downside to selecting Lieberman would be — as others have noted earlier — the loss of his vote in the Senate on the WOT in general, and on Iraq in particular. But the election could change the dynamics anyway.
In addition, I have this lingering thought in the back of my mind that the Democrats likely will do something incredibly stupid this summer or early fall — pull some obnoxious political manuever that will cause Joe to finally sever his ties, and agree to caucus with the Republicans.
I have a hunch that he was much closer to doing that earlier, for reasons that we are not fully aware of, and that it would not take much more to put him over the edge.
For example, I am convinced that the current Iraq funding fight really represents much higher stakes for both sides than anyone is writing about so far. Make no mistake, Nancy Pelosi’s trip to Baghdad and the comments she made while there, were very, very positive developments. And her “drawback” on her return was really to be expected — domestic consumption and all that.
Still, there probably is an intense amount of pressure in both Democrat caucuses — perhaps a high enough level of pressure — to try to force a showdown over war funding whereby it would be forthcoming, but only with some form of face-saving timetable language.
That fight could cause Joe to bolt. And then there would be a whole new game in town.
But that is not a reason to prefer Huck on the ticket. If Joe were selected to be on the ticket, he would be expected to switch and caucus with the Republicans.
So . . . given the basic “trust quotient” issue inherent in the response of JM Hanes on May 19, 2008 at 1:08 PM, the answer to this question is Joe.
But, if you were to include Mitt Romney, or John Kasich, or Tim Paulenty, or many others . . . well then, Joe is really needed in the Senate.
Trochilus on May 19, 2008 at 11:59 PM
Before Brian left, he presented a fantastic post on Huckabee’s history, both in the church and politics. One of my favorite posts of all time from Hot Air.
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 12:00 AM
History is a pretty poorly designed experiment, there aren’t any controls and it’s difficult to separate the causes from the symptoms from the noise. Maybe you’re right, though. It’s definitely something to think about…
No, no, no. And no. The founders were profoundly religious, most of them some form of Christian, which is precisely why they worked so hard to protect their various religious beliefs from the government.
I’m not saying religion is bad, or that religion didn’t enrich the lives of the founders, just that religion and politics both suffer when they get entangled.
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 12:02 AM
What Huckabee supporters are missing about Huckabee is not that he is Christian messenger but rather that he is a really lousy Christian messenger.
Many of the people who dispise Huckabee love George W. Bush.
EJDolbow on May 20, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Jefferson was a notorious anti-religous bigot. Not all the Founders were, though.
Ok, I’ll match that quote with this one.
And raise you with this.
This country was founded by what we now call “religious nuts”. Many of them came here specifically to find freedom to practice their religion.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 AM
Wow. 711 comments for Huck vs. the anti-Lamont.
Go Joe!
Purple Fury on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 AM
My condolences. I feel sorry for anyone that has to die in a place that is as ugly as Nebraska.
CyberCipher on May 20, 2008 at 12:06 AM
I think I just voted for Joking Joe.
I always respected Lieberman. You knew what you got. A liberal guy with common sense. He got a reputation as a ‘conservative’ because he would want to know how program X would be paid for… Not that he was against liberal program x….
darkpixel on May 20, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Many of the state constitutions created by these founders had specific religious tests, so I think you’re mistaken.
flenser on May 20, 2008 at 12:08 AM
Mormon Doc on May 19, 2008 at 11:50 PM
don’t know what post you where reading but it wasn’t mine. reread it and I think you might see I said the same thing you just did..
unseen on May 20, 2008 at 12:14 AM
Welcome to the thread. You are little late — but I’m sure than things will pick up a bit now that you’re here.
Jefferson was anti-religious, but he was not an atheist. He was a deist. He didn’t believe in the personal Judeo-Christian God or the miracles described in the Bible. (As I am sure that you already know.)
But Jefferson DID believe that a Creator formed the universe, and then promptly took an extended vacation.
CyberCipher on May 20, 2008 at 12:15 AM
Yeah, well, nobody’s perfect.
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 12:17 AM
I agree. Most revolutions seem to end in terror and tyrany. In fact, I have a hard time thinking of any revolution that was antagonistic to God and resulted in a good government.
Another thing to keep in mind is that Americans believed strongly in the importance of the individual while European, Russian and Chinese revolutionaries emphasized the importance of society over the importance of the individual.
Also, because of their rejection of a higher moral authority athiestic revolutionaries, once they manage to shake off the shackles of their oppressors, have absolutely no constraint upon their powers. Good and evil are definded by society and they represent society, so what is “good” is what benefits them and “evil” is everything else.
It’s nice to believe that “enlightment” automatically leads to greater liberty and respect for humanity, but history shows us that more often than not, it doesn’t.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:18 AM
But when they are completely divorced, everyone else suffers.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:20 AM
This has some truth to it, though it’s often removed from context. The US isn’t supposed to be run by the church; its status as a Christian nation lies in the beliefs of its citizens and now therefore those beliefs shape morality and policy so long as it’s not an establishment of religion.
However, it’s interesting to note that the quote comes from the Treaty of Tripoli – arguably the first historical instance of the US appeasing Muslim terrorists.
vonspringer on May 20, 2008 at 12:20 AM
what’s the difference between the two?
Kini on May 20, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Great point. This quote is thrown around on Hot Air alot, rarely with it’s context.
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Someone put a period where there should have been a semi-colon. Common mistake;
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:24 AM
Yeah, I’ll take a real jew over a fake christian any day.
Roger Waters on May 20, 2008 at 12:25 AM
(that’s the full text of article 11 BTW). I got it from the wikipedia article, which cites a contraversy that I hadn’t heard of before. It’s worth a look.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:26 AM
I’m assuming you’re religious, so how has the separation of church and state aggrieved you? Honest question.
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 12:27 AM
Hmm, policy wise, probably not much. And Lieberman isn’t an idiot.
My vote is for Huck though, for the sheer selfish pleasure of the comic relief he will bring. He’ll be like Britney Spears; the media will follow him around waiting for something stupid to come out of his mouth. It won’t be Billy Carter all over again, but it will be close.
austinnelly on May 20, 2008 at 12:30 AM
Crud! I need to go to bed, I’m not completing my comments.
To clarify: The quote I cited above
Is the full text of the article (11) of the Treaty of Tripoli that was (mis)quoted in part earlier.
The wikipedia article that I linked to is about the Treaty and includes a section that casts doubt upon whether the above quote was even part of the origial treaty.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:31 AM
Hi. It’s been awhile. I haven’t posted much lately.
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 12:32 AM
Now try matching the quote from Jefferson.
MB4 on May 20, 2008 at 12:36 AM
Not “separation.” “Complete divorce.”
My examples would be China, the U.S.S.R., the French Revolution (see above) and (to a lesser degree) most of modern Western Europe. The state takes the place of God (hey, somebody’s got to do it) and comes to define ethics by what is good for society (which, eventually, means the State. Hegelian philosophy meets political reality).
Every time it has been tried it has ended suffering.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:36 AM
heh. “ended suffereing” above should be “ended in suffering.”
Freudian slip? I kink not.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:37 AM
Try matching the quote from Jefferson.
If you can somehow do that, then try matching Mark Twain’s quotes.
Good luck.
MB4 on May 20, 2008 at 12:38 AM
Bravo, sir. Nice to meet your acquaintance.
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Men such as Jefferson where certainly not religious nuts.
Any many came to get away from religion.
MB4 on May 20, 2008 at 12:41 AM
Good to meet you Skidd.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 12:45 AM
Well I’m sure some of you would rather beat me and hang me to a cross if you were physically able…it’s just the nature of the spirit you follow.
When you don’t like God’s Word you go way out of your way to destroy the messenger..ironically that is the only time you people quote the Bible(out of context nonetheless)
Look at how you phonies crucified Brother Apacalyps earlier.
He is more earnest than probably anyone you know.
Of course he said something true(which you did not like) so you try to demean his character and tell him what the Bible says(even though you don’t even know).
Yes there IS Christian persecution on lefty blogs(surprisingly not much more than the persecution people who speak the Truth receive on this blog).
At least the conversation on the “righty” blogs is more enlightening and interesting though.
On the lefty blogs all they talk about is: “I don’t want them to take away my gaia given right to kill my offspring” or “I’m voting for Ubama because he is black” or I’m voting for Hillary because she is a woman” or “it was just a BJ” or “it’s McBush’s third term” etc. etc.
Frankly those here who persecute Christian should get used to those ideas and switch parties..because those ideas are the only differences between you and them
SaintOlaf on May 20, 2008 at 12:48 AM
Howzit Skidd. Nice to hear from you as well.
austinnelly, you might have a good point. The Lieb doesn’t really have the hambone that Huckleberry has. Maybe he can get a guest spot with Spinal Tap playing the bass.
Kini on May 20, 2008 at 12:48 AM
I bet you didn’t expect this much vitriol for Huckabee did you, AP?
That was a no brainer… Liebermann all the way for the many reasons that were mentioned before me, above.
Lieberman has honor. Huckabee doesn’t. Real simple.
Huckabee is an upside-down, sour pussed, twelve (12) year old fruit cake.
Liebermann is a non-pretentious, real true congruent man.
Just remember the poll I did way back here on (posted only in the comments mind you).. says the same thing basically… Huckabee is the least like of all Repub candidates, by a HUGE margin!!
Unscientific? I think not.
Why did Huck go as far as he did? Because of the Iowa open outcry caucus that’s why, as I explained here.
No “christian” in an open outcry situation was going to be caught dead voting for the
“unchristian”IE: Mormon candidate. And then that momentum kinda hobbled along from there.Notice how spineless Dr. Dobson only endorsed Huckabee after Romney dropped out – even though he spoke highly of Mitt before – because of the feared backlash from “christians” and from Mormon-religion-hazing bloggers.
Mcguyver on May 20, 2008 at 12:49 AM
Not sure what you’re looking for, MB4. Just wanted to throw this out and ask you.
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 12:50 AM
Our situation is nothing like the former Soviet Union or China. We’re a free society. If people are becoming less religious that’s hardly the state’s fault, is it? The issue isn’t religion, it’s religious liberty, and the only way to protect that is to strictly apply the first amendment.
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 12:51 AM
Anyone who voted for Lieberman needs to immediately switch parties and vote for Hussein Ubama.
SaintOlaf on May 20, 2008 at 12:53 AM
Or better yet switch parties and don’t vote
SaintOlaf on May 20, 2008 at 12:58 AM
You project more than Cineplex Odeon.
sulla on May 20, 2008 at 12:58 AM
I’m not very knowlegable about the history of Russia, but wasn’t Russia a Christian (Eastern Catholic) country before their revolution?
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 12:59 AM
Given what other things Jefferson said, I can only infer that he was using God metaphorically.
MB4 on May 20, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I don’t usually post unless I have read all the ones before but I can’t catch up, so please forgive me if I repeat someone else’s thought. As a Christian I have no problem voting for a non Christian if that person is a strong supporter of the first amendment right to the freedom of religion and the free exercise of that religion in the public square. What I will not vote for is an atheist who is hostile towards our first amendment right to the freedom of religion and will do whatever he or she can to destroy religious freedom because of his or her personal lack of belief.
Rose on May 20, 2008 at 1:00 AM
I’ll bite. What is Cineplex Odeon?
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 1:02 AM
Run away sperm donor?
MB4 on May 20, 2008 at 1:03 AM
748+ posts….I ain’t reading all that.
I don’t want either as the VP, but given the choice between just those two….
GO JOE!
Limerick on May 20, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Jefferson definitely wasn’t a Christian, but he wasn’t a deist either. Nor an atheist. Is that what you’ve found, too?
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 1:06 AM
“Christian country” is kind of a nebulous concept, but I’d agree to that description. They also had Tsars and serfs and all sorts of problems. It wasn’t exactly the enlightened Democracy that we enjoy, you know?
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 1:07 AM
Yes, I agree.
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 1:09 AM
Did you hurt yourself climbing up that cross.
How come the guys professing to be christians the most are the least christian acting people here. Ye shall know them by their fruits. And these guys ARE fruits. HA HA
Roger Waters on May 20, 2008 at 1:11 AM
Goodnight all. I’ve stayed up way too late. Thanks for the fun!
Skidd on May 20, 2008 at 1:12 AM
Cineplex Odeon? A theater multiplex with, 20 to 40 projectors running simultaneously.
Weak pun, I suppose. Olaf is furiously casting stones at his fellow Christians and fellow Republicans as unworthy of the name (voting against Huckabee = mancrush on Obama; criticizing Huckabee = plays “will it blend?” with the unborn), but enjoys playing the Victim card.
I don’t want to see Olaf harmed in any way; he does more to discredit his preferred candidate than Huck’s critics ever could.
sulla on May 20, 2008 at 1:12 AM
I’m sure Samuel Clemens would have something to say about that. Not that I care what he would say.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on May 20, 2008 at 1:13 AM
I wasn’t saying that it was. I wasn’t talking about America, or our situation here. I was just making the comment that when government is completely divorced from religion then it ends badly for everyone. And I didn’t say anything about people becoming “less religious.”
And I disagree that the issue is religious liberty rather than religion. The atrocities committed by the governments that I listed above had nothing to do (for the most part) with a lack of religious tollerance, but rather the result of a refusal to acknowledge any moral authority higher than the State, or any good greater than the good of the State.
As sure as history has shown us that Communism doesn’t work, it has also proven that a govenment that is completely void of a recognition of a higher moral authority than itself is capable of anything.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 1:17 AM
Russian Orthodox. And the atrocities committed in the hundreds of years of Tsarist rule didn’t come anywhere close to what the athiests who succeeded them managed to accomplish in a couple of months.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 1:26 AM
Joe is smart enough to be POTUS.
EJDolbow on May 20, 2008 at 1:30 AM
Whatever. Would you feel better if we put something about inalienable rights endowed by a creator in some important document? Is that enough of an acknowledgment for you, or do we need to have mandatory prayer sessions every day, or what? What sort of acknowledgment would have saved the Russians from communism? It’s getting late, but if you get a chance to explain what it is that’s so horrible for you about living in a country where you can practice your religion however you want, I’m listening…
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 1:40 AM
Wow. Hostile. And you keep misquoting me too.
I said that I never said that I was talking about America. I said that pretty directly.
I like how you can “whatever” 60+ million dead people. It shows a real strength of character. And it wasn’t Communism that killed all of those people, it was the Communist leadership. It wasn’t the form of government that committed the atrocities, it was people who formed the government, the people who followed Hegelean ethics as interpreted (and perverted) by Marx. An ethic without God, were one’s duty to society is more important than one’s duty to self or to God. Where the value of a human life is determined by that human’s value to society.
What would have stopped them (at least if we get real silly and look at history) is a belief that they had someone to answer to after they died, or that there was a good greater than the good of the state. Even when the Church was at its most corrupt it never matched the killin’ power of the athiest state.
Where did I say that it was “horrible…about living in country where you can practice your religion however you want”? That has nothing to do with what I was writing. I thank God every day for the freedoms that Americas enjoy, the freedoms that, according to “some important document” He gave me and, thus, are intrinsic to me. Unlike the “rights” given to man by the government in an athiest state (the U.S.S.R. had a Constitution too, ya know). “Rights” that are completely dependent upon the whim of the State.
I realize that it’s late, but next time could you please try to respond to my comments instead of the voices in your head. :)
P.S. Yes, I know that the “some important document” refers to the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution, that wasn’t my point so don’t try to attack there.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 2:00 AM
Oh, and as long as we’re at it:
RightOFLeft on May 20, 2008 at 12:02 AM
I didn’t post my original comment in an effort to argue with you. But that seems to be the way you’ve taken it. So here goes:
You start out that comment saying:
But then you go on to say that:
What evidence do you have of your second comment? History maybe? So we can learn from history if it proves what you believe but not if it doesn’t? I think it’s funny that you didn’t catch the irony of your own comment.
29Victor on May 20, 2008 at 2:30 AM
At least Lieberman is not a red hot religious bigot.
{^_^} Either way I’d bury my head in shame and mourning for the US.
herself on May 20, 2008 at 5:29 AM
I still would rather see Romney… but if it were between Huck and Leiberman…. I’d pick leiberman. I still have a bad taste in my mouth over the way the Huckster viciously attacked Romney but kissed McCain’s rear end at the same time. (and I was a Fredhead… who did the same crap).
the man can tell a joke though….
BadBrad on May 20, 2008 at 6:05 AM
…so long as you realize the vacation pun is how modernists have revised Deism to read, tongue in cheek. The after taste of that joke is that the Creator dismissed his creation long ago, so go at it as you will. Eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.
As I understand Jefferson’s Deism, the Creator allowed for the creation to run its natural course. So far as Jefferson expounded, the Creator’s awareness of the creation is ongoing. The business of prayer in supplication or thanks to the Creator was not foreign to Jefferson, just as he knew the bounds of reality that one can not demand wishes to instantly come true from the Creator. As to the Constitutional comparison of state not being church, one need look no further than as to organization, authority, and responsibility. Church and State are not to be the same except in Fascism, the modern make-over of ancient Monarchy, in turn its contemporary make-over of the Holy Roman Empire.
I digress. But one turns to see the Vatican today, clipped of temporal powers, yet ever engrossed in the moral cause. Michael Savage would have the Pope do with the Vatican what the Pope requires of other sovereign nations. Along the lines of a governing body’s “responsibility”, Americans are fed up with the UN for flaunting its “morality” of corruption, constantly fleecing the flock with gestures that mock human dignity–raping along the way–standing by with thumbs up the asses while witnessing murder and pillaging by terrorists against their own people.
maverick muse on May 20, 2008 at 7:30 AM
Oh, YOU came back.
malan89 on May 20, 2008 at 7:39 AM
Mormon Doc
Sulla
Re. Mormon vote. Thanks for the interesting take. People are people, more similar than not. The motivations of your community are much the same as mine :)
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 8:04 AM
Neither of which have a prayer of being adopted. ‘Tis a shame about the first one at least. How long has the GOP been pursuing this pipe dream? They keep throwing this sop to so-cons to get their votes while quietly acting like Democrats. It usually works too with many of them, more’s the pity.
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 8:15 AM
Tragically ironic. The Left could never create or approve of our Constitution today, or accept the justification for our revolution, as they don’t have the argument to use that certain rights flow from the creator. What they’d end up with with something akin to that 10 million page EU monstrosity.
I think Soros and his leftist cabal are at work on a modern re-writing of the US Constitution. Be prepared for this to be the latest salvo in the left’s assault on liberty.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 8:19 AM
So it’s a religious rumble you desire, eh? Okey-dokey. In that case, ya’ll are heretics since you cling to the novel doctrines of sola Scriptura and sola fide that are not only absent from the Bible but are curiously missing from early Christianity.
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 8:20 AM
LOL! Good one… ;-)
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 8:21 AM
If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. – 1 John 1:8
Odd, I don’t see a corollary in the NT that impeccibility is an attribute of Christians.
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 8:34 AM
It’s already been written. Here it is.
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 8:39 AM
What’s so hypocritical from you Atheists, is the fact that even when you attribute such events/phenomena to a metaphorical “god”, it still has the same effect.
Not only that, under the influence of “Atheism” there still was/is a dominant belief – a “God” if you will, wherein it’s followers believe that “it” should have dominance over people’s behavior…..
….It’s the same thing, just a differently colored “flavor”… of which, under it’s influence millions suffered and died.
The problem with these self-inflated, egotistical, different flavors of “God” is not that a dominant influence is bad – it’s that it gives the followers of the resulting polarized factions a reason to “fight” and somehow create a superior “being”, which is the exact opposite of what Christ actually taught.
The reason “Christianity” is viewed as it is – predominately, is because a majority of it’s followers use the same scare tactics and bullying maneuvers as the rest of ‘em.
Assert and stand his ground, but not bully – is the tactic Jesus used, as an example – Huckabee and his shills do the exact opposite – calling other republicans “Shiite Republicans” for example…. which is Huckabee acting as a “Sunni Republican”.
.
.
.
.
In short, the ego desires for dominance again and again, because of it’s innate feeling of self-insufficiency.
If that were not true, most of these blog comment threads would be cut short and AP wouldn’t be able to afford an I-phone…. and that we cannot have now, can we?
Once you graduate from Hot Air’s snark university you no longer even need it for a thrill, because you know in the long run it doesn’t really matter anyway.
So why am I here today since I have graduated from the highest level of snark class available to mankind? Because even alumni have to visit once in awhile.
Mcguyver on May 20, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Perhaps. Care to guess though just how many of the Founders were Masons? Last time I checked most Christian denominations find Masonic lodges and the Gospel to be incompatible.
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 9:13 AM
1) A lot of people call themselves Christian, but “pick and choose” what they want to believe from the Bible.
2) A lot of people call themselves Christian, but would not be willing to publicly confess “Jesus is Lord“.
3) I always vote.
4) I will always vote for the candidate I think is best.
5) If there is only a choice of two non-Christians, I will vote for the lesser of two evils.
6) So yes, I would vote for a non-Christian.
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 9:15 AM
Wordpress shows stats on #’s of visits to a post. I have not seen it show IP addresses. If there is a way to see that, I am not aware of it, and honestly wouldn’t know what to do with that information. I understand the general concept of IP addresses, but don’t ISPs like Road Runner change your IP address periodically? How would an IP address identify a person uniquely?
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 9:30 AM
I love how these threads go all hither and thither.
If you are wondering why the great experiment known as the USA survived, it has much to do with the colonies being British.
Krydor on May 20, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I missed this one yesterday.
What sin are you accusing me of? And what proof do you have that I hate the things of God?
You call me out but for what purpose? If you truly believed you were doing the work of God here, you do more than throw out insults and leave.
It’s people like you who convince others that there’s nothing good in Christianity.
Jesus spent most of His time with prostitutes and tax collectors, not pointing out their moral flaws or making them feel less than anything but by showing them what they could be and actually loving them.
He reserved attacks for the “holier than thou” religious leaders of the day who did to Him what you’re doing to me and others on this thread. Jesus was questioned repeatedly about the validity of His faith and His devotion to God by people who judged the superficial.
You may feel you’re doing the right thing here at this site because people attack you, but you’re no martyr.
Esthier on May 20, 2008 at 9:40 AM
I learned something I had never realized before from your answer. As a Jew, I rarely if ever vote for Jews, because there aren’t so many running for things, and because they’re often libs. So I never vote by religion (although maybe I should consider that much more than I have.) Stupidly, it hadn’t occurred to me that Christians always have Christian candidates to choose from, and that it is an important part of your voting decision whether the person is a good christian in your estimation. As a minority in this sense, I have been “forced” by circumstances to be very open-minded. Anyway, thanks for the answer. I learn a lot here.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 9:46 AM
Red Pill- one thing I forgot to add. I think St. Olaf was mean- spirited when he apologized for having mistakenly called someone a Mormon, as if it’s in insult in and of itself. Similarly, you suggesting that a race where there are only non-Christians running would require you to vote for “the lesser of two evils” is mean-spirited. I truly expected more from both of you, but admit that my limited knowledge of your beliefs leaves me with little factual way to know what to reasonably expect.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Sure does. Because if McCain had such poor judgement as to bring the revival meeting to the White house he could not be trusted on other issues either.
Annar on May 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Alot? To me, it’s like a balance (scale). Both sides are filled with quotes regarding religion, and its influence on our founding. Imo, the side with the religious impulses outweighs the other, even though both are represented.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 9:55 AM
I agree with 95% of what you said. I disagree that Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical Christian. I don’t just accept it at face value when someone calls themselves a Christian. I listen to what they say, but more importantly I watch what they do. The Bible teaches me not to be other people’s judge:
but the Bible also tells me that I can and should inspect the fruit on their tree:
When people’s actions don’t line up with the what the Bible teaches, I consider that bad fruit. The Bible teaches Christians to support Israel.
In my opinion, Jimmy Carter’s words and actions against Israel are bad fruit, and he is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, just like this man.
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:00 AM
That’s because it is impossible. Christian means “belonging to Christ” or “a follower of Christ” or something along the lines of “not being Christ.” Clearly Christ is Christ.
Esthier on May 20, 2008 at 10:01 AM
Bravo, philwynk, bravo! Standing ovation!
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:06 AM
That is incredulous. Atheists do not believe in god(s); one cannot hate a vacuous non-entity.
Annar on May 20, 2008 at 10:11 AM
Your blog is written in Russian and the URL is in the “.ru” domain (Russia):
http://freevillage.ru/
Where are you located?
Are you a US Citizen?
If not, you have no right to say “we” in your post:
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:11 AM
I have, over time, come to appreciate MB4’s quotations. However, I wish he would quote live people, or speak more for himself. If Twain were here and said what he did, I’d respond by saying “Why?” Then he’d give a follow-up, and I might say “that was dumb.” The way it stands now, we can really only speculate as to why someone said what they said, and can’t judge if the opinion is worth considering. He did the same last night with Barry Goldwater and a long quote against religion in conservative politics. It’s hard to know if Goldwater would feel the same today, given the situation as it is now.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM
The first two are actually pretty funny…thanks for being able to laugh at yourself.
The third one…I assume that to mean that bleeding green jell-o makes her an alien???
I take it to mean that you aren’t really laughing at yourself; you’re trying to say that anyone who jokes about Mormons is a “bigot”, right?
“Bigot” does seem to be Mormons’ favorite term for Evangelicals.
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Bravo, once again!
Red Pill on May 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Esthier: Forgot to say, I think you are arguing semantics, in this case. Twain surely meant that Jesus wouldn’t want his name associated with “modern-day” Christians.
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 10:20 AM
NO! He was talking to me and being FRIENDLY AND WELCOMING TO ANOTHER AMERICAN NOT OF HIS RELIGION! You can be NASTY!
JiangxiDad on May 20, 2008 at 10:23 AM
It’s hard to know if Goldwater would feel the same today, given the situation as it is now.
JiangxiDad
It’s my understanding that Goldwater became more concerned with far right Christian influence the older he got. The situation today is pretty much what he warned Republicans about.
Krydor on May 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Agreed, but that the Founders were motivated by religious faith wasn’t really in contention. The disagreement rests in to what degree they believed religion should govern our affairs. I contend that as far as personal conduct goes, a great deal, but when it comes to government (i.e., like a national religion), very little.
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Speaking for myself, it’s an added bonus. I will always make it a point to vote for the person who best represents my views and will look at that first and foremost, but Christianity can tip the scale between two similar candidates. I like to think that the president (any president) feels responsible to an all-knowing higher power who knows his/her heart. Even if there is no god, that thought could help a person stay on track.
I’m not saying atheists can’t do the same, but I believe it’s easier when you have accountability. At least it’s easier for me when I’m trying to stay in shape or eat healthy. I’m skinny enough that my weight isn’t much of a motivator.
Esthier on May 20, 2008 at 10:25 AM
Point of order – the comment you are responding to is NOT from me.
JohnAGJ on May 20, 2008 at 10:26 AM
Hhhmmmm…after due consideration, reflection and deep analysis, I vote “Present”.
Amendment X on May 20, 2008 at 10:27 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 6 7 8 9 Next »