One could hope? Ok, thats sick. I appologise. But, one could hope? Dang! I did it again!!!

Mike

Mike...I will GLADLY buy...:)

I knew Bush 43 a few years ago when he was still 'running' the Texas Rangers baseball team...I have/had two impressions

1) George...clean your damn shoes, your dad is the President and 2) how much brighter and more intelligent he appears on the TV than he is in real life...:)

Now, don't get me wrong, he was a great guy to go for a beer with, but since he now has all the 'born again christian' BS, he's even lost that ability now he doesn't drink anymore...hence the "8 years of ABSOLUTE F***ING DEBACLE" comment...but I digress and apologize...this thread is NOT about Bush 43...so...

I shall now carefully step down from the lofty, Democrat, moral pedestal :)

Glyn

You are a Democrat? Here? Wow.

Its ok. Really. Hang arround here long enough and you will find yourself agreeing with me and other folks (Don't listen to Ron61! He's a GREAT guy, but does not get out much. Pulls his own teeth instead of going to a dentist, all in the name of increasing his post count).

Mike

Hmmm;
Lets do a quick run down:
Alito is 56, Roberts is 53, Thomas 60 and Souter 69. They look viable for a long term unless Roberts has another heart attack.
Breyer is 70, Scalia 72 and both in good health apparently.
Kennedy is 72, has been having heart and kidney trouble.
Ginsburg is 75 and has openly discussed retirement as an option.
Stevens is 86 and will either retire or die soon.

Of this list for possible replacement I put (in order):
Stevens, Ginsburg, Kennedy and Roberts

I do not think Stevens nor Ginsburg will go if McCain wins. They will wait for a liberal President to open the chair. Kennedy and Roberts will go for health reasons if at all so the sitting President is irrevelant to them. I think at least 2 will be gone by the '12 elections and that amounts to a majority swing either way with the votes of the recent court. Hence...nix Obama for the reasons I stated earlier.

Mike...actually, I USED to be a Republican before they became "the Christian Party"...now I seem to be leaning more to the left (but just a tad)!!!!

I still speak regularly to lots of friends in Europe, and no-one over there can understand why we are so adamantly against the middle eastern theocracies when we are almost one ourselves!

I just do NOT like the way that the Republicans have now become a pawn of fundamental christians, that's all! I still agree with conservative fiscal policies, republican ideals, social conservatism, low taxation etc., but cannot stomach the "holier than thou" theocratic tendencies of the Huckabees and Bushes etc.

Anyone who believes in "invisible friends" just unnerves me, that's all!

Glyn

Whoa! tap the brakes there, pardner!
We are a long way off from a theocracy of any sort. Just because candidates
talk doesn't mean they're gonna do ! :D

Reagan talked a lot about right to life, but never pushed it with the weight of the White House. Ditto Bush 41 and 43.

And I don't recall burning people at the stake recently or sawing peoples heads off, either. :eek:

OK...mea culpa, perhaps I was perhaps using a little hyperbole there...:)

BUT you MUST admit we have WAY too much religious emphasis on ALL politics in this country. I left England 30 years ago to come to the best country in the world, where religion DID NOT MATTER...unfortunately now, in politics, IT DOES SEEM TO MATTER and THAT is what concerns me!

Glyn

PS I am a member of THE ONE TRUE RELIGION...Church Of England...ROFL!!!!

GlynMeek...religion is actually being pushed by the democrats in Hollywood, and mostly by the rap/hip hop crowd. Watch the Grammy Awards next time.

well fundamentally, I have no doubt that the Democrats are "playing the religion card" as well, I just find the whole issue to be irrelevant and somewhat unconstitutional, and most of the Hollywood crowd should at least be ignored and at best locked up!

Glyn

PS as a "child of the 60s", I can no more watch rap/hip-hop than fly to the moon!!!!!!

But it is kinda fun..we have an Obama making a tough run for a nomination, a Baptist Minister, a Mormon (well, we HAD one :D), a lapsed Episcopal, another Baptist and the female anti-christ! nowhere but America, Baby..**):LOL:

So true. Show me where Bush has extolled his Christian faith! Better yet, where he pushed it! The democrats are going out of their way to prove they are "holier" than thou. Its almost hillarious.

I would be happy with a President that used the Golden Rule and the 10 Commandments as a guiding philosphy. Bush does and so did Reagan. No President (or person) is perfect. Its complicated, and simple thinkers will abuse these philosphies to say Bush acts otherwise. But nothing could be farther from the truth.

Think about it.

Mike

How can you use the term "unconstitutional" with regards to religion or faith in this country? This country was not founded by athiests! Its quite the other way around! Read the "New England Primer", first book published in the US to get a sense of where OUR forbearers were coming from. Ever since the founding of this great country, people have been trying to undermine its philosophy. Read the constitution (again). Tell me that the intent was to ignore God and build on secular values! Our forefathers understood the importance of separating religion and government. That did not mean they were not religious, nor thought that religious principles should be ignored. Many of those men were "failed men" in the eyes of God. But that did not stop them from creating one of the greatest documents of freedom this world has ever seen. It is NO accident that the US is the lone super power in the world. Our government is strictly not allowed to create a state religion (like England). There is no Church of America (like Church of England).

To use the terms that you use is to not understand the Constitution (said with care and love). What makes America great is a Constitution based on natural law, faith, and belief in something bigger than us. And we accept all who respect those ideals. Worship as you please.

Mike

Mike I was just going to say that it seems to me if one looks back at the start
of our government Christianity was a big part of it. Now we all know where
england has gone in the past 200 years and it is starting to look like we are
trying to follow that path, why I'll never know. Look where europe has
headed these last 10 - 20 years, give them them 10 more and they will
really discover what muslims are all about. Marvelous.

Oh but NOW I have to disagree, Mike...this country, as opposed to my homeland!!!!, constitutionally was founded on the basis of "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM", NOT on the religion of CHRISTIANITY (even tough the original settlers WERE christian!!!!). Each of us is FREE to worship whichever deity (or not) we wish. We are now at the point where Christianity has become a de facto 'standard' in this country, and you are made to feel guilty if you are NOT! How many of our current presidential candidates has even mentioned any other god than the christian one??????

My issue with Republicans (broad and unfair generalization, I admit, and I don't mean it to sound that way) is that they ONLY allow religious freedom IF AND ONLY IF that religion is somehow based on christian beliefs! (and DON'T EVEN get me started on THAT!!!!)

How many Republicans do you know who are Buddhist, Jewish, Shinto, etc.?

Glyn

ps I agree with Flip in that Europe (especially France and Belgium!!!) is screwed because of their too liberal attitudes towards fundamantal muslims!!!

pps England is starting to realize that "invisible friends" aren't REAL!!!!!!

I heard a guy on NPR say that he did not believe that the natural state of Man was freedom. I was a bit irritated that the interviewer did not persue this line of reasoning and ask what he meant or what he thought the "natural state" of Man was. Having thought about this for a few days, I have come to agree. Freedom is not the natural state of Man. But it is the most effective state, the most productive state. The natural state of Man is related to the path of least resistance. Laziness. Unproductiveness. Someone please take care of me-ness. That is the root force which works against our Constitution.

Freedom is hard. Takes work, vigilance, effort. The alternative (the true natural state) requires none of this. Just supporting some politician who promises cradle to grave care.

I wanna own a Cobra replica. I have all the parts except the body. No politician is gonna get it for me. I have to do that on my own. Thats true freedom.

Mike

Glyn, read the Primer. Amazon and Alibris can sell it to you. You are missing my point.

Mike

no, I think we may be agreeing on the same thing, but arguing obtuse points here...LOL

They finally starting selling Absenthe in my town. Tis true that Absenthe makes the mind grow dimmer. Night.

Mike

Oooo! There is some good fun stuff here!!

Look up Deisim guys. A large number of Americas Founding Fathers wwere Deists. They did NOT believe in Christ, and Christ is never mentioned in any of the original documents.
Natures God and the Creator are mentioned in the Declaration of Independence. Both are Deist terms. The thing I don't like about some Christians is that they always want to seem to take credit for the founding of this country, and that we owe them some sort of deference as a result. It simply is not true. We even had a President say that we are not a Christian nation.

That said, I do agree with Mike about a President who uses the 10 commandments and the golden rule. I do not agree that Bush abides by those though. Those basic themes are shared by most religions, and provide a great basis for acting properly. Some people need religion to keep them on the right path. Some do not. I am not religious, but my own personal code of conduct uses elements from Shinto, Bushido, Buddhism, the above-mentioned commandments/golden rule, and good ole fashioned engineering sense.

Mike, I have to disagree about what the natural state of man is. I do think it is freedom. Governments are things created by man. Man, without government to provide for him, will do what it takes to survive on his own. That government sponsored take-care-of-me-ness is provided by people who wish you to give over your freedom to them. That's why I despise people like McCain, Bush, and Clinton. Thats why my vote will still go for Paul, even though he has no chance of winning. I will not give a vote to someone who wants to take some aspect of my freedom.

Steve

Hey Steve, Happy Valentine's Day from your gal Hillary.....


http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a20...ss/hitlery.jpg