Point of No Return (Mark Steyn)

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

CdC,
I don't deny always looking for improvement - why aren't you? There will be a point where I will accept whatever choice I make. In this case I have looked at all the candidates and decided that Obama and McCain are significantly lacking, but both for very different reasons. I don't agree with everything that Ron Paul stands for either, but I can accept the things that I don't agree with in order to get the ones I do.
You have only yourself to blame for Obama. SInce you elected someone as polarising as Bush who proceeded to run the country into the ground people will take whatever they view as opposite in order to fix the problem, because they view more of the same as not fixing the problem. I do hope that the GOP will come to its senses in 4 years.
I think the majority of Americans would be able to get behind a candidate who emphasised a good work ethic, strong defense, small government, personal freedom, and no socialism for companies or individuals. The GOP does not offer the last three, and the DNC misses the boat on the first two and last one.
I'm voting for the guy who offers some degree of all of those. Why aren't you?

Why aren't you? He can't win! It's time for you to not do what's right for you and do what's right for America, by voting McCain-Palin - not perfect but also not Obama-Biden.

[427 S/O]

vrm reminds me of the guy who tripped on the escalator and fell down stairs for an hour and a half........I'll be good.....

[Jamo]

Originally Posted by 427 S/O

vrm reminds me of the guy who tripped on the escalator and fell down stairs for an hour and a half........I'll be good.....

A day off for being in the area and for being an extremely able sh!t-starter, and because you'll whine if I don't include you...suspended because that comment made me LMFAO.

Now...anyone else?

[wtm442]

Round of applause for Jamo. Well done! Only 2 more weeks and then you can relax for at least 15 minutes.

[427 S/O]

oops! contrary is correct, even worse.

[mdmull]

" A large number of the "founding fathers" were not Christians"? Really! How many FFs were there & what constitutes a "large number"? I think a little source info would pad the argument.

[nevermind65]

Originally Posted by mdmull

" A large number of the "founding fathers" were not Christians"? Really! How many FFs were there & what constitutes a "large number"? I think a little source info would pad the argument.

Many were Deists.

Deism in the United States
Thomas Paine

In the United States, Enlightenment philosophy (which itself was heavily inspired by deist ideals) played a major role in creating the principle of separation of church and state, expressed in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Founding Fathers who were especially noted for being influenced by such philosophy include Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Cornelius Harnett, Gouverneur Morris, and Hugh Williamson. Their political speeches show distinct deistic influence. Other notable Founding Fathers may have been more directly deist. These include James Madison, John Adams, possibly Alexander Hamilton, Ethan Allen [32] and Thomas Paine (who published The Age of Reason, a treatise that helped to popularize deism throughout America and Europe). Elihu Palmer (1764-1806) wrote the "Bible" of American deism in his Principles of Nature (1801) and attempted to organize deism by forming the "Deistical Society of New York."

[MChat]

Originally Posted by mdmull

" A large number of the "founding fathers" were not Christians"? Really! How many FFs were there & what constitutes a "large number"? I think a little source info would pad the argument.

There's two that I'm aware of. Jefferson and Franklin.

Jefferson believed in God, but didn't believe that Jesus was the Son of God, and also didn't believe in the Resurrection.

Franklin heard one of the great preachers of the time (I forget which one) and at the end of the message said something to the effect of "you almost convinced me to become a Christian."


Alot of people today like to point at Jefferson having an English version of the Qu'ran, but most won't go into the history of WHY he had it. He didn't have it when they were framing the Constitution because he was President when he got it. When Jefferson was President, U.S. ships were being attacked (sunk and captives taken as slaves) by the Barbary Pirates. He was told that in order to stop the attacks, to pay off the North African "Caliphs" (Muslim leaders). So the U.S. paid the Caliphs and the attacks didn't stop.

So Jefferson had their "holy book" translated into English (hence the reason Jefferson had a copy of the Qu'ran), read it and then understood that paying them off was not going to work. That's when he sent the Marines over to pay a little visit to these caliphs. (Hence the lyrics of the Marine song "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli"). See once Jefferson read how Muslims are allowed (commanded actually) to lie and deceive the "infidel" (that's us) he knew there was no bargaining with them, no peace agreement possible, no treaty possible; the only way to deal with them is to utterly defeat them.

Today people like to say that Jefferson was influenced by the Qu'ran, and that in turn influenced our Constitution. People can say it, but it isn't the truth; these people are just ignorant of history.

[fasterpatrick]

The only solution;

Maybe we need to start a march.

[427 S/O]

Patrick, Now that's a T-shirt I like.

[BeanCounter]

nevermind,

Many of the classical deists that you name still considered themselves Christians but considered Jesus to be only a holy and moral man rather than the son of God. Read Jefferson, especially his letters to John Adams to get a better idea of the Deist concept with the founding fathers. Denying a single tenant of a faith in no way totally undermines the "Judeo/Christian" underpinnings of it.

[imagine2frolic]

So Jefferson had their "holy book" translated into English (hence the reason Jefferson had a copy of the Qu'ran), read it and then understood that paying them off was not going to work. That's when he sent the Marines over to pay a little visit to these caliphs. (Hence the lyrics of the Marine song "From the Halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli"). See once Jefferson read how Muslims are allowed (commanded actually) to lie and deceive the "infidel" (that's us) he knew there was no bargaining with them, no peace agreement possible, no treaty possible; the only way to deal with them is to utterly defeat them.

This is what I have said all along. If we are going to fight them we have to beat them down, and put a boot on their throats. I said it 2 years ago, and I am saying it again. It is a street fight. I think it was Patton who said "people surrender when they are tired of dying". I am sure if that is not correct someone will correct it.

[NeoConMan]

Originally Posted by imagine2frolic

See once Jefferson read how Muslims are allowed (commanded actually) to lie and deceive the "infidel" (that's us) he knew there was no bargaining with them

This is what I have said all along. If we are going to fight them we have to beat them down, and put a boot on their throats.

Very well put.
There's alot more to this story than American "oppression" and foreign policy gaffes bringing 9/11 upon ourselves.

This has been brewing for centuries (millenia?) and is fundamentally dangerous to our survival - before adding in the convoluted tribal factions and their grievances.
The Shiites see their time has come with Saddam out of the way, they aren't gonna play nice with anybody.
Ahmadine-jihad can smile all he wants speaking at the UN and Columbia University....

These people went from killing each other's sheep and beheading captives to using oil money to acquire the latest in weaponry from anybody that will sell quietly.

What's a few nukes between warring factions of Islamo-fascists?

[427 S/O]

Quote: I am sure if that is not correct someone will correct it.

No need to.......

[cobra de capell]

Actually, I've given some thought to Ron Paul with the outcome that he's a nutjob or perhaps a nutbar like some posters here.

Thumbs down......because......

A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating. For whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner.

Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2.

Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq.

In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter.

Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen. Besides, I really don't see a 'leader' when I've seen him speak, I see a nutjob that no one in their right mind would follow.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

Actually, I've given some thought to Ron Paul with the outcome that he's a nutjob or perhaps a nutbar like some posters here.

Thumbs down......because......

A lot of Ron Paul's supporters are incredibly irritating. For whatever reason, his supporters as a group are far more annoying than those of all the other candidates put together. It's like every spammer, truther, troll, and flake on the net got together under one banner.

Ron Paul is an isolationist: The last time the United States retreated to isolationism was after WW1 and the result was WW2.

Ron Paul wants to immediately cut and run in Iraq.

In the single most repulsive moment of the entire Presidential race so far, Ron Paul excused Al-Qaeda's attack on America with this comment about 9/11: "They attack us because we've been over there. We've been bombing Iraq for 10 years." In other words, America deserved to be attacked by Al-Qaeda. This is the sort of facile comment you'd expect to hear from an America-hating left winger like Michael Moore or Noam Chomsky, not from a Republican running for President -- or from any Republican in office for that matter.

Ron Paul is the single, least electable major candidate running for the presidency in either party: Libertarianism simply is not considered to be a mainstream political philosophy in the United States by most Americans. That's why the Libertarian candidate in 2004, Michael Badnarik, only pulled .3% of the vote. Even more notably, Ron Paul only pulled .47% of the vote when he ran at the top of the Libertarian ticket in 1988.

Is Ron Paul serious about small government, enforcing the Constitution, and enforcing the borders? Yes, and those are all admirable qualities. However, he also has a host of enormous flaws that makes him unqualified to be President and undesirable, even as a Republican Congressmen. Besides, I really don't see a 'leader' when I've seen him speak, I see a nutjob that no one in their right mind would follow.

CdC,
Why do you think Iran stormed our embassy? 'Cause they hate us for our freedom?
Paul is a bit more of an isolationist than I would prefer, but he is on the right track with not interfering with other countries. If I came to your house and started telling you what changes you needed to make then I would probably get shot. It works pretty much the same on a national level.

Past performance in elections has no bearing on the worthiness of the candidates running. And since Carter, Clinton, and Bush were all elected it does not say much for the electorates ability to pick good leaders. Ron Paul is not the best choice for a few reasons, but Ted Roosevelt isn't running, so in my view he is the best available for this election.
By voting for McCain you will be voting to continue the bulk of the problems we have now. If you vote for Obama you will be voting for a bunch of new problems.

BTW, personal comments? Did you run out of argument again? You should just leave my yang out of it...you just can't grasp things that big.

MDmull,
I've told my DNC friends that Bush is the result of 8 years of Clinton. Obama will be the result of 8 years of Bush. I'm an engineer - I deal with events and results all the time. I made a prediction for one of the past elections that the DNC would take control of Congress (and I was challenged on it by one of our fellow posters, but he chickened out of the bet), and that was based on the reaction to policies of Bush and the GOP Congress. This election will be more of the same (though the GOP forgot to remind voters that the DNC had a majority for the last 2 years.).
Don't worry - in 4 or 8 years the pendulum will probably swing back the other way.

[cobra de capell]

BTW, personal comments? Did you run out of argument again? You should just leave my yang out of it...you just can't grasp things that big.

Yin got to you, VRM?

Just keep up the entertainment - it's nice to have a few Ron Paul nutbars posting here - it's sort of like slumming without have to actually go to a trailer park.

By voting for McCain you will be voting to continue the bulk of the problems we have now. If you vote for Obama you will be voting for a bunch of new problems.

And voting for Ron Paul - YIKES! but perfect for all buggerin' wankers.

From http://http://blogcritics.org/archiv...12/0516292.php

But instead, here's what Ron Paul the supposed libertarian and avowed constitutionalist endorsed:


Government seizure and equitable redistribution of wealth
A carbon tax on every man woman and child in America
Converting all elections to electronic voting
The reversal of all tort reforms
The elimination of the US Senate
Shutting down all immigration, including legal immigration
A federal ban on nuclear power
Forced conversion of all businesses to worker run collectives
Nationalizing all large banks and media companies
Repealing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Amendments
Criminalization of homosexuality
A 30 hour work week for 40 hours pay
A federal ban on all pornography
The universal right of states to secede from the union
Comprehensive, taxpayer supported socialized medicine
_____

OK, a few but others are way over the top - RP is a nutbar.

[VRM]

Originally Posted by cobra de capell

BTW, personal comments? Did you run out of argument again? You should just leave my yang out of it...you just can't grasp things that big.

Yin got to you, VRM?

Just keep up the entertainment - it's nice to have a few Ron Paul nutbars posting here - it's sort of like slumming without have to actually go to a trailer park.

By voting for McCain you will be voting to continue the bulk of the problems we have now. If you vote for Obama you will be voting for a bunch of new problems.

And voting for Ron Paul - YIKES! but perfect for all buggerin' wankers.

From http://http://blogcritics.org/archiv...12/0516292.php

But instead, here's what Ron Paul the supposed libertarian and avowed constitutionalist endorsed:


Government seizure and equitable redistribution of wealth
A carbon tax on every man woman and child in America
Converting all elections to electronic voting
The reversal of all tort reforms
The elimination of the US Senate
Shutting down all immigration, including legal immigration
A federal ban on nuclear power
Forced conversion of all businesses to worker run collectives
Nationalizing all large banks and media companies
Repealing the Voting Rights Act and Civil Rights Amendments
Criminalization of homosexuality
A 30 hour work week for 40 hours pay
A federal ban on all pornography
The universal right of states to secede from the union
Comprehensive, taxpayer supported socialized medicine
_____

OK, a few but others are way over the top - RP is a nutbar.

Care to cite your source on that? I think you copy/pasted the wrong guy, or maybe you just stopped in at your usual 'Propagandists Unite' page. And the link you posted is bogus.

[cobra de capell]

Originally Posted by VRM

Care to cite your source on that? I think you copy/pasted the wrong guy, or maybe you just stopped in at your usual 'Propagandists Unite' page. And the link you posted is bogus.

Here you go, wanker....

http://blogcritics.org/archives/2008/09/12/051629.php

[mdmull]

VRM has finally done it Obama is BUSH'S fault.