I think they're lying. And I think they know it.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.



RC

Well if we were to bring home ALL our troops, not just Iraq and Afghanistan, stop handing out defense contracts to foreign companies and tell the drug companies just how much they can charge,we could save quite a bit. And we still might be able to scare up the money to repair our crumbling infrastructure. If our indsutry spent more time exporting products and less time exporting jobs I would be inclined to give them the time of day.

Then we could have time to take the mickey out of Wall Street and Goldman Sachs et. al. Shoot we might even be able to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry. There is a line from Elizabeth Barrett Browning's poem "The Children" that covers what will happen to people who allow that to happen.

"Do you hear the children weeping, oh my brothers, err the sorrow begins.

. . .

The child's sob in the darkness curses greater than the strong man in his wrath."

I imagine there are many children crying themselves to sleep because their father or mother came home through Dover.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.

I'd love to see the specifics. Where exactly would they cut and how much would that save? Three places- 75% of the budget. Meicade/Medicare, Social Security and Millitary. If you don't cut from there it's unlikely to be significant enough to make a dent. Waiting for the Tea Plan. Haven't seen one. Just people complaining that they don't much like taxes and consequences be damned. If the country goes to hell, so be it. It's my money and I want it for me.

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Shoot we might even be able to ensure that no child goes to bed hungry.

Why should *I* have to pay for *your* hungry kid!? If you couldn't afford him he should have chosen to be born to a better family. That's the Christian way!

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

Why should *I* have to pay for *your* hungry kid!? If you couldn't afford him he should have chosen to be born to a better family. That's the Christian way!

When you say 'he' should have chosen to be born . . . I had a sudden recollection of the Eggbert cartoons of yore, later he got a sister Eggberta. Sorry, I just can't be serious all the time.

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by doucanoe

I believe that the "Teabaggers" as you so kindly refer to them, also would like to see an overall reduction in government spending along with reducing the tax burden being placed on business among other things. The two go hand in hand, or should. That's a sacrifice I'm willing to endure.

I was under the impression that the term "Teabagger" was adopted by the movement itself. Perhaps it has fallen out of favor since its alternative meaning has come to their attention. We "Libs", being the degenerates we are, knew the other meaning. We had a big laugh over the choice of names.

It seems your priority is more tax breaks for business. Is that true? Do you not think that middle class families and individuals - you know, Teabaggers - are more deserving?

Now, since spending cuts are a given in your plan, where would you cut and why? Since Defense, Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid account for about 75% of all spending you'd really have to cut there, right?

Maybe not. Maybe you'd just basically wipe out the 25% that isn't mentioned above.

Or maybe you'd just do away with all new "stimulus packages" and "bailouts"? In future when key industries are about to implode we just let them? I suppose that would be okay. There are plenty of foreign corporations to fill the void.

Also, as we simultaneously cut spending and taxes, do we cut tax revenue more than, less than or the same as spending? Do we cut revenue more than we cut spending, thereby increasing the amount we must borrow from the Middle East and China? Do we reduce revenue less than we cut spending and borrow less or do we cut revenue and spending equally and continue borrowing at the same rate?

John

[piece-itpete]

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, you got nothing, right?

No, just my own eyes and thoughts

Originally Posted by Boreas

The comment was in regard to your contention that our founders would be assailing science.

Not science, obviously not. The blind belief in science and government.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Okay, pick and choose your own comments where the founders advocated for a declaration that we are a Christian nation. More to the point, pick and choose the Government document which so states.



This really only has cultural significance, not governmental. In "a Christian nation" it would have been mandated, not suggested.

A clarifying question would be, what constitutes a nation? The founders would not have agreed it was the government, far from it. Their actions show their intent.

Originally Posted by Boreas

Okay, tell me why it means anything.

I'm at a loss here. Anyone?

Originally Posted by Boreas

You haven't heard me mention him. I know what happened.

John

Sorry, answering two posters in one

Originally Posted by Boreas

So, he was an advocate ofr a Christian nation even though he thought it was bunk, even though useful bunk?

Useful enough to advocate teaching the Bible in schools, yes.

Originally Posted by Boreas

"Fall away"? "Fallen"? If you want to see just how far Jefferson "strayed" read his "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth".

That would be the definition of fallen, indeed.

Originally Posted by Boreas

If Jefferson invented negative campaigning it was by being the victim of it. Adams, that devout Christian, threw the kitchen sink at Jefferson, right down to the (accurate) rumors about Sally Hemmings.

Jefferson first, hired a slanderer.

Originally Posted by Fast_Eddie

I can tell you what I think, not that any of you asked. I am a Catholic and if pressed I would call myself a Christian, though I distain what that word has come to represent in our country. I think, like Franklin, the Bible is filled with unfathomable wisdom, though it is more often over looked in favor of quotes that can be used to stand in judgment of others.

I go to church every week. Okay, most weeks. I participate in communion and have received all appropriate sacraments. I also believe the Bible was written by men and the commonly held belief in the nature of "God" is absurd. For many years I considered leaving the church. Damn near became a Unitarian, like many of our Founding Fathers. Ultimately I found that many in the clergy believed things very much in line with what I believed. I figure if they can call themselves Catholic so can I.

Paine's writings helped me come to terms with my beliefs. I think where I am now is probably very close to where many of our Founding Fathers were. People want it to be black and white. They were Christian or they were not. I don't think it's that simple. But I do think it's quite clear that they went out of their way to avoid the implication that any religion should be included in political debate.

I also believe, as was the intent of this thread, that the people organizing the "Tea Parties" know they are misleading the citizens of this country. I find that very wrong.

I understand what you mean about personal belief. I liken it to the Statler Brothers, who were thrown out of the Baptist church for playing secular music. Anyone who writes a song like 'Whose birthday is Christmas' is very likely a born again Christian. Still, tossed out, freedom of religion and all that.

I can't get my mind around saying things like the Nicene Creed (that's in Catholic churches too right?) and then saying that the commonly held belief in the nature of "God" is absurd, not to be difficult Ed, perhaps I'm not understanding it.

"Many of our Founding Fathers" is a bit of a stretch, ain't it?

Paine was ostracized from these other folks who were "probably very close" to Paine's thoughts. They let him rot basically.

Obama certainly knew, or as Senator and Presidential nominee should have known, that we were going to leave troops in Iraq indefinately and Gitmo was neccessary. I find that very wrong.

Pete

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Not science, obviously not. The blind belief in science and government.

Science is not a matter of belief but of discovery and observation. Government, on the other hand, (or politics) is all too often a matter of belief and faith. That's one of the biggest reasons it must never be mixed with religion.

A clarifying question would be, what constitutes a nation? The founders would not have agreed it was the government, far from it. Their actions show their intent.

Well, when the Right speaks of our being a Christian nation they say that entails being governed by Christian principles. Whether you accept that proposition or not, clearly they think of nationhood and government as aspects of the same whole.

John

[Fast_Eddie]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Science is not a matter of belief but of discovery and observation.

There's a great Carl Sagan quote... Oh. Nevermind. "Nothing can be known. Just give up. Science is a cult. Stop educating the children".

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Paine was ostracized from these other folks who were "probably very close" to Paine's thoughts. They let him rot basically.

Payne was a troublesome fellow. Everything for which he was once loved eventually made people hate him.

He was useful during the Revolutionary period and later useful to the French in their revolution. Like Che Guevara, however, he was too much the firebrand to ever be comfortable with comfort. He made those whom he helped gain power rather uncomfortable once they had power.

He was done in by the Federalists at a time when they were the dominant political force here. This was partly because of his Deist views and partly because of his links to France and the Terror following the Revolution. His friendship with Jefferson didn't help either.

John

[noonereal]

Originally Posted by Boreas

"Teabagger"

I love how the right named themselves this. A real Palin moment.