http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15766827/

This has to break Herb's heart! Enjoy Scalito, because that will be the highlight of the Bush presidency.

Actually, because it's split so close, the democrats have virtually no chance of getting anything through without Republican agreement.

'Moderate' democrats are going to cause big troubles for the left. Mr. Murtha couldn't even get appointed, because enough democrats disagree with his extremism!

That's why gridlock is so terrific.

Either the libs play nice, or the President vetoes and nothing gets done.

Herbert M.

Herb said - "Actually, because it's split so close, the democrats have virtually no chance of getting anything through without Republican agreement."

Well, we'll see. Maybe you are right Herb. Maybe you are wrong Herb. We'll see.

I look forward to Bush vetoing common sense things like raising the minimum wage, implementing the 9/11 commission recommendations, and allowing Medicare to buy in bulk. Will be Bush be dumb enough to fall in the trap? Either he signs it, or he looks real bad, further diminishing any hope the GOP has of putting another conservative in the Oval Office.

Considering Herb is 0 for 75 in his predictions lately, I don't hold much hope anything he says will come to fruition.

"common sense things like raising the minimum wage..."

Let's see.

Employers can hire willing, eager and hard-working undocumented employees for less, or pay an ever-escalating minimum wage.

The result? Higher unemployment for those whom the left proposes to help.

This is why unions are dying.

Spin on.

Herb

Unless we actually enforce the labor laws.

"Employers can hire willing, eager and hard-working undocumented employees for less, or pay an ever-escalating minimum wage."

That would be against the law. Are you suggesting that businesses across America are lawbreakers? Not to mention, it's a leap of faith to believe that a hike in the minimum wage would result in things like more undocumented workers or higher unemployment. Oregon has one of the higher minimum wages, and our unemployment rate is looking quite fine. Putting more money in the hands of workers is supposed to stimulate the economy. Or does that excuse only apply when cutting taxes?

Either you favor a living wage, or you don't. After all, a lot of those single mothers you'd force to have babies work for minimum wage, you know.

The ultra-pro-military Murtha is certainly not a liberal, Herb. Had it ever occurred to you that when Murtha speaks, he is really speaking for his friends in the Pentagon? Is the Pentagon full of a bunch of liberals?

Democrats don't have to "play nice." While they can work with Bush to get passed things they both agree on, all the Dems have to do is pass popular initiatives like raising the minimum wage, allowing Medicare to negotiate for bulk drug discounts, and adopting the 9/11 commission recs and watch Bush veto all of them and watch the popular outcry. I think Bush is going to have to sign some of these things however.

Andrew

A republican controlled congress approved nearly all of clintons judicial nominations, why wont a demo Senate do the same for President Bush?

That's cuz Clinton's nominees were mainstream. Bush's nominees are extreme right wingers.

just a few short months ago we were all powerless LOSERS! Now we're all causing gridlock in the Bush admin. Heh.

"Unless we actually enforce the labor laws."

Too late. You guys signed off on the WTO, NAFTA and GATT. Bad moves, all of them. And unions are dying because of it.

As for the gridlock, BRING IT ON! Conservatives LOVE gridlock when it prevents the left from turning the USA into San Fransicko.

Herb

Liberals LOVE gridlock when it prevents the right from turning the USA into Iran.

There you go again.

Up is down and down is up.

Iran has no greater foe than conservative Republicans. It's the left that wants to appease them.

Nice try.

Spin on.

Herb

Iran hated Jimmy Carter more than any other president, Herb. And you hate Jimmy Carter. Guess that makes you just like Iran!

Andrew

Herb, There YOU go again. YOU want a goverment that tightly restricts its citizens, IRAN.

Spin on spinmaster, you ain't fooling no one, except the sheep you preside over.

As Mr. Reagan would say, there you go again.

Once again you are blatantly incorrect.

Iran wasn't afraid of Mr. Carter.

But Mr. Reagan terrified Iran so much, that after toying with Mr. Carter and holding our country hostage for 444 days, Iran surrendered hostaged Americans on the very day before Mr. Reagan was inaugurated.

Learn your history.

Then spin on.

Herbert Milhous

Actually, YOU should learn your history, Herb. Iran was so afraid of Reagan that they murdered hundreds of our embassy personnel and Marines in Lebanon in 1983. And what did Reagan do? He cut and ran.

How many American US embassy personnel were killed in Iran under Carter, Herb? Now, how many under Reagan? You do the math.

Andrew

Mr. Carter gave away the Panama Canal.

Mr. Carter caved in to the Soviet Union. Mr. Reagan told them to 'tear down that wall' and the Berlin Wall is history.

Mr. Carter received his advice from his pre-teen daughter Amy on dealing with nukes.

Mr. Carter had our nation held hostage for over 1 year by Iran. Mr. Reagan's mere inauguration had them released.

Mr. Carter weakened our military, just like Mr. Clinton.

Mr. Clinton is acknowledged among historians as a miserable president. He makes Gerald Ford look like George Washington.

To every season, spin, spin, spin.

Herb

So will you are admit, Herb, that Reagan got hundreds of Americans killed in Lebanon (and then cut and ran) while Carter got all of the embassy personnel out alive?

By the way, Jimmy Carter STARTED the military build-up of the 1980s and STARTED the covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan.

Andrew

There you go again.

Mr. Carter stripped our military.

Mr. Reagan DEFEATED THE SOVIET UNION.

This is an argument you can only continue to lose, and lose miserably.

Try to re-write history, but the Soviet Union is no more. East Germany is not even on a map.

The left's appeasement failed since 1917. Thank God for Mr. Reagan.

Herb

You should learn about the Iranian hostage crisis in more detail before posting misinformation about it, Herb. The hostages were being prepped to be released weeks before Reagan took office. The Iranians hated Jimmy Carter and did everything they could to humiliate him by waiting to release the hostages until he had left office. They also loved the fact that they could influence US politics. But they were all tired of holding the hostages and were ready to be rid of them by the time Reagan was sworn in.

Andrew

They may have disliked Mr. Carter, but the Iranians were very afraid of Mr. Reagan.
The Gipper was open about being far more aggressive with Iran if necessary.

From Wikipedia:

"The Iranian hostage-takers in particular reported being unsure of what Reagan would do. Iranian uncertainty about Reagan's administration may have been the main motivation behind the timing of the release of the hostages. Iranian anger at Carter's support of the Shah likely also played a part."

Herb

Herb, let me educate you a little on this and help you understand the context.

Your Wikipedia entry says the Iranians were uncertain about what Reagan would do. Remember, the Carter administration had been negotiating with Iran through Algeria to release the hostages in exchange for release of frozen Iranian assets and a few other things. Reagan and Carter had both made clear that negotiations wouldn't simply continue once Reagan took over. Both men wanted the hostage crisis ended; Carter for obvious reasons, Reagan for not wanting the crisis to linger into his own presidency.

Try reading the book "Guests of the Ayatollah" by Mark Bowden. According to Bowden (p. 575): "Carter and Reagan, perhaps intentionally, were working a a classic good cop/bad cop routine. Reagan's words made the powers in Iran think hard about blowing the remaining weeks they had to make a deal with the very reasonable Jimmy Carter."

And, of the release of the hostages as Reagan was about to take over, (p. 577) "The Iranians were deliberately stalling. They had agreed to accept the deal and to send the hostages home, but they had also decided to deny Carter the satisfaction of seeing it happen on his watch."

So the Iranians knew they would get a certain deal from Carter, didn't know what Reagan would do, but didn't want Carter to get the credit for their release. It had nothing to do with the Iranians fearing Reagan more than Carter, as they proved by instigating the murder of hundreds of Americans in Lebanon in 1983.

Andrew

If you have issues with Wikipedia, take it up with them.

Personally, I've found Wikipedia to be a little pink around the gills. If even they concede Iran was afraid of Mr. Reagan, then it's likely the real deal.

Herbert Milhous

But they didn't concede Iran was afraid of Reagan - you made that up. Re-read the quote:

The Iranian hostage-takers in particular reported being unsure of what Reagan would do. Iranian uncertainty about Reagan's administration may have been the main motivation behind the timing of the release of the hostages. Iranian anger at Carter's support of the Shah likely also played a part.

Uncertainty didn't mean they were afraid of Reagan, as I have pointed out above. They were simply unsure of what kind of deal Reagan would offer vs. what Carter was offering.

Andrew

If they weren't afraid, why release the hostages after 444 days.

Herb

Try reading "Guests of the Ayatollah" by Mark Bowden and it should make a lot more sense to you, Herb. The takeover of the American embassy was wildly popular in revoluationary Iran. It was a key event in bringing the Islamic theocracy into control of the government. It was also widely believed that the embassy had been plotting to overthrow the new government and bring back the Shah, that the embassy was a "den of spies."

But after a while, even the Iranians realized that holding the hostages had outlived its usefulness. Saddam Hussein had started a war with them and they were deperate for money and military hardware, and continuing to hold the hostages complicated Iran's engagement with the international community and kept frozen billions in assets in the US. Yet they hated Jimmy Carter and relished humiliating him and denying him the "victory" of seeing the hostages returned during his presidency. It had nothing to do with being afraid of Reagan, as they proved when Iranian-controlled terrorists murdered hundreds of Americans in Beirut in 1983.

Andrew

Revisionist history is popular with Herb.

Revisionist history?

Your pal Mr. Carter now ranks LOWER than Mr. Nixon in several independent history polls ranking the Presidents.

Herbert Milhous

That was 30 years ago.

If you are going to play that game, why not just cut to the chase and blame Eve?

Herb is still stuck in the 70's.

Your time has passed and your ideas are outdated, pal.

What's an " independant history poll " ? Apparently there are several.

I don't doubt that they exist. I just have never heard of that before.

OK, Herb, let's see the polls. I don't think Carter has a lot of admirers of his time as president but at least he didn't pay hush money to burglars, obstruct justice, and resign in disgrace. The one author I have read who seems to have given him the most credit would be Robert Gates, nominee for SecDef.

There's nothing revisionist in saying that Jimmy Carter got all the hostages home alive from Iran but Ronald Reagan got hundreds of Americans killed in Beirut at the hands of Iranian-backed terrorists. That's just the FACTS that you happen not to like.

Andrew

In July 1980, Carter received a favorable rating of only 21% in the Gallup Poll.

That was the lowest rating any president, including Richard Nixon at the time of his resignation, received since polling began in 1936.

CITATION please regarding your comment that, "Carter now ranks LOWER than Mr. Nixon in several independent history polls ranking the Presidents." Which poll? Just name one along with its source.

Andrew

In July 1980, Carter received a favorable rating of only 21% in the GALLUP POLL.

That was the lowest rating any president, including RICHARD NIXON at the time of his resignation, received since polling began in 1936.

So in other words, your earlier comment that, "Carter now ranks LOWER than Mr. Nixon in several independent history polls ranking the Presidents" was pure bullshit yet you refuse to admit it, Herb? What's wrong with just admitting you were wrong?

Andrew

In February and March 2005, the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal asked an ideologically balanced group of 130 prominent professors of history, law, political science and economics to rate the presidents on a 5-point scale, with 5 meaning highly superior and 1 meaning well below average. Eighty-five scholars responded, and the presidents are ranked in order of mean score, adjusted to give equal weight to Democratic- and Republican-leaning respondents.

RANK NAME MEAN
GREAT
1 George Washington 4.94
2 Abraham Lincoln 4.67
3 Franklin Roosevelt 4.41
NEAR GREAT
4 Thomas Jefferson 4.23
5 Theodore Roosevelt 4.08
6 Ronald Reagan 4.03
7 Harry Truman 3.95
8 Dwight Eisenhower 3.67
9 James Polk 3.59
10 Andrew Jackson 3.58
ABOVE AVERAGE
11 Woodrow Wilson 3.41
12 Grover Cleveland 3.34
13 John Adams 3.33
14 William McKinley 3.32
15 John Kennedy 3.25
16 James Monroe 3.24
AVERAGE
17 James Madison 3.07
18 Lyndon Johnson 3.05
19 George W. Bush 3.01
20 William Taft 2.97
21 George H.W. Bush 2.95
22 Bill Clinton 2.93
23 Calvin Coolidge 2.77
24 Rutherford Hayes 2.73
BELOW AVERAGE
25 John Quincy Adams 2.66
26 Chester Arthur 2.65
27 Martin Van Buren 2.63
28 Gerald Ford 2.61
29 Ulysses Grant 2.57
30 Benjamin Harrison 2.54
31 Herbert Hoover 2.50
32 RICHARD NIXON 2.40
33 Zachary Taylor 2.30
34 JIMMY CARTER 2.24
35 John Tyler 2.23
FAILURE
36 Millard Fillmore 1.85
37 Andrew Johnson 1.75
38 Franklin Pierce 1.73
39 Warren Harding 1.65
40 James Buchanan 1.31

Read it and weep, lefties.

Herbert Milhous

Asking the ultra-right-wing Federalist Society and the Wall Street Journal to conduct an "unbiased poll" is like asking Air America to conduct an "unbiased poll" and then act surprised that Ronald Reagan isn't in the top ten, Herb. To be honest, I'm rather surprised this right-wing poll rates Jimmy Carter as high as they do.

How about an unbiased poll? If Air America ever does conduct such a poll, I will be sure to post the results here and then claim it's an unbiased poll too, just for you, Herb!!!

Andrew

If you want something with a little more balance, see here, Herb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_United_States_Presidents

Your right-wing poll isn't listed there, but a number of others are. While Carter is not surprisingly ranked lowly in most of the polls, he is consistently rated higher than Nixon.

Andrew

You guys like Wikipedia when it fits YOUR agenda.

But whenever anyone else uses it, it's not authoritative enough for you.

Once again, your inconsistencies are glaring.

Spin on.

Herbert M. Nixon

I wonder where the current Resident would rank in March 2007?

"adjusted to give equal weight to Democratic- and Republican-leaning respondents."

Spelling out exactly how they did this would be nice.

I agreed completely with your Wikipedia quote regarding the release of the Iranian hostages. Wikipedia is correct that the Iranians were uncertain about what Reagan would do in negotiating with them vs. what Carter was offering. You are the one who is wrong in interpreting that to say the Iranians were afraid of Reagan so released the hostages out of fear that he would crush them or something. Nothing I have read about the hostage crisis supports that, except for the wishful thinking of certain right-wingers like yourself.

Andrew

I guess it might be plausible Andrew ... Carter followed a rather long lineage of trying to "appease" the cold war, not nearly as successful as Nixon as Carter and Brezhnev had a rocky relationship while Brezhnev and Nixon got along famously ... as opposed to Reagan, who came out blasting the Soviets as the "Evil Empire" and flat out said, "We're not going to appease the Cold War, we are going to WIN the Cold War." He spoke of a massive military buildup and how he was not afraid to use it.

The Ayatollah might not have been the most rational guy around by any stretch, but he knew that provoking an attack from the United States at that time would have more or less been suicide. Chances are Reagan wouldn't have botched the attempt to rescue the hostages like Carter did.

Brianl, try reading "Guests of the Ayatollah" and then get back to me before making such statements about the rescue attempt. It was a long shot from the start with 1970s technology, but it was put together but a bunch of gung-ho commando types, notably Col. Charles Beckwith, who formed the first Delta Force in the late 70s. It took months and months of preparation before the force was ready even to attempt the rescue. Carter had absolutely nothing to do with its failure - Beckwith himself called it off, and it failed when a helicopter crashed into a C-130 transport plane full of fuel as they were getting ready to abort the whole mission. Even had the rescue mission made it to Tehran, it was kind of a long shot anyway and may well have resulted in a number of the hostages being killed.

I find it amazing that people think Reagan was some kind of tough military guy even though he served in HOLLYWOOD during World War II, foolishly deployed the Marines in Beirut in 1983 where Iranian-backed terrorists blew up the barracks and killed over 200 of them, then immediately cut and ran out of Lebanon, and negotiated with Iran kidnappers in Lebanon in the mid-80s after he saw their stories on TV (even though he promised in 1980 never to negotiate with terrorists!). But Carter, a veteran of the US Navy who started the US covert aid program to Afghan rebels and started the 1980s defense buildup is depicted as some sort of peacnik weakling. Just goes to show you how amazing Michael Deaver's PR machine worked!!!

Andrew

Herb...
Nixon CUT AND RUN.....
Nixon was a pussy and couldn't take the pressure....
Nixon is the idol of Pinko COMMIES and Presidents that did backdoor dirty deals and let so many others take the fall. Sounds a little like Reagan who might go down as the most corrupt Prez ever besides DUHbya.........
OUCH!

Reagan has admitted to some major boo-boos. We'll just have to see about "W".

I admit, I rather have Nixon in office right now knowing that he's a crook, than to have Bush, knowing he's inept. At least half the time Nixon will get things right, and when he attempts thuggery, we know Nixon isn't sophisocated enough to avoid getting caught. Bush, on the other hand, has the kind of thugs surrounding him that Tony Soprano would admire.

"Nixon is the idol of Pinko COMMIES"

Please get informed.

Mr. Nixon is one of the giants among anti-communists, clear back to his prosecution of Alger Hiss when Mr. Nixon was a congressman fresh out of law school.

Mr. Nixon valiantly fought the communists in the democrat Vietnam War with his orders for the Tet Offensive and mining the harbors at Hai Phong.

Mr. Nixon stood toe-to-toe against the former Soviet Union and did not back down, unlike democrat Mr. Kennedy, with the Bay of Pigs fiasco.

You lose credibility when you mis-speak, as Mr. Nixon used to call it.

Herb

Let me understand this, Herb: you believe Nixon ordered the Tet Offensive???

Andrew

Unlike Mr. Clinton, I'm not that great at parsing. Like Mr. Nixon, I misspoke: Make that 'orders to fight against the Tet offensive,' and allow me to cite the Wikipedia:

The Tet Offensive can be considered a military defeat for the Communist forces, as neither the Viet Cong nor the North Vietnamese army achieved their tactical goals. Furthermore, the operational cost of the offensive was dangerously high, with the Viet Cong essentially crippled by the huge losses inflicted by South Vietnamese and other Allied forces.

Herbert M. Popeil

Nixon was president 30+ years ago, is dead, and was forced to RESIGN IN DISGRACE.

Rather than debate things from decades ago, let's talk about today.

You realize that the Tet Offensive happened a year before Nixon took office, right? Better go check Wikipedia again...

Andrew

Dear Mr. MISinformed Herb.....

You lose credibility when you speak.

Desert One failed, because of the idiotic command structure, imposede by Carter, he insisted on running the operation from the whitehouse.

If Col Beckworth had been the overall commander, and had been able to ensure Army Special Ops were in charge of the mission, there wouldnt have been a helicopter/c130 crash.

And the mission would have had a fair chance to succeed.

Nwokie wrote,
Desert One failed, because of the idiotic command structure, imposede by Carter, he insisted on running the operation from the whitehouse.

Total, utter bullshit, disputed by the people who were on the mission. It's simply part of the "Carter was an inept weakling" mythology the right wing has tried to spread since 1980.

There were few helicopters at that point capable of handling the mission requirements, and they didn't count on them flying into stand storms, which blinded or disabled a few of them. Because they didn't have six working choppers (out of eight they started with), as required by the mission planning, Beckworth himself aborted the mission. That's when the crash occurred, as they were aborting.

And the mission would have had a fair chance to succeed.

Not really. It was a long shot, but at that point in the hostage crisis, every avenue for releasing the hostages had turned out to be nothing, and Carter's patience was shot and there was growing pressure from all circles for a military response of some sort. But the mission had been in the planning since just after the hostages were taken.

Andrew

No response, Herb? How about admitting for once that you were simply wrong?

The Tet Offensive, FYI, was perhaps the pivitol event of the American Vietnam War. Although like pretty much every enagement of the war it ended in American military "victory," it was a great American defeat becauses it shattered the lies the Johnson Administration had been telling for years about how great the war was supposedly going. After this, Walter Cronkite famously said that he didn't think the war was winnable anymore, and LBJ used that as one rationale not to run for re-election in 1968.

Andrew

I mispoke. Mea culpa.

Now how about admitting that democrats got us into Vietnam in the first place?

I won't hold my breath.

You sure are good at dishing it out. However, you're the one who seems to have a hard time taking your own medicine.

Spin on.

Herb

Thanks for admitting a mistake; you usually don't and just move on. I've been wrong more than once but I admit it readily when I am wrong.

Herb, did you miss the part above where I said the Johnson Administration lied to the American people for three years? Gee, sure sounds like I'm blaming the Republicans, doesn't it?

I hold LBJ primary responsible for getting us into the mess in Vietnam, even though JFK and Eisenhower certainly helped get us there. Eisnehower for his part was a staunch advocate of military action in Vietnam while LBJ was president. It's not like Eisenhower had nothing to do with it.

Now will you admit that George W. Bush is primary responsible for the catastrophe he got us into in Iraq? Bush's father certainly bares some responsibility for it (Reagan too) in the same way Eisenhower does for Vietnam - but it's George W. who made the ultimate decision. Unfortunately, as there was with LBJ and Vietnam, there's no accountability for these kinds of monmumental blunders and Bush will certainly not be punished in any way beyond being remembered by history as perhaps history's worst president. LBJ should be close to him in ranking.

Maybe we should amend the constitution to prevent any Texan from ever being allowed to get American into another war???

You can see one stark difference between the Democrats and the Republicans when comparing LBJ's Vietnam to GW Bush's Iraq: when the Democrats realized what a catastrophe LBJ had gotten us into, they rebelled against him and in effect forced him not to run for re-election in 1968. Republicans refused to admit (until losing this last election, at least) how wrong their leader had been, long after it was obvious to everyone else.

Andrew

The Senate voted for the Iraq war.

That includes PLENTY of liberals.

We used the same Intel that the English, French and other NATO allies had.

The other alternative was to take a chance and fry.

Maybe pacifist lefties are ok with that. Most of us aren't.

Armchair quarterback all you want. A murderous thug is gone and millions are no longer under his reign of terror.

Herbert Milhous

From Herb:
The Senate voted for the Iraq war.

That includes PLENTY of liberals.


Uh, yeah because the intel was a bunch of bullshit. Where's the weapons of mass destruction Herb?

The Senate did not vote for the war Bush launched, they voted for giving Bush the authority to use force. A NO vote on authority to use force against Iraq if they didn't allow UN inspectors in, etc. would have been a disaster for American foreign policy. Then Saddam would have felt free to ignore America pretty much entirely.

Bush promised he would get a real coalition of nations and get a 2nd UN resolution before going into Iraq, neither of which he did. I suspect the Senate resolution would have failed if Bush had said at the time he wouldn't do these two things.

Andrew

"Uh, yeah because the intel..."

Don't blame the president for bad intel.

Otherwise, the same can be laid at the feet of Mr. Clinton, and I'm not talking about an intern.

Herb

Clinton didn't take America to war against Iraq. And there is evidence that Bush and Cheney did not WANT any "intel" that was contrary to what they already believed. Instead, they merely wanted selected intelligence that backed up their decided-upon point of view.

On the contrary, opposing points of view were generally shut out of the Bush administration in the lead up to the March 2003 Iraq invasion. That's the biggest reason we are in the mess we are in now. Clinton would have considered all points of view before taking such a drastic step as invading Iraq and realized before actually going in that the intelligence was shaky at best. Unfortunately for all of us, Bush is not an intellectually-curious kind of guy.

Andrew

This is what happens when you have a narrow minded ideology guiding you.

"Bush is not an intellectually-curious kind of guy."

Using the words Bush and intellect in the same sentence is blasphemy.

Seriously, dude is as sharp as a bowling ball.

"And there is evidence that Bush and Cheney did not WANT any "intel" that was contrary to what they already believed."

Evidence?

Prove it.

It's a fair question, Herb. I have read in numerous places about how Bush and Cheney created a climate of intimidation toward dissenting opinions in the months leading up to the Iraq invasion, how there was really no debate about whether there were WMD or not - all the energy went into how to "sell" the war with the right intelligence. The reports come from people who were there. Do I have their names in front of me? No. Next time I revisit this topic in written form I'll supply you with some specifics. But if you were intellectually curious, you might look into this yourself. The people saying it are not all left-wing liberal looneys, by the way, so it might be tough reading for you.

Andrew

"But if you were intellectually curious, you might look into this yourself."

Those are precisely my thoughts for the left when it comes to other topics, like the right to life and the Bible.

Those are big and important issues, too. Life and death. Yet too often, they are dismissively waved off by those on the left side of the aisle. It's especially ironic, as liberals typically consider themselves smarter than the rest of us. One can be smart, yet still not wise.

Herb

If you rely on the bible, you're neither smart nor wise.

"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" 2 Timothy 3:16-17

"The fool says in his heart, 'There is no God." Psalm 14:1

"The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom" Proverbs 1:7

The number of former atheists whose lives were transformed through Christ are legion.

It's a free country. When one dismisses God's Word, that's between them and God.

Herb

Good for you for reading the Bible, Herb. It is of little interest to me, beyond its obvious value as a historial document that has had so much influence over the centuries. And there are plenty of former believers who have since become atheists or at least non-Christians.

Andrew

Are those quotes supposed to shame me, or put me in fear of believing your crap or else?

Do you have a more accurate truth than I?

Isn't the Bible a book? A FAIRY tale??? Bastardized by man and twisted into what they want it to mean?
Thanks for all your passages Herb and Wayner but when it's time for judgement you could likely GOT TO HELL just like everyone else. YOUR BOTH SINNERS! Are you not??? You are human right??? SINNERS!
Buh bye now!

The Bible is the Word of God, Trix. Whether or not you want to believe doesn't change that. And if Strech Polosi wants to pick some activist liberal judge who wants to legislate from the bench she will have to face a fillibuster and a veto.

Like Herb said "The fool in his heart says there is no God." Psalm 14:1

The real fool is the one who believes in something he can't prove.

You can believe in your own smarts.

I'll go with the Big Guy, who created you, me and the universe, too.

Herb

Author: Reinstatepete
Tuesday, November 21, 2006 - 7:28 pm


The real fool is the one who believes in something he can't prove

--------
the real fool is someone who believes only in what he can prove.

Which "Big Guy?" Yours or Chris Taylor's? Is Chris going to Hell because he doesn't subscribe to (apparently anything like) Herb's interpretation of the Bible? (of course, if Chris Taylor goes to Hell, I will probably spend eternity at a Radio Shack asking people for their mailing address whenever they want to buy a 9V battery...)

Andrew

I think he means God, the same Guy that Herb, me and Chris believe in. And there is room enough in Heaven for all of us.

WW said>>>
The Bible is the Word of God, Trix.

Twisted by man for HUNDREDS of years. Who's to say that what your reading hasn't been RE-writen over 300 times??? TWISTED the Bible is....

Yes siree! A lobotomy would be of NO HELP here! Ha ha ha!

"I'll go with the Big Guy, who created you, me and the universe, too."

Again, prove to me the "big guy" created us all. You are free to believe what you want, but at least acknowledge that everything you believe in can never be proven.

You wouldn't believe any proof we offer you. If God sat in the room across from you you wouldn't believe. "Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up."

Wayne keeps saying - "Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up."

What does that mean? You keep saying that. What does it mean? I could tell you how it reads - but I'd rather hear it from you; What does that mean to you when you say it?

If God sat in the room across from you you wouldn't believe.

If that actually happened Wayner YOU WOULD BE DEAD.....

"You wouldn't believe any proof we offer you."

Try me. But like I said, you can't come up with any proof. None!!

"Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up."

That's the slogan of the ignorant.

That's the slogan of the neo-CONer wing of the Republican party.
Turdblossom (Rove) and DUHbya live by that everyday....

Ahhhhrrrrgggghhh!

Fucking circular bullshit!

Good grief.

Until we can put god on the stand to testify as to just what exactly he wants us to do, it's all conjecture, opinion, wanting and hoping!

Let's talk about a coupla cold hard facts:

-we all live for a time, then die

-nobody has any concrete evidence of there being a god whatsoever! Nothing, but essentially, "Bob seen him." This is as good as "Jane saw Elvis at the Burger King."

It's faith people! Nothing wrong with it, but it's faith, not truth of any kind. You can want it to be the truth, convince others to share your belief it's the truth, live as if it's the truth, but it's not a known truth!

This means all of these threats:

-you are going to hell
-we are all born sinners
-would you want to risk eternal damnation?

Are all just a bunch of booga, booga, ignorant chest thumping, "somebody is gonna teach you a lesson someday", bullshit dogma.

You do religion far more harm than good with this crap. It's the NUMBER ONE FUCKING REASON WHY I NO LONGER BELIEVE ANY OF IT.

People like you, Herb and Wayne, are the root cause of it all for me. THERE IS NO GOD AND YOU TWO HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT REINFORCE THAT TO A DEGREE I DID NOT THINK WAS ACTUALLY POSSIBLE.

Happy turkey everybody.

Take some time to be thankful. I don't care what it is, but just go and do it with people you love and enjoy.

I'm thankful I was born with a clear mind and soul. Thankful for a wife who loves me and kids who are turning out to be wonderful people.

I'm thankful that we have reason in this heated time of selfishness and forced morality.

I'm really thankful I was born in a nation where reason rules the day. We have our problems, but in the end, I take comfort and joy in the reality that not all of us suck. The rule of law combined with the shared judgment of our peers continues to work as the most effective dogma filter ever created.

Pack the courts all you want, it does not change the facts. And the fact is, until you can put the word of god into a court room in such a way that it can be used to support an argument, all of this crap is just that. Crap.

And that brings me to being extremely thankful that I can live my live how I want to a very high degree.

You "get the word out or else", holy roller mother fuckers can all suck it.

I'm thankful for that too. With the dogma comes profound ignorance, thus the complete and total inability to prevail over reason in the end.

You lose, go snooze. Read some Paine, go to church, cry hard over the mess you've made.

Awesome!!!! I love a good rant.

Author: Reinstatepete
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 11:40 am


"You wouldn't believe any proof we offer you."

Try me. But like I said, you can't come up with any proof. None!!

"Don't confuse me with facts my mind is made up."

That's the slogan of the ignorant.

------
Its a waste of time trying to prove anything to you since your mind is made up.The faith has to come first and the evidence second. I am afraid you have it backwards.

Author: Trixter
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 11:34 am


If God sat in the room across from you you wouldn't believe.

If that actually happened Wayner YOU WOULD BE DEAD.....

----------
What makes you so sure thats the case? I thought you didn't believe in God.

Just tell us some of YOUR evidence??? If it's supported by science then it isn't proof....

"The faith has to come first and the evidence second."

Sorry, but I work on an evidence first, faith second, basis.

Its never going to happen. Pete. Not unless you believe first. You have the cart before the horse.

Wayner insaner....
Who said I didn't BELIEVE???
YOU???
YOUR ignorance is unbelieveable!

Believe it.

"And that brings me to being extremely thankful that I can live my live how I want to a very high degree."

For which you can thank our God-fearing Founding Fathers: "For we are endowed by our CREATOR, certain inalienable rights..."

Sound familiar?

You can try to rewrite history. It doesn't change the facts.

Spin on.

Herb

P.S. Happy Thanksgiving

Happy Thangsgiving. I am glad we have at least one holiday for that purpose.

Author: Trixter
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 2:03 pm


Wayner insaner....
Who said I didn't BELIEVE???
YOU???
YOUR ignorance is unbelieveable!

-------
I don't see any evidence that you believe. Calling someone ignorant is not a sign of belief.

So the founders know something we don't? Spare me!!

And whether I believe anything now will have no bearing on what happens afterward. You guys are simply paranoid and delusional.

How we were created, why we're here, and what happens when we die will NEVER be known by any living man. You are free to believe what you want, but to tell anyone else is "The Truth" is an outright lie and something that has a 0.00% chance of ever being proven. I'd like to see at least 0.01% before I'm on board.

The only "Truth" you believe in Pete is whatever you agree with and that goes with Trix too.

Happy turkey Herb.

That's a lie, just as reinstate called it to be.

Our founders held their beliefs, but they lived by the rule of law. They wrote the laws to craft a free society where they could all live their lives and hold their beliefs dear, whatever they were.

They backed that law with reason and their own sweat and blood. That's where our freedom comes from, not God, not the Bible, not Jesus.

Believe all you want. It's a good thing and I personally encourage it. Think hard, explore the world, consider the views of others and be better for all of that.

But lie and it is all undone. Your dogma is exposed for what it is, leaving your agenda of hate and morality bare for all to see clearly.

Who, what or how we were created is not among the body of information we call facts. To say otherwise is a lie. There is no excuse for this, other than willfull ignorance aimed at advancing your self serving agenda. No excuse Herb.

You are smart enough to know better Herb. It's an insult to those of us willing to work hard to bring facts to the table.

I don't know if there is a god or not. I do know I believe there isn't. You believe there is, along with a lotta other people.

The difference between us is not our belief, but our willingness to deal with facts and reality in our dealings with others.

There is is, as you would say, I'm telling you straight and to the point.

Wish I could get the same from you in return.

You get plenty of that from us. The problem is you want everyone in the whole world to blindly agree with you and you can't accept the fact that it won't happen. I wish you and the rest of the liberals would practice the tolerance that you love to preach

Happy thanksgiving.

"They backed that law with reason and their own sweat and blood. That's where our freedom comes from, not God...."

Wrong.

Again:

FOR WE ARE ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR certain inalienable rights.

You can twist. You can even lie, if you want. It doesn't change the facts.

Herb

Unless you've got some solid proof that god exists and that he created us, my post remains true, and yours misleading.

Our founders belief in god and their belief that he wanted us free was still backed by law, blood, sweat and sacrifice.

Right now here today, we have no proof of a creator period. Not a known truth; therefore, the founders efforts are our source of freedom.

This is not to say it's not ok to believe it. Go ahead. No harm, it's all good. I believe many of our founders did and found strength in that. Perhaps without the idea of god, they might not have had the success they did.

But I don't owe my freedom to something not known to exist. Nobody does. That's what our law, backed by our strength in numbers brings us.

These things do not justify any of the crap posted on the matter of legislating morality posted to date.

You need to have faith that God exists first, MK. The proof has to come after the faith, not vice versa. Thats the way truth works.

"They backed that law with reason and their own sweat and blood. That's where our freedom comes from, not God...."

If you think we should believe your interpretation of the founding fathers, and not the words of people like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson themselves, you won't get many takers.

Herb

I'm thankful you are in the minority. I'm thankful America has shown itself to be composed of rational people, not willing to let fear cloud reason, ethics and integrety.

These are things you two fools lack big time.

The only success you have here is to diminish other views and get one hell of a batch of attention.

I can support nearly every word I've ever written here with facts and known truths. You two, whip out the bible and just keep thumping until it drives everything away.

Thump, thump you stupid fuckers.

Thump, thump, thump....

At least I paid attention in school. From the looks of things, you guys just went to church, swallowed that whole and never looked back!

I went to church and I am glad I did.

Herb writes: "FOR WE ARE ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR certain inalienable rights. "

Last I looked it's written "by their creator"

I know...ticky tacky, but does change the meaning a bit.

I still go to church and bring my world view with me.

My preacher dad has a saying that "all pastors need to have a Bible under one arm and the newspaper under the other when they go to work."

Meaning- know your bible but know what's really going on in the world and your local community. The more you know of what's really going on the more impact as a pastor you can have on your congregation and community.

thump, thump, thump . . . that's the plan, drive everybody away . . . thump, thump, thump . . .


God is REALLY impressed with the trolls in this forum. There is a special place in Heaven in the front row for thumpers who create chaos in an orderly independently thinking society.


thump. thump, thump . . .

Author: Chris_taylor
Wednesday, November 22, 2006 - 11:07 pm


Herb writes: "FOR WE ARE ENDOWED BY OUR CREATOR certain inalienable rights. "

Last I looked it's written "by their creator"

I know...ticky tacky, but does change the meaning a bit.

-----
Not that much, Chris, but Creator is spelled with a capitol C and not a small one and that would imply the God of the Bible.

sk:I am sure that God is impressed with such hypocrites that accuse us of trolling when all they do is pick a fight. Jesus had quite a bit to say about hypocricy.

thump thump thump . . .

"I'm thankful America has shown itself to be composed of rational people, not willing to let fear cloud reason, ethics and integrety [sic]..."

In other words, the founding fathers are ok, but those who believe what they wrote are not.

Lunacy.

Throughout the founder's documents are strident references to God. You want to re-write history. As Mrs. Clinton would say, "Not so fast."

Now I get a glimpse of why Michael Savage says liberalism is a mental disorder.

If you're going to mock those who believe the words written by the founding fathers, then at least be intellectually honest enough to take on the writers themselves.

Last time I checked, the vast majority of Americans believe in God as well. Most Americans disagree with your disbelief.

Herb

I'm pretty annoyed, but Chris I want you to know, not one word you have written is unwelcome.

Happy Turkey everybody

"I'm pretty annoyed..."

You're hardly the only frustrated one. If anything I've written is wrong, you're more than welcome to set me straight.

Herb

So let me get this straight. What Herb is arguing is that because the founders wrote about a creator, that means it's true? That's your case?

"you're more than welcome to set me straight. "

Been there done that. Might as well be talking to a rock. I sure as hell are not talking to an American.

I think Herb and I feel like we are talking to rocks.

thump, thump, thump . . .

You must have a bad headache.

WW said>>>
I think Herb and I feel like we are talking to rocks.

Now you know what the rest of us have felt like for months!

I guess what my mother said is really true isn't it Trix: Don't confuse my mind with facts my mind is made up.

So facts mean shit to you is what your saying....
OUCH!
Ignorance is bliss....
Your mom was even as ignorant as you.... Says a lot...

Facts mean spin to you Trix. You aren't interested in facts you don't agree with. My mom is right.

What is your Mom right about?

Wayne, here's a clue for you; When your Mom says " Don't confuse me with facts when my mind is made up." She is saying " I have made up my mind. Any fatcs you present after I have made up my mind, mean nothing to me. I am stubborn and unwilling to change my mind for any reason."

THAT'S what that retarded quote of your Mom means. It means that it's OK to be stubborn and closed minded.

We don't like you for that reason.

And your mom failed you for raising you that way.

but you and the other libs are constantly proving my mother to be right., We can't use any facts to prove our point. I think your problem is that you are too stubborn and closed minded that you hate anything we stand for and thats too bad.

thump thump thump & pooping.

"I think your problem is that you are too stubborn and closed minded that you hate anything we stand for and thats too bad."

Wayne, I HAVE FAITH TOO!

There. I just disproved your point.

I went to Bible college for years. Pastoral studies. Love what I learned. I sin. Hated the man-made stuff that was imposed on me. Disagreed with it. And as it turns out, I was proven right to have questioned it. It was flawed. But I got a great education.

So there. Now you know. I have faith too. So you can't use that effectively against me.

What's your next point?

I have a question for you that you probably won't answer; Have you ever been asked to leave a church?

No I never have. Why do you ask.

Because your ignorant!
That's why....

You are so ignorant you think there is more than one Bible!