From the New York Post:

"So why does the Democratic Party hate...[Ralph Nader]...so much?

The answer, as this valuable (if blatantly pro-Nader) documentary makes clear, is hypocrisy. Nader reminds Democrats (some of the snarlier ones, like journos Eric Alterman and Todd Gitlin, pop up here with mouths fully afoam) of all the ideals they've tossed under the wheels of their campaign bus. They would rather have a replay of the Clinton-Gore administration - one that did nothing about global warming and whose sole lasting accomplishments were the signing of the Republicans' NAFTA and welfare bills - than fight for their beliefs."

To view the entire article:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01312007/entertainment/movies/dems_liberal_demon_mov ies_kyle_smith.htm

Democrats treat Mr. Nader just like Mr. Lieberman: shabbily.

Herb

We cannot afford Ralph Nader. He and Lieberman both deserve the crap they get.

Both are divisive, both need to shut up and go home as neither of them represent the longer term interests of this country, in that they have difficulty differentiating that from their own longer term interests.

Coming to Cinema 21 for one week, March 2-8!

http://www.cinema21.com/#anunreasonableman

I saw the trailer for it last night while seeing "Pan's Labyrinth" (an amazing film FYI) and the Nader film looked quite good - I'll see it for sure.

Andrew

Run Ralph, Run!

Herb

It might turn out good for the majority of Americans though. Check this out! The Republican votes for Libby candidates essentially helped the Dems win control of congress and a majority of Governorships.

I think I'm with 'ya Herb. Run Ralph Run!

From Kos:

One of the under-reported factors for the Democratic victories in 2006 was the spoiler effect that the Libertarian Party played. Here are races in which the Libertarian vote was larger than the Democratic margin of victory:

Missouri Senate

McCaskill (D) 1,047,049 50
Talent (R) 1,001,238 47
Gilmour (L) 47,504 2

Montana Senate

Tester (D) 198,302 49
Burns (R) 195,455 48
Jones (L) 10,324 3

That's control of the Senate right there. And in the House there was at least one race in which Libertarians helped deliver a seat to Democrats:

IN-09

Hill (D) 110,185 50
Sodrel (R) 100,503 46
Schansberg (L) 9,920 4

In several other contests, the Libertarians helped give us tight, tight, tight races:

CA-04

Doolittle (R) 104,746 49
Brown (D) 97,217 46
Warren (L) 10,668 5

CT-04

Shays (R) 106,558 51
Farrell (D) 99,913 48
Maymin (L) 2,998 1

NJ-07

Ferguson (R) 95,830 49
Stender (D) 92,591 48
Abrams (I) 3,064 2
Young (L) 1,989 1

NV-03

Porter (R) 102,176 48
Hafen (D) 98,210 47
Hansen (I) 5,326 3
Silvestri (L) 5,155 2

WY-AL

Cubin (R) 93,336 48
Trauner (D) 92,324 48
Rankin (L) 7,481 4

The theocon and neocon takeover of the Republican Party has left many of its more Libertarian members adrift with few alternatives. I clearly hope the Democratic Party becomes more Libertarian friendly over the coming years, but that's a long-term project. In the meantime, the Libertarian ballot line (when available) can be an apt protest vote.

It can be argued that 58,000 Libertarian voters handed control of the Senate to Democrats, just as 97, 421 Greens in Florida in 2000 handed control of the White House to George Bush.

While Republicans try to fund Green candidates in races around the country, it looks like they have their own serious third party problem.

Herb, this is what you get when your party focuses too much on extreme views. The majority of level headed Americans end up not identifying with the party well enough to win elections.

This is exactly what happened to the GOP this last election. I'm personally hoping they've not yet learned their lesson, thus granting control to those who have.

I'm not so sure I agree that the Libertarian candidates gave the Democrats control of congress in 2006. You'll find that these third parties (both left and right) always get a small number of votes. I'll bet it wasn't significantly more in 2006 than in other recent elections.

The Ralph Nader effect was very different, because there was someone with a reputation who appealed to many liberal voters in 2000 who might otherwise have voted for Gore - and obviously, he didn't need to take many liberal votes away from Gore to give Bush the election.

Andrew

Whenever parties pull too far to the fringe of the political spectrum, they leave a opening for the other major party to exploit, or for a third party to get a better foothold. Traditionally, Dems and the GOP have consolidated around the center of the spectrum, with a lot of overlap. If you think of the spectrum as a bell curve, the D's and R's collectively held 80% of the middle ground, leaving the fringe 20% to be battled over by third parties, mostly as protest or principle voters.

Starting with the sales pitch of "compassionate conservatism" the R's have worked to broaden their footprint on the spectrum. They were unable to make much of an inroad to the left as they hit the "wall" of D's, so they spread right, attempting to hold onto their center while adding in the fringe right and trying to capture that 10% right fringe that would make the difference in elections. And it worked in '00, '02, and '04.

But now the R's in the middle are looking around their party and seeing who is in the tent. The traditional R's are now saying, "Who are those neocons on the far right? What do they really stand for? Do Republican beliefs include *their* beliefs too?" And they are not happy. Some are now jumping to the Democratic party. Some more hard-core R's cannot stand the thought of voting D, so they have to find an alternative. The Libertarian party has traditionally sat just to the right of the Republicans, but the center of the Republican party has shifted so far right that now the Libertarians are now more in sync with the average or left-of-average Republican. For those R's that are fed up with current neocon policies, the Libertarian party has become a viable choice.

It really tells you how far right Republicans have swung when a Libertarian candidate can be seen as more mainstream.

As for the Green party - they got a high profile, possibly viable candidate in Ralph Nader, and because of him people

I admire Mr. Nader because he's a true believer with a lot of heart.

Of all the politicos from all parties, he's probably the least hypocritical.

Herb

Rolling Stone did a decent write up on why Al Gore should run again.

I'm not 100% convinced - but it gave me some thought. And that's never a bad thing.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/13248532/why_gore_should_run__and_how _he_can_win

I think he should run.

The people can then decide to check the unjust Supreme Court ruling they made in Gore -v- Bush. Of course that's just me.

Setting that aside, I think he's grown in ways that add a lot of value to his experience in general. The heated history might make this all difficult, but maybe it's been long enough to consider who Gore is today.

IMHO, he's solid, smart and has had a chance to take a breather and reassess things in a way that currently engaged politicans are not. This really appeals to me.

Chickenjuggler, thanks for putting up that link to the Rolling Stone article. Interesting stuff.

I dont know about demos, but I hate Ralph for killing the Corvair.

I liked my corvair.

That's one of the coolest car names ever!

I read the same Gore article just hours ago.

Mr. Gore, will you please run for president?

Unjust ruling, the Supreme court simply ruled that Florida had to follow their ownlaws.

Who the demos should be mad at, are the democratic county commissioners that designed ballots.

I'm just not seeing many down-sides to him running. Admittedly, I didn't have it so articulated in my own head, and I kept circling around the thought. AND, yes, my criteria is different than some. But I see some real potential for good with Gore. I mean, the kind of stuff that really gives me tangbile hope. Not just a change.

Now. let's see if when I look for more passion on my end, I run into some problems for myself. I can't feel or see any at the moment - but ther HAS to be some. I want to know those before I get passionate about Gore. The Gore of TODAY is what I am liking, btw. I think he has changed. And not just in a " I need to pretend I have changed " kind of way.

I like to brag that I was one of the (probably thousands by now) of people who have asked him to please run again. I met him in September 2005 when he was here to give his global warming talk (before the movie was made), and like so many others, I simply told him I hoped he'd run again...and he replied gracefully that it wasn't in his plans.

But I too hope he will run again. I think from a philosophical perspective, the American people would see it as an opportunity to turn back the clock to November 2000 to try to make things right after the catastrophe of the Bush years.

Of course, Gore is simply extremely qualified in many areas to be president, not least of which is his expertise in global warming. He also has a deep understanding of foreign and domestic issues.

Andrew

The guy's warmed over and couldn't even win in his home state.

Good luck.

Herb

Harrison Ford for President. He kicked Ass in AirForce One!

Gore got more votes than Bush - 500,000 more - in 2000. Herb, why do you think a half million more American votes preferrred Gore to Bush in 2000?

Andrew

Why do you think that voters who know Mr. Gore best voted AGAINST him?

Herb

Tennessee became more conservative between the last time Gore last won election there (1990) and the 2000 election. And perhaps Gore become more identified with the more liberal Clinton. In any case, he lost his home state by 3.8% of the vote. That's not a shift of the entire state. It's likely that Gore simply took Tennessee for granted and didn't campaign enough there.

I answered your question. Do you have the guts to answer mine, Herb?

Andrew

"Herb, why do you think a half million more American votes preferrred Gore to Bush in 2000?"

Blame the electoral college. It doesn't matter.

Herb

Well my point is that I am eager to make up my own mind. And when it comes to help, I pull from more than one source. And sometimes, believe it or not, I pay attention to those who really work hard to convinve me that I shouldn't.

Ahem.

I pay attention to that too. I mean, there are lots of Bush supporters who know, now, that they have made a mistake. So yes, they know what it's like to make such a grave error too.

I'll take that risk for myself when asked.

Herb, I'm curious about your answer to Andrew's question also.

(No, you simply gave an (non)answer, not an answer *to the question*. Try again.)

I'd like to know the demographics of the people who voted for Gore.

I think (and it's just my own perception) that a good percentage of the people who voted for Gore are blue collar workers and lower income people.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with the blue collar folks, they are what keep this country running, but a good portion of them are unionized workers and the unions almost always support the Democrats.

As for the lower income folks, they know that the Democrats are more likely to increase social hand out and welfare programs.

That's my perception anyway.

All that being said, I wouldn't vote for Ralph Nader either.

It's almost as fun answering repeatedly, as being asked repeatedly, so here goes again:

"Herb, why do you think a half million more American votes preferrred Gore to Bush in 2000?"

Oh, gee.

I don't know...could it be because they're a combination of union loyalists, ACLU types, anti-gun zealots, slippery defense attorneys, NEA & NARAL members, socialists, Hollywood leftists, radical environmentalists, PETA supporters, homosexual lobbyists, democrat lackeys and other assorted fellow travelers of the 'hate-America first' variety?

They say one is known by his enemies. If so, then count me in. It's a badge of honour to support conservative causes.

Herb

!?!

PETA.....People Eating Tasty Animals!

Come on, Herb - you're being dishonest again. You know that for every ACLU wacko on the left there's a "kill the abortion doctors" nutcase on the right. They cancel out.

The question is, why do you think Americans overall preferred Al Gore by 500,000 votes over George Bush in 2000? Do you think they thought Gore was smarter? More likely to be a better president? Or just that they knew Bush was going to be the disaster he turned out to be?

Andrew

Andrew said: ..."You know that for every ACLU wacko on the left there's a "kill the abortion doctors" nutcase on the right. They cancel out."

I'll agree that there are ACLU (Atheists, Communists, Liberals United) wackos and right leaning wackos.

However, 99% of the Pro-Life anti-abortion, right leaning people believe that murdering the abortion doctor is just as wrong as murdering the baby.

I'm gonna ignore most of that double ham fisted with extra fucking cheeze bleet from Herb.

Nice one, though! --gotta give credit where credit is due! As nice as it was, you really should be ashamed of that one Herb. Getting a bit cranky these days? Could it be actual checks and balances beginning to work their magic, rubbing you the wrong way? Good grief!

Tell you what, I'll trade you one profane word for that, whadda say?

Of all the stuff I read here, the ongoing noise against the ACLU really bothers me.

The ACLU is there to defend your rights, whatever you think they are. This means any person, who thinks their rights are being infringed, has a venue to air their concerns in court, on par with the best of us. Of course, that is given that their concerns pass the basic tests of not causing harm, not fallacious in general, etc...

If you've a solid beef with some element of our society, you can take it to the ACLU for some assistance in seeing your day in court.

Without this service, the more substantial among us would be able to trump the rights of the rest of us, largely uninhibited.

Love it, hate it, whatever --we need it.

Actually, given what the ACLU actually does, the majority of ACLU haters are likely extreme in some fashion. Those moderates among us see it for what it is, a perfectly just push back to preserve the Civil Liberties of Americans.

'hate-America first'

Oh no! Not again. I thought, or at least I hoped, that we were way beyond using that term here again. Low Blow.

Do you realy believe your handy little list includes the only types of people that voted for Gore? What about the millions of just everyday Americans (like me). What "club" do they belong to?


Mrs. Longtime PETA Supporter, who doesn't know ANY "union loyalists, ACLU types, anti-gun zealots, slippery defense attorneys, NEA & NARAL members, socialists, Hollywood leftists, radical environmentalists, PETA supporters (besides myself), homosexual lobbyists, democrat lackeys and other assorted fellow travelers of the 'hate-America first' variety".

Actually, if all Florida had been hand recounted as the Florida Supreme court had ruled, Gore would have won.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2001/111201a.html

Herb said - "I don't know...could it be because they're a combination of union loyalists, ACLU types, anti-gun zealots, slippery defense attorneys, NEA & NARAL members, socialists, Hollywood leftists, radical environmentalists, PETA supporters, homosexual lobbyists, democrat lackeys and other assorted fellow travelers of the 'hate-America first' variety?"

Is that an example of ad-hominem? I googled it and was never clear about the definition?

Actually, I'm not sure it is.

Ad-hominem is more or less an attack on the person. It's a fallacy when used to devalue a point otherwise fairly taken.

This is an attack on everybody who is not well aligned with Herb, specifically Al Gore supporters! Anyone have the word for that?

(Ok, the cool latin word, not some insult, I'm actually curious!)

I thought it was similar to " sweeping generalization."

Oh well. No biggie. Just curious.

From Wikipedia;

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument.

Other common subtypes of the ad hominem include the ad hominem circumstantial, or ad hominem circumstantiae, an attack which is directed at the circumstances or situation of the arguer; and the ad hominem tu quoque, which objects to an argument by characterizing the arguer as being guilty of the same thing that he is arguing against.

Ad hominem as logical fallacy
A (fallacious) ad hominem argument has the basic form:

Person A makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person A
Therefore claim X is false
Ad hominem is one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Both the fallacy itself, and accusations of having committed it, are often brandished in actual discourse (see also Argument from fallacy). As a technique of rhetoric, it is powerful and used often, despite its inherent incorrectness, because of the natural inclination of the human brain to recognize patterns.

In contrast, an argument that instead relies (fallaciously) on the positive aspects of the person arguing the case is known as appeal to authority.

Usage

In logic
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that someone's argument is wrong and/or he is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the person or those persons cited by him rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the person's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting another person in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy. It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the person offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount his arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.

Examples:

"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
"You feel that abortion should be illegal, but I disagree, because you are uneducated and poor."
Not all ad hominem fallacies are insulting:

Example:

"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula was doing more important things than watching the game."
This is an ad hominem fallacy, even though it is saying something positive about the person, because it is addressing the person and not the topic in dispute.

Colloquially
In common language, any personal attack, regardless of whether it is part of an argument, is often referred to as ad hominem.[1]


There is more, but it won't fit in one post! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad-hominem

All right...

(goes digging on the net)

Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

Ok, so that one appears to be easy enough.

So what do we call Herb's masterpiece?

(goes for more digging)

Did not find it yet, but here is a great list of fallacies, with simple template examples! Cool. This one is better than the one I used to link, from time to time. There are some new (to me) fallacies on this list as well.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html#index

For those reading at home, best avoid these or lose your point on form and structure alone!

(the dig continues...)

Yeah. But I don't trust Wikipedia. I mean, who is Paula? What the hell was she doing at the baseball game?

She was obviously not paying attention to the game!

Bad Paula.

From Wikipedia -

"OH OH - our bad, Chickenjuggler. Sorry. She wasn't AT the game. Maybe she was watching it on T.V..That would make more sense.

Would you like to make an entry?

No Paulas go to games. Baseball or otherwise."

Wikipedia freaks me out sometimes.

But why doesn't Paula go to baseball games?

Paula does not like baseball.

Baseball is America's past time.

Paula is a commie.

As for me, I think I'll just have some butter and brown sugar with my ad hominy.

Ok, I've no idea what that's called, so I'm just gonna go with "double ham fisted with extra fucking cheeze".

No thanks...I don't like cheeze on my ad hominy.

Although double ham does sound good. Maybe with a couple eggs over easy and hash browns.

"....for every ACLU wacko on the left there's a "kill the abortion doctors" nutcase on the right. They cancel out."

As Mr. Reagan used to say, "There you go again."

Your statement is simply false. Count the number of ACLU members.

Now count the number of abortionist assassins.

We're talking a discrepancy of...oh, I don't know...maybe SEVERAL HUNDRED THOUSAND. Nice spin attempt, though. However, it won't wash with Ol' Herb around.

Especially when the topic is the ACLU..the dastardly evil doers who wish to eliminate any reference to God in our society. To deny that the ACLU has an agenda hostile to people of faith is to be either ignorant or naive.

Herb

Stop being dishonest, Herb. You know what I was talking about. I meant that there are as many extremists on the left as on the right, in various groups.

And you obviously have no clue what the ACLU is all about if you think they "wish to eliminate any reference to God in our society." On the contrary, the ACLU has fought several cases for people to help them regain their right to religious expression when it was infringed upon by the government. The ACLU is about protecting our constitutional rights, not about religion (for or against).

Andrew

Has the " right " lost to the ACLU so much, that it ( the right ), considers it a viable threat to their ( the right ) well being or something? I mean, what has the ACLU done to make Herb dislike it so much? Specifically, I mean.

Let me count the ways;

Taking "Under God" out of the Pledge of Allegiance because a few people don't want their kid to have to say it. Easy solution; you don't like it, don't say it.

Removing the Cross at Mt. Soledad in San Diego, CA: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Soledad
Again, because a few people don't like it, the majority should suffer.

Removing the Ten Commandments from government buildings and schools. That's what this great Country was founded on. Again because a few atheists don't like it they want to impose their will on everybody with the ACLU's help.

I don't know this to be fact, but I've heard that with the ACLU's help a group of atheists want the Federal Government to remove "In God We Trust" from American currency.

The list goes on and on and on.

Why do you think the ACLU has had their acronym nick named Anti Christian Litigation Unit?

Herb your statements are absolutely appalling!

But wer're use to it.....

So how come the ACLU wins so much? And how come those who want more God-stuff around, lose?

Chickenjuggler, here's why; Liberal Judges legislating from the bench and following their own agenda rather than interpreting the Constitution as it was written.

And they don't always win. The good guys come out on top once in a while!

Skybill nailed it.

Why else would the left fight SO HARD against conservative, God-fearing judges?

And Mrs. Merkin-the main reason the groups I named are seen as 'hate America first' groups is because many continually blame the United States for the world's ills...while we've shed American blood to free innocents from the Taliban and Saddam Hussein. Also look back to Vietnam, Korea, WWII and WWI, where Americans DIED to free those under the jackboot of evil.

America is not perfect. But as a beacon of freedom, why else would so many want to live here?

Herb

Huh? A group like PETA fits that description? How?

"In God We Trust" was added to US currency only in the 1950s (during the McCarthy era), and I too think it should be removed. People are free to express themselves in their churches, at home, on their persons. Why must they also display it on publically-funded government currency?

What if a public school in a region where the majority of families where atheist decided to modify the pledge of allegience to say "God doesn't exist - Jesus wasn't real" to their pledge? Should a publically-funded institution like a school be supporting religious (or anti-religious) statements like that? Is it good enough for the religious kids simply to stay silent while their classmates are repeating the words "God doesn't exist - Jesus wasn't real" every day in class?

Andrew

"A group like PETA fits that description?"

PETA is a radical group. Most Americans are fine with treating domesticated animals humanely. But PETA is SO radical, that they want to stop people from hunting and fishing. Yeah, fishing.

http://fishing.about.com/od/fishermensside/a/aa052905peta_2.htm

Jesus ate fish.

To PETA, the One who created fish had no right to eat them.

Can't you see how crazed the radical left is, and how they're hostile to America and our way of life? Radical groups support each other, so it's death by a thousand cuts. Kind of like piranhas.

Herb

There isn't any RADICAL RIGHT WINGED EXTREMEISTS out there Herb???

COME ON!!!!!!!!

Look.

The question was about PETA.

Care to address the topic at hand? Or is it all about constant denial?

Address the topic. Is PETA radical? The Herbmeister says "Big time."

Herbert Milhous Nixon III

The reason religious people have lost so much is they insist on getting the word out on the public dime.

It's clear our government takes a hands off approach to religion. That means not promoting any religion at all, thus leaving the people free to worship or not as they will.

And the ten commandments bit is a myth that has been broken down here and elsewhere many times. Our founders valued their religion enough to keep their government out of it.

Sadly, the bible is not an authoritative source of law and or morality, unless people want it to be and they do so by their own choice.

All comes down to the Christian Nation bit. Our government is not one that endorses any religion in particular. That means it's a government by the people, for the people.

Until such time as the people can agree on the right religion, the government has no justification for mandating one.

Sorry guys, but getting the word out is perfectly legal. I personally encourage anyone of faith to do so, but do so on their dime, not mine.

Our founding documents are clear on this, as is the intent of the founders themselves when their words left to us are taken in full context.

That's what a free society is all about. Before going off and complaining about that, consider your position if the muslim religon was promoted by our government. Would that be fair?

Of course not.

This is true for any faith period. That's why so many cases otherwise have been lost. Our fundemental equality under the law demands we consider our faith on an equal basis as well. Anything less is discrimination and we've been there and done that. It's not cool, Americans are not supposed to be doing it and are all about encouraging others not to do it.

One last thing: This freedom is exactly the means by which we are all allowed to form our own religious beliefs and live by them as best as we are able. Declaring this nation to be one of a particular faith then forces all others to live a lie and thus not be free as we are right now today.

Think hard about that before bitching about the ACLU.

As I mentioned above:

PETA - People Eating Tasty Animals!

If PETA had their way we'd all be vegetarians.

While that is fine for some, a big slab of beef, medium rare, works just fine for me.

Vegetarian - An old Indian word that means bad hunter!!

"..the bible is not an authoritative source of law and or morality..."

You have placed the ACLU's twisted 'logic' above the Bible.

No thanks

Herb

You could list MANY radical tactics that PETA uses ( yes, I believe they are radical ) assign motive, and be able to intergachange PETA with the religious right. It's a similar mindset to me. There are things that I am passionate about. For example, child molesters. Now, odds are that someone here has experience with that. Not to be too morbid or whatever, but heck, maybe there is someone here who is tortured by the desire to do it.

I have an opinion about such people and another opinion about what to do to them. But my point is that for whatever reason, people feel they are doing something that they believe in when they go radical. The majority of the time I disagree with their priorities - but I can't dismiss the mindset as something I can't relate to or about.

I really should have thought about that more before I typed it. But there it is.

Equating the religious right [whatever that is] with child molesters?

Ever hear what Jesus said about anyone who harms a kid? He said it would be better for a millstone to be tied around their neck in deep water.

"I really should have thought about that more before I typed it."

I feel your pain.

Herb

Quote the whole damn thing, or none at all:

"Sadly, the bible is not an authoritative source of law and or morality, unless people want it to be and they do so by their own choice. "

Your choice Herb. It's not mine, but that's ok. We are both entitled!

And this is exactly why you do not hold the ACLU in high regard. They win these cases because the law, as well as the intent behind the law, is clear.

Same with "Activist Judges".

It's all about you wanting your choice to be others choice. Sorry, but that's a no-go here in the land of the free.

That's it for me on that sub-topic. We've been there and done that many times.

Get back to me when you either have some solid proof your faith is the one true one that we all should be following, or we've changed the law and said change survives the constitutional test. That is assuming we don't pack the courts to bias that test.

I wasn't doing that.

Nice try though.

I was saying that my views of what to do with child molesters are radical. It's a cause I feel a similar amount of passion for as say, the religious right who picket funerals of GI's to say they deserved it because we, as a nation, accept gay people too much...or PETA. That was the most radical feeling I thought of at the moment.

Does knowing that now make any difference to you?

"..the bible is not an authoritative source of law and or morality unless people want it to be and they do so by their own choice.."

In a spiritual sense, that's like saying the law of gravity is not authoritative unless people want it to be and they do so by their own choice.

Time and time again, man has been proven wrong and Biblical truths stand firm. You are indeed free to discount them, but do so at your own peril.

It's not PC, so I don't expect it to be greeted by this crowd. Sodom, Rome and many others have scoffed at God's word as well.

Herb

"Does knowing that now make any difference to you?"

Yes. Thanks.

Herbert M.

"In a spiritual sense, that's like saying the law of gravity is not authoritative unless people want it to be and they do so by their own choice."

In a spiritual sense, you are quite right Herb!

Of course, that would be silly. You have to know I completely respect your spiritual view on things. A statement like mine is tough to read. Given your conviction, all of that is completely understandable.

It's not an attack at all, though it might seem that way.

I push back on this, not because I want to assert some greater truth than the one you hold dear, but because it is very important that we both remain free to engage our faith and through discourse about it, reach a greater enlightenment.

So, saying the Bible is not authoritative where morality and the law is concerned, is really clarifying this whole dynamic. It's not an absolute truth.

Very little in this world is.

The more I have these discussions the more I am surprised to see what I consider absolute truths fall before the minds of others.

To embrace your view, on a national level, is to deny us as a people, the freedom to be who we are, share that and grow from that.

Hold your Bible close Herb. Value it, advocate the good you see in it, live by it. It's all good and I encourage you do do exactly that and will support your right to do exactly that, but please give me the same respect in like kind.

Thank you.

Hamfist Herb

"Quote the whole damn thing, or none at all..."

You know what's funny Herb, you specifically cited the second page of an opinion piece article by a self-described extreme right-winger:

"...I am a member of numerous outdoor, hunting and firearms and second amendment organizations. I am on the board of directors of a non-profit hunting organization, the North American Gun Dog Association (NAGDA)...I am practicing attorney in Colorado. I am no friend of PETA and disagree with everything they stand for...

An Attorney? A "slippery defense attorney"? An "Extremist"? (your words, Herb!!!)

Gee, a little biased, there, Mr. Extremist? Well, at least he admits it. We considered joining NAGDA, with our 2 bird hunting dogs, but after some resarch, I found that they are aligned with some groups that I think are "kooks" regarding hunting and especially land-use and gun issues: the opposite of PETA, they are a KILL EVERYTHING "extremist" group, and I sure didn't care for their archaic ideas regarding their dogs, let alone the gun issue. I have some REALLY scary emails from them stashed somewhere if you want to see them.

So, anyway, I had to go back and read the first half of the article that you conveniently left off.

He was talking about 2 (yes, two) individuals, not even PETA employees, at an event in COLORADO (of course!).

I myself refuse to support March of Dimes or OHSU for that matter, because of their animal research policies and the crap that happens right down the road at the OHSU Primate Research Center. They are barbaric.

So let me get this straight, Herb. You think it's admirable for YOU and your ilk to parade around at public events whilst wearing huge placards of photos of bloody aborted fetal material, but not OK for the PETA volunteers to wear placards of tortured animals? What's the difference, exactly?

Gosh, that sure sounds sort of hypocritical to me.

PETA can parade all they want with placards all day long.

You support PETA's campaign to take fishing away?

Herb

Nice dodge, Herbaroni!

I'm not gonna bite. Get it? bite? hahahahaha!

No dodge at all. I said PETA can campaign with bloody signs if they want.

Now, you wanna answer MY question, or are you gonna dodge: You support PETA's anti-fishing campaign?

It's a simple yes or no.

Herb

I'm in the middle.

I personally stopped fishing, but I'll eat some Alaskan (esp. Copper river) or (Mr. Merkin-caught) salmon, sturgeon, halibut, and sushi. I didn't eat any fish when I was pregnant or nursing, due to Mercury, so it's been almost 2 years.

So you see, it's not "a simple yes or no".

Pass the dungeness, please. God, I'm weak.

Does that mean you would or wouldn't support PETA?

Inquiring Herbs want to know

I support some of what PETA does. So do you Herb.

I'm for humane treatment.
Don't touch my fishing.

Herb

Problem with PETA is tht they are extremists, and nealy all, if nor all extremists hurt their own causes.

Herb, you don't want my worm to touch your rod? Can't we just hold hands in our hip waders?

PETA never really seemed to try and appeal to a person's brain. They always seemed to want to have an affect through emotion. There are many problems in doing things that way. But hey, they calculated what kind of retention rate they would get doing it all their own way and they are abviously fine with that. People like me were figured into the equation a long time ago. They are not surprised to hear things like that from a person like me. It doesn't matter to them what I think. It only matters to them what they think.

And that's a problem of style that causes much unnecessary conflict. It's a shame that they do things in such a way to make people want to distance themselves from what is, at it's root, a kind of noble cause. There aren't very many of those anymore.

Oh well.

Anyway - Gore should run again.

Please, please, please let Gore run.

Yes, Gore should run (and run and run and when he gets to any one of the borders, run some more!)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...border..that's hiLARious.

I'm rubber. You're glue.

Nwokie said>>>>
Problem with PETA is tht they are extremists, and nealy all, if nor all extremists hurt their own causes.

Like the EXTREME RIGHT neo-CONer Bible thumpers??????

Trixter, do you have the word neo-CONer stored on your computer so all you have to do is click and it automatically types it?

Here are some stats:
1 - 62 Threads with at least 1 neo-CONet in it.
2 - neo-CONer is used 51 times in the first 10 posts that the search came up with.
3 - There are 7 threads where it is used 5 or more times in the same thread.
4 - It is used at least 134 times in all the threads.

I think the word is worn out and needs to be neo-retired!

Nwokie said>>>>
Problem with PETA is tht they are extremists, and nealy all, if nor all extremists hurt their own causes.

Like the EXTREME RIGHT neo-CONer Bible thumpers??????











Yes. Very much like that.

Touche' Skybill.

Trixter's posts also appear to have a definite anti-faith, Christophobic bias, as well.

Herb

We will retire Neo-con(ers) when we've no more of them holding a significant office.

Sound fair?

SkyHIGHWilly...
Thank you for keeping track of me! Same for you Herb!!!
Thank GOD words like Anti-Faith come out of your mouth Herb. YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT MY FAITH! Just because I don't believe in YOUR EXTREME Bible thumpin' ways means I have NO faith???
YOUR A BELIEVER??? With words like that I'd say NOPE!
Herb....
Your a sorry OLD man.

neo-CON
neo-CON
neo-CON

There's a couple more for ya!

"Trixter's posts also appear to have a definite anti-faith, Christophobic bias, as well."

Gosh, Herb, and your opinion in that sentence is relevant here because ______________.

Feel free to fill in the blank.


(It reads sort of hominy to me)

'...your opinion in that sentence is relevant here because...'

Because it's in response to a related post.

Herbert

Don't forget that Gore invented the internet.