The EXTREME could soon have their own group!!!!

Herb, read up!!!

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57631

I would be all for seeing a party like that. I probably wouldn't vote for a party like that - but hey - it's a VERY " put your money where your mouth is " kind of idea and no matter what the cause, I like to see it taken out to the end.

It's The American Way, man.

The odds for Ralph Nader running are better than any conservative risking Clinton II.

Hold your breath all you want. Republicans cannot stand the thought of Hillary. With her stratospherically high negatives, you guys lose.

Herb

That's interesting, I always thought the Constitution Party was that group, judging by all the comments in the Voters' Pamphlets from their candidates about being anti-abortion and 'upholding the oath,' referring to the "under God" line.

Herb, I actually agree with you that Mrs. Clinton should not be President (and I'm not a conservative!). I disagree with just about everything she has to say about just about everything on the major issues. Whenever I mention this, it seems people want to falsely accuse me of being "sexist." This has nothing to do with that - I've paid attention to some of the stuff and decided about a year ago that I wouldn't be voting for her. We'd all lose.

Herb said>>>
Republicans cannot stand the thought of Hillary.

That we BOTH agree on.

Agreed.

You guys on the left might actually want to consider Huckabee.

He's a decent and caring person, wants to protect American jobs with free and FAIR trade and like your guy Harry Reid, Huckabee is pro-life.

In fact, I recently read Huckabee is a TRUE environmentalist...unlike Mr. Gore, Huckabee actually has reduced his carbon footprint far better than Mr. Clinton's VP.

Come to think of it, I hope Mike Huckabee isn't a closet pinko. Oh well, he may be a tad left of Ol' Herb, but I think the guy's a good egg so he has my vote.

Herb

Hillary, or whomever the Democrat nominee is, won't need the votes of Republicans to win. She needs electoral votes, and if she or the D nominee wins the states Kerry won, plus Ohio, it's over. Several states that Bush won in 2004 are in play, none are in play that Kerry won. That should be a very concerning sign.

Regarding Huckabee, he seems like the most down to earth, tolerable candidate on the right. However, he fails my litmus test on the question of being pro-choice.

Vit said>>>
Regarding Huckabee, he seems like the most down to earth.

And the EXTREME RIGHT will have him for lunch as soon as they have their Man. Look at what they did to McCain in 2000..... So Hucke is DOA.

"Republicans cannot stand the thought of Hillary."

Neither can a lot of Democrats.

Herb writes:


You guys on the left might actually want to consider Huckabee.

He's another religious whacko who wants outlaw abortion, chase terrorists and make the rich richer. Oh wait, we have a president doing that already.

Herb, if you want me to really listen to your side, could someone, ANYONE, say something besides "god", "country" and "9/11", because that all I ever hear from your side. You talk about the left not offering any new ideas, PLEASE!

Oh, BTW I think a third party for the whack jobs is a great idea. Anything to splinter the right.

I honestly think anyone who's truly "pro-life" would value the lives of the children and former children that are already born as well by immediately pulling them in a uniform out of all foreign countries, and let those countries deal with their problems on their own.
Anyone that's "pro-choice" should also care about the children and former children that are already born by also immediately pulling them in a uniform out of all foreign countries, let those countries deal with their problems on their own, and let private businesses run huge display ads in the classifieds that say garbage like "No life? No future? No job? We're hiring people to work in IRAQ! Come on down to the 'work for the oil consortium HQ,' located where the military recruitment office used to be!" That way, there would be no taxpayer dollars directly spent on it.

Aok,
What's wrong with chasing terrorists? I'm not going to entertain the abortion issue, because I've never met anyone who changed their mind about abortion based on a convincing argument. That requires a change of heart, not mind. But fighting terrorism is a good thing, so that we can all sit comfortably in our homes and type on our computers, as we're doing now. How free would we be if the Islamic extremists we are at war with had their way?

" How free would we be if the Islamic extremists we are at war with had their way? "

Yes. I would like to hear the answer to that. From you yourself. They would cause destruction on our soil? What? I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made to support that idea - but I don't want to assume or put words into your mouth.

I would LOVE to hear you take it all the way out to the end and describe what our life would be like if Islamic extremists had their way. Would they occupy us and change our laws? I am curious about big examples AND little ones.

I'm listening.

You need only to look at countries where Islamic extremists DO have their way. Then you get your answer. Look at Pakistan under the Taliban rule. Look at Iran, where homosexuals and adulterers are executed. The Jihad that terrorists such as those in Al Qaeda are involved in seeks to destroy the "infidels", aka the "rejecters of truth". That's us!

By the way, I'm talking about terrorists who want to do us harm. I'm not necessarily talking about insurgents in Iraq; it's reasonable to think they're fighting us just because we're there.

If you want to find out how Sharia law looks Chickenjuggler, feel free to keep voting for soft on defense politicians.

Herb

OK. I really do see that there. In other countries.

Do you think it's realistic to worry about Islamic extremists taking over our country in ANY fashion and preventing us from being free in ANY way? I'm talking about them controlling it - not disrupting it. Heck, I can disrupt America. But it doesn't mean there is ANY fear of me taking over.

Do you think they even have the resources, population, anything, to take over The United States and rule it?

I don't know...Japan disrupted America and intended on taking over. So did Germany.

The problem with giving any serious potential enemy a pass is that by the time they get strong, it takes millions of human casualties to take care of it.

I like peace as much as the next guy. But the left has to realize that there are some bad dudes out there. A guy like Kim Jong Il or Saddam Hussein doesn't give a rat's *** about world opinion, so the UN is impotent.

Herb

So what other leader on the world stage right now "doesn't give a rats *** about world opinion"?

Hint, Think closer to home.

I'm not trying to make a point...yet. But this phrase " But fighting terrorism is a good thing, so that we can all sit comfortably in our homes and type on our computers, as we're doing now. How free would we be if the Islamic extremists we are at war with had their way? " made it sound like our very ability to type on a computer ( suggesting freedom to do mundane things ) is threatened directly from Islamic extremists.

I disagree with that on just about every level I can think of. Now I have to acknowledge that I just read it wrong. But if I was right about the suggestion, at all, I take issue with it. Then to read about how Islamic rule is something to fear here - well - it just seemed to support my interpretation on how it was presented. And again, I disagree. I do not think that is a legitimate threat in any way.

#1. I'm not convinced that there is a large enough population of Islamic extremists to take control of The United States or it's people.

#2. Pendleton alone would have enough guns to dole out - or keep for themselves and fix things. Permanently.

#3. Islamic extremists couldn't friggin operate the most basic components of our infrastructure.

#4. I don't believe them to have an Army capable of making it past their own various borders on their way to America.

#5. I have a laser pointer. Yeah. You heard me.

"I'm not convinced that there is a large enough population of Islamic extremists to take control of The United States or it's people."

Oh really?

There are 1.2 billion Muslims. There are 300 million Americans. You do the math.

Besides, they don't have to take us over. Just bend our will and let someone else finish the job. That's all. You don't think China, Russia or any other enemy nation would sense the blood in the water?

Naw, every great nation has it's rise and it's fall and we've had a good run. But if the US continues to shake its fist at the Almighty and drowns itself in pornography and drugs whilst murdering innocents, what do you expect?

I'd say the Big Guy has been very patient. But if He doesn't at least do something about debauched liberal havens like San Francisco, then some would say He owes Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.

Herb

" There are 1.2 billion Muslims."

Are they all Islamic extremists? I thought that's what we were talking about.

" Besides, they don't have to take us over."

I disagree. I believe they WOULD have to take us over. I do not believe our will would be bent when it comes to an invading enemy. I think you would see a different sort of unity. One that would be real and effective.

" You don't think China, Russia or any other enemy nation would sense the blood in the water?"

Is that what you think we would do if WE smelled blood in the water? I don't. Not Russia or China. Sorry. I just don't.

Abortion. So what if we outlaw it and get taken over - will we then NOT deserve it? But until then, we do?

No.

San Francisco will get hit very soon. Probably this month or early next month.

Good thing there are no Christians there, eh?

Keep your head in the sand if you wish.

It's still a free country.

For now.

Herb

Really? The things I said strike you as denial? There is NO validity in what I had to say at all?

Chickenjuggler,
I think you're right, thank God, that they would not completely take us over. Problem is, that won't stop them from trying! And the reason we must fight them is so they DON'T take us over. You see, saying they won't take us over is only a true statement if you assume we'll fight them. That was my original point; let's fight terrorism.

Whoa, some Americans live in such fear they must pee their pants when trick-or-treaters knock on their doors.

" That was my original point; let's fight terrorism."

OK.

Herb, your 9:15 post is one of the cleanest and clearest you have ever put up.

To summarize your post:

1) All Muslims are potential enemies of America.

2) America's will is weak, and we are easily conquered.

3) America has been a good and prosperous nation in the past, but is no longer because we reject God (because of our tolerance of porn, drugs and abortion)

4) Liberalism is debauchery, and God should smite San Francisco homosexuals. (what about those elsewhere?)


My, how Falwellesque of you. What is the proper biblical punishment for the debauchers, pray tell?

(Herb, I have never held such thoughts for the likes of you, and never will. And I have never been a churchgoer. Which of us has more Christian love in his heart? Because I love you, man.)

1. There is no god, and if was, no one knows shit about it. Your entire basis is born of lies. I grow tired of people claiming they know the truth when they really don't.

2. We are more at risk of losing our freedoms from leadership like Bush has provided, as compared to the actual terrorists themselves. Bin Laden couldn't have written a better post 9/11 script for America than what has occurred on Bush's watch. It makes me sick and embarrassed as an American that people like you even exist.

3. We will never be taken over. NEVER! We've got enough nukes to wipe out the world. So get yourself over the fact that Russia, China, or anyone else is going to take us over. Ain't gonna happen, but people sure like to use it as an excuse for wars for profit.

Edselehr, I love you too, man.

And I wish so many things weren't reality. But so many things are.

Believe it or not, I'm actually a kum-bah-yah kind of guy. But I also have to call 'em as I see 'em.

Herb

Vitalogy-
Well I believe there is a God. Probably the one thing Herb and I have in common. However we interpret scripture vastly different.

Also there are many progressive/ecumenical Christians who disagree with the Religious Right. Here is a video debate of the founder of Sojourners Magazine Jim Wallis (a contemporary theologian) and Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, engaged in a dialogue on the role of faith in politics at the Family Research Council’s “Values Voters Summit,” tackling such issues as abortion, poverty, the environment, and national security. Below is a video with some of the highlights.

http://blog.beliefnet.com/godspolitics/2007/10/video-jim-wallis-and-richard-l.ht ml

Chris, I have no problem if you believe there is a god. My position is there may or may not be one, and if there is, nobody TRULY knows anything about it. What I have a problem with is when earthlings tell me what god would think and how he would judge us, and even worse, want to craft legislation for us all to abide by based on those speculative beliefs.

Vitalogy-
I kind of figured that was your stance. I just wanted to clarify mine.

Recently a long time pastor friend of mine told me something he had heard from a long time pastor friend and mentor of his. That older pastor made the statement: "We need to worship the God of the universe more than the God of the Bible verse."

You can certainly read many different things into that statement.

When reading scripture (and I enjoy doing that) we as humans make interpretations of passages that by our very nature create a box or vacuum by which we put God into.

I believe we get a glimpse of God when we read the scriptures but that is all. We do our best to interpret that glimpse and thus we have different interpretations and disagreements. Does that make the scriptures irrelevant? No. We just need to read our bible smarter and not take it at face value. There needs to be historical understanding and metaphorical clarity to really understand scripture.

Theologians like Jim Wallis I believe are reading the scriptures with that kind of intelligence and then writing about it for our contemporary society.

I appreciate your point of view Vitalogy. It helps me sharpen my mine.