To quote a famous man, "I'm shocked, SHOCKED!" that so many Americans are turned off by the preening pea-brained peacocks who run for office.

"...voters who are turned off by both major parties are leaving them in a significant exodus.

Meanwhile, many other citizens just aren't voting at all..."

And that's because:

"...they find little to choose from between Republicans and Democrats and see the entire exercise as one in futility."

Fie upon the Republicrats.

We need new parties, kids.

Democracy is only at risk if we allow it to happen. If the congress is allowed to stagnate and Bush is not challenged for his wrong-doing, democracy is most certainly at risk. The third party in Congress must be voted out; the party of corruption. We the people must take back our government before it's too late. The weak sheep that follow because it is easier than leading have got to go! Bush and his dictatorial regime style leadership need a new direction. Democrats must do what the dictator is asking his followers to do - get out the vote - then get out and vote! 95% Democrat turn out this election! I miss America - don't you?

I find the tile of this thread pretty ironic. I mean, hasn't our democracy been in peril ever since W literally "took" the office? And with the passage of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, we said goodbye to habeas corpus and hello to classified evidence. Goodbye right to counsel, hello indefinite detention. We now have, legally, less of a democracy than many countries who followed our example.

I suppose that our democracy being at risk because of voter apathy is a different story altogether, and that could cause a major problem no matter who is in office.

But one also has to conclude W's polarization and buffoon-ness has contributed to the "rising tide" that seems to be drowning what's left of our democracy from within via fear from without.

If the dems take office, the best thing they can do is to figure out Iraq while simultaneously impeaching Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet for high crimes and misdemeanors, like lying to get us to war, which no one can deny that they did. It's true. They lied, and our soldiers died.

That would communicate to the world, and especially certain terrorists, that America is done screwing around, that we realize, as a people, that our leaders erred in our name and against our will, and that now we will try to clean things up and make it right.

In all of the time that I've been posting here, the theme that I return to again and again is that our democracy is in serious trouble, that we effectively live in a one party state.

That thesis has disturbed a few posters who desperately want to preserve and defend the moldy status quo. They sputter hysterically, spew small minded insults and make pathetic attempts at humor -- but never, ever refute.

Given that, if they had so much as a single rational atom in their being they would stop and think that maybe it's possible that I'm right.

Does the voting public realize the importance of this election? I do, and I hope the other voters in this country understand that this a an election that may very well define the survival of our democracy. Every vote cast that gives the Bush regime control, will be a vote against liberty, freedom, and the American way of life. This administration has past laws that are against the Constitutional authority of our democracy, they have installed supreme power to the DOD that is headed by Rumsfeld, consolidated absolute powers to the executive branch headed by Cheney, and kept any dissenting views from reaching the floor of Congress headed by Hastert. If the Republican Party maintains control of Congress, they now have the authority to declare martial law and completely take over the country, and eliminate citizens rights to vote them out of power.

If the dems take office, the best thing they can do is to figure out Iraq while simultaneously impeaching Bush, Cheney, and the entire cabinet for high crimes and misdemeanors, like lying to get us to war, which no one can deny that they did. It's true. They lied, and our soldiers died.
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 3, 2006 10:05:47 AM

H J RES 114 (2002) authorized the Presidient to use force against Iraq. It was signed by a lot of Democrats and specifically mentions AlQaieda in Iraq and WMD. Try reading it.

Then you can impeach the Dems that voted for it before they voted against it

Donald R,

I agree but the bottom line is: How do you get Democrats out to vote who dont already?
The Repubs have church rosters and Uncle Rove's mighty database of sheep, but how does the average Dem get other Dems to vote who may not have, either uninformed or just plain lazy.

Repubs who arent paying attention get told what to do at church. Even though there are Dems at churches as well, its a Republican playhouse- GAYS!GAYS!Sanctity of Marriage!GAYS!TERROR!

So what to do as a Dem? I want more turnout but what to do?

It was signed by a lot of Democrats and specifically mentions AlQaieda in Iraq and WMD. Try reading it.

But Stan....you forgot one "main" ingredient..
The "spin" on the intelligence presented by Bush and Cheney.

erick,

Unfortunately, apathy wins elections, a lot.

We're not a Democracy, never have been and probably never will be. We're a Republic. Did nobody stay awake in civic class?
We're a "representative" government, one person represents us, by, districts, state, whatever.

That's why we have politicians that spend more time trying to make themseleves look good and little time actually doing the business of governing our country.

Our "representatives" appear to being a pretty good job of representing us. Name me one politican, now in office, that anyone would be consider a great thinker?

The reason they're childish, protectorate finger pointers is because that's what the electorate, led by blogger and talking heads, have become.

We don't need new "parties" we need an informed, rational, and involved electorate that knows how to hold our "representatives" responsible for their actions and in-actions.

Never to late to take a civic class.

Stan,

Before you start your petty talking points parade, why don't you respond to my last post in the Kerry gives dems a halloween trick thread?

You definitely cut and ran from that one, proving that you most likely are a troll whose only purpose for being in this forum is to try and draw someone into an argument with you so you can feel like you're in control. You seem like the kind of person who, as a child, probably rode around on your bike and yelled at the bigger kids, antagonizing them until they chased you, but you had your bike to get away on. Must have made you feel powerful, just like your anatagonistic, completely thoughtless comments in this forum that allows you to hide in safe anonymity, without fear of even being chased, let alone caught and wedgied.

Do you and John D have like, troll practice together, or is trolling more of a universal and all trolls are basically the same?

And again you display your selective comprehension. Yes, many democrats voted for the war, because at the time, there was evidence the administration was pushing that was accepted as credible. It turned out that not only was the evidence not credible, it took a huge coordinated effort on the part of the administration to make it appear credible while suppressing and attacking criticism of it. See the example of Joe Wilson.

So Stan, is your argument that Iraq is as much a fault of the dems as it is the repubs? If it is, you could only have arrived at that conclusion by ignoring everything since "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED" landed on the aircraft carrier, codpiece and all.

The problem with the war is that since then, it has been about as bad as a nation-building enterprise can be. Or wait, is it a freedom-spreading enterprise? WMD search? Regime change? Crusade? And all that failure lies squarely on the heads of the Republican controlled congress that did not provide oversight but instead rubber-stamped everything that came their way, depending on what Bush wanted (we should actually be saying "what Cheney wanted"), not the democrats who were lied to about the justification for the war, or attacked for opposing it to begin with.

It's time we all called the fiasco in Iraq what it is: A campaign to secure the strategic oil reserves in US hands. If we wanted Iraq to be a democracy and that was priority 1, the country wouldn't be about to collapse completely.

Hey Juanito, we need NO parties, not new ones.

There are such things as "objective facts" that are not subject to the opinions and biases of certain people. The things that are actual issues that Americans care about are largely defined by objective facts, but the two party system seems designed to obfuscate the objectivity of any given issue, while the right throws in a little religion just to make everything a little more chaotic.

How it should be:

There should be no more parties. Keep everything else the same, just eliminate the parties, and eliminate ALL lobbies. Eliminate campaign contributions. Eliminate "National Committees." They all just make things worse. Everyone gets the same amount of money to run their campaign. Campaigns will be decided on who is the best interpreter of the objective facts of the issues, and each voter will be asked to vote not for who they like based on their smile or their hair or those pearly whites, but who they think, objectively, has won the debates. Anyone running negative ads should be fined. Anyone who is found to have lied during a campaign (or otherwise, for that matter) should be fined or kicked off the ticket.

As long as the two party system persists, we're never going to get out of this hole we're in, unless the Greens can somehow become a bonafide and electorially viable party. Any takers?

As far as more turnout for the Dems, Erick, the only way to accomplish that would be to get as dirty as the republicans, but that would probably just backfire.

You're right about churches though. The repubs have been using them for decades as political propaganda outles, with mass each sunday, for some priests and preachers, being like rallies for the RNC. That influence is almost impossible to combat. That influence needs to be removed too.

The lines between church and state need to be drastically redrawn, less we have another civil war on our hands in the next decade. Anyone else see that coming? If there's any issue that can cause it, its religion.

Frito,
You are wrong again,and your guy Ralph Nader will never be the President.

Erick, I think Bush and his pals are doing wonders for Democratic voter turnout. I won't be surprised if we have a record turnout for an off year election. I know most of my family and friends are more involved and motivated this year than they have been in the past.

I'm sure your local candidate would welcome your help with their Get-Out-The-Vote effort if you have time and want to help out.

stan, Don't you ever post facts like that on the swamp,how dare you! Do you want these nuts to get a brain cramp by finding out the truth!
And that dastardly President Bush forcing North Korea back to the six party talks with sanctions,instead of sending Jimmy Carter!
Wow!!!.....start impeaching!
Paulo

One would hope, in our democracy (what's left of it), that everyone who want's to vote will be able to on Tuesday. But we all know that likely Dem voters will have to overcome the "sixth man", the Repulican vote suppression machine:rigged data bases, understaffing minority polling districts, extraordinary I.D. requirements, the list goes on. It won't be enough. The greedy, corrupt, GOP (grand old pediphiles) are going down!, and the lame duck Bush won't have anywhere to hide.

I think we should stop looking at the contest between Repubs and Dems as a football game. We should be looking at the individual candidates, what they stand for, what they'll do in office, etc. Their party affiliation shouldn't automatically make them partisans, like "either you're with us or against us". That's silly and moronic. Differences in political parties are over ideas about what's best for society, not about winning a prize and walking away with it.

Oversight of Iraq reconstruction projects is about to come to an end.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6114132.stm

This is great news for people that want the U.S government to vaporize another twenty billion or so of taxpayer dollars on Iraq "reconstruction" projects.
Now, who might those people be?
Hmmm.

This being a Frank James article, the usual laughers are present.

Error of context--if Mr. James did 5 minutes internet research, he'd find that Mr. Gans has been writing on this theme for many years. This report and the opinions expressed therein are nothing new. Mr. Gans often uses apocalyptic imagery in his reports, probably because such doom-and-gloom is what mediocre newspaper writers are looking for.

Second, all this talk about "Democracy being threatened" because of people not voting runs absolutely counter to the actual results of the 2004 election, in which total voter turnout was at an all time high, and considerably above the 2000 levels.

Mr. Gans poses two contradictory "polities"--voter interest increasing, voter interest decreasing-- convenient in that no matter which way the election turns, he can claim it matched his "polity". Its sorta like predicting that this Sunday the Bears will either win--or lose. Intellectually, it's worthless, and it is thus a fit and proper candidate to be publicized in "The Swamp".

stan,

Yes some dems voted for the war based on evidence at the time that was put forth and "confirmed" as credible. Al Qaida in Iraq? Yeah, they weren't there. WMD? Didn't find any. The evidence? False. People who tried to point that out when it was happening? Attacked and discredited. See the example of Joe Wilson, whose wife was illegally outed as a CIA agent by members of the administration.

So they were for the war when it seemed legitimate that Iraq posed a nuclear threat, as anyone would be, but against it when it was discovered that the threat did not exist. It was clear that the war was wrong to begin with at that point, that we invaded a sovereign nation that posed no real threat to us, and now we're still there and it hasn't gotten better, only worse.

So is your argument, Stan, that the mess in Iraq is as much the dems fault as it is the republicans? If so, in order for you to reach that conclusion, you would have to ignore everything that was allowed to happened by the Republican controlled congress since we invaded. Like Iraq being a bloody mess, for example. You would also have to ignore the fact that the "intelligence" were lies. Throw in record setting indictment numbers for GOP congress and the picture becomes clear.

The GOP is more corrupt than ever, and they're allowing W unilateral executive power, for the first time in our country's history. Doesn't that bother you? It really drills down to this: If your values are in line with the Constitution and restoring it's power and the checks on executive power, you will vote democratic. If you like the fact that Bush can detain anyone he wants with secret evidence for any length of time, including you, then vote GOP. All the other issues, gay marriage, flag burning, Foleygate, the MJ Fox flap, even immigration, are not as important as those two conflicting eventualities of which party has control of congress after the election. But make no mistake, supporting Bush is by definition un-American, because he stands for things that are opposed to the Constitution of the United States.

p.s. why did you cut and run from responding to me in the Kerry thread?

Another "blow" to the GOP's claims to fame that it's the party of "family values," "respect for the military" and the advocation of sodomy laws!

http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/11/rnc_accepts_mon.html

I can't even believe this actually happened. The irony is thicker than Hastert's wrist fat.

Way to go RNC!!! At this rate, the Republican party will be dissolved in disgrace by 2008! Here's hoping...

WAKE UP AMERICA!!! If you vote REPUBLICAN then you are voting for a desecration, dismantling, and destruction of the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, Separation of Powers, and our Democracy. The REPUBLICANS have had unfettered, unaccountable, and unprecedented power for 5 years and have systematically de-frauded the Congress, the United States of America and its citizens, and the Whole World while simultaneously & secretly re-writing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Separation of Powers. Without those 4 sacred legal documents that were created by the founding fathers to establish & protect individual liberty and our democracy you have "NO INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM" and we have "NO DEMOCRACY". I can assure you if you vote 100% NEO-CON REPUBLICAN your individual liberties & democracy will continue to be secretly stolen from, you will never know "THE TRUTH", and one morning you will wake up with NO CONSTITUTION, NO BILL OF RIGHTS, NO DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE, AND NO SEPARATION OF POWERS. Do you really think a bunch of bandits in the desert are so much of a threat you should give up your freedoms & our democracy??? IF YOU WANT TO KEEP YOUR FREEDOMS AND OUR DEMOCRACY THEN YOU MUST VOTE 100% DEMOCRATIC TO REVERSE THE "SECRET HIDDEN NEO-CON AGENDA" AND SHINE THE LIGHT OF TRUTH ON THEIR DARK DECEPTIONS. GOOD LUCK AND MAY GOD BLESS AMERICA ONCE AGAIN!!!

John E,

What a sad little creature you are. Is there so much as ONE original thought rattling around in your skull? You can't even come up with an original nickname -- "Frito" is the Loon's latest attempt at wit.

"Hey Juanito, we need NO parties, not new ones."

That's unlikely to ever happen, Rob Norris. People will always coalesce into groups to promote a social common agenda. And even if that were a bad idea, how can we possibly prevent the formation of parties? To enforce your idea you would need a strong autoritrian government which would require a single... oops!... political party.

I am mystified at the polls saying some races are a dead heat. Apparently there are a still a significant number of Americans wanting to vote for more Americans to be killed in Iraq. That's what voting Republican means to me.

Before you start your petty talking points parade, why don't you respond to my last post in the Kerry gives dems a halloween trick thread?

You definitely cut and ran from that one, proving that you most likely are a troll
Posted by: Rob Norris

I responded 36 hours ago Rob, check it out. Actually I encourage everyone to check it out. I found your reference material. A white supremacist website that had a news story that was a copy of your original post almost word for word. Check out my response and try to explain your sources. Like I said before, you and your kind are a shining example of the Democratic party.

Here is part of my response to you:

Rob, or should I say Der Führer,
I’ll respond to your rantings in order.

1. Actually I found a news source that sounds a lot like your original post. It’s a news story entitled “US Army to Recruit Mental Defectives”. It’s on a White Supremacist web site called NATIONAL VANGUARD. Google the title and tell me what other “news” organizations pop up. Explain that Adolf.

It was signed by a lot of Democrats and specifically mentions AlQaieda in Iraq and WMD. Try reading it.

But Stan....you forgot one "main" ingredient..
The "spin" on the intelligence presented by Bush and Cheney.
Posted by: bill r. | Nov 3, 2006 11:44:20 AM

The CIA, NSA, DIA, .... All presented the same intelligence for the President and members of congress. If a Democratic congressman read the intel reports, came to the conclusion that there were no WMD in Iraq, why would they sign a resolution authorizing force that mentioned WMD?

Are you saying they didn't understand what they were reading and the President had to explain it to them?

The President that you libs think is such an idiot fooled all those smart Democrats?

...You seem like the kind of person who, as a child, probably rode around on your bike and yelled at the bigger kids, antagonizing them until they chased you, but you had your bike to get away on. Must have made you feel powerful, just like your anatagonistic, completely thoughtless comments in this forum that allows you to hide in safe anonymity, without fear of even being chased, let alone caught and wedgied.
Posted by: Rob Norris

I guess I hit a nerve. My power doesn't come from my bike (even though it is a big shiney one), it comes from knowing and spreading the truth about someone like you who has to quote a neo-nazi website to make your point. I'm not trying to antagonize you, I'm trying to show everyone what kind of person you are. I put out a post and you, through your own words, do the rest.

The REPUBLICANS have had unfettered, unaccountable, and unprecedented power for 5 years and have systematically de-frauded the Congress, the United States of America and its citizens, and the Whole World while simultaneously & secretly re-writing the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Declaration of Independence, and Separation of Powers.
Posted by: Todd Restelli

It must not be a very good secret if you know about it.

When the rewritten documents are finished, can you send me a copy?

stan, run your sorry but back to the kerry thread and take your medicine. As for the trash you post here, what can I say?

You found the white supremacist site, not me. I used the term mentally defective only to refer to people who can't tell right from wrong. Under the new standards for recruitment, people are being let in with criminal records. Some of these people can't really tell "right" from "wrong." that's why you have recruits, like the ones on trial now, who go into a house in Iraq, rape a girl, murder her and her family, and then try to burn the house down to cover up their crime. That's the example i'm referring to. But you put words in my mouth and say i'm a nazi who hates our troops.

So now you've moved from "troll" down to "agitator for the neo-nazi movement." Congratulations.

And your responses about the WMD intelligence are nothing short of complete idiocy. Keep it up, soon everyone here will know how much of a worthless waste of time it is to read your posts.

juanito-

How do you come to the conclusion that the no party system would necessitate a single party? Clearly, the idea of a no party system would need people to ABANDON ALL PARTY AFFILIATION and focus on what is good for the country, a singular PURPOSE, not a singular PARTY. It would require people abandon their religious superstitions, at least with respect to how the figure into government. It would require putting special interests secondary to the national purpose. All people in government would be debating not based on party affiliation, but based on what is demonstrably true or not true.

HUGE DIFFERENCE.

My idea wouldn't need to be "enforced," as you feebly claim. It would simply require that people take a leap forward in their understanding of human coexistence, one that should be based on reason, not religion and fear. On cooperation instead of petty partisanship.

But, I guess as long as there's people like stan around, that's unlikely to ever happen. You're in that respect.

Rob,

Sounds good, I guess... but HOW do you make that happen without enforcing it? Just because you claim that my question is "feeble" doesn't make it so.

What is feeble, though, is your trying to skirt my question.

"You found the white supremacist site, not me."

You original post was almost word for word from the neo-nazi website. If you didn’t get your information from the National Vanguard, then I apologize. You didn’t plagiarize a white supremacist website; you just came to the exact same conclusion and used the same exact words they did. Great minds think alike I guess. Thanks for clearing that up.

"So now you've moved from "troll" down to "agitator for the neo-nazi movement." Congratulations."

Don't thank me, it's my pleasure to spread your word, mein Furhur.

"And your responses about the WMD intelligence are nothing short of complete idiocy."

What's idiotic is for people to sign a resolution based on intelligence data they don't 'believe' or understand.

The intel was there. It was wrong, President Bush didn't collect the intelligence, analyze the intelligence, or disseminate the intelligence. But it was the basis for a House resolution authorizing force.

And as for you being a military midshipman hero, check out my response to that on the other thread.

But, I guess as long as there's people like stan around, that's unlikely to ever happen....
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 4, 2006 12:15:44 PM

That's me, the bane of civilized society

"What's idiotic is for people to sign a resolution based on intelligence data they don't 'believe' or understand."

Simpleton stan strikes AGAIN!!!! AMAZING!!!

See stan, the reason why I know you're an idiot is because you're in denial of the fact that the intelligence was fabricated. There never were any nukes in Iraq. Saddam just had the gas we knew he had since the 80's (hell, Rumsfeld sold it to him back then while Cheney was pulling for more executive power), and we knew darn well that there was no way Saddam could have used that gas against American soil.

And Juanito, if people could come to accept the truth of that process, it wouldn't need to be enforced. And how did I skirt your question? I think I addressed it directly. You said it would require a "ONE" party system. You clearly don't understand what "party" means if that's your contention.

And you defend Bush, so why should anyone pay attention to your feeble criticisms anyway? That would be like taking advice about living from your executioner. Wouldn't make sense.

Anyway, you obviously missed the part in my post that said :

"It would require people abandon their religious superstitions, at least with respect to how they figure into government. It would require putting special interests secondary to the national purpose. All people in government would be debating not based on party affiliation, but based on what is demonstrably true or not true."

If people are against that, then they would have the opportunity to voice their opposition. Their claim would be subject to a reasonable debate. If their claim stands up to reason, it would be included. If not, it would be excluded.

The only enforcement you would need for this system is reason itself.

And stan, you give yourself to much credit. You're not the bane of civilized society. You're just a brainless, petty partisan hack, more like the gum stuck on civilized society's shoe than the bane of its existence. It's clear for your posts that you're here to vent your hate, not to discuss what is or is not true or what is or is not good for America.

Simply put, you are a hater, and its in the "National Interest" to ignore you.

Stan, Juanito, and any other Bush supporter, the twisted, cenobyte controlled reality you exist in is about to come down like a house of cards. Read it, and weep, torture lovers:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20061120/brechersmith

You will be allowed one chance to apologize.

stan, this one's for you, ya thoughtless hawk!

note: stan, paulo, and jaunito- you'll need a spoonful of sugar to make this one go down.

http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2006/12/neocons200612

stan, john d, juanito and paulo, please don't hurt yourselves. Especially you stan, since it speaks to precisely what I was talking about with you.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/print?id=2626032

Rob,

“See stan, the reason why I know you're an idiot is because you're in denial of the fact that the intelligence was fabricated.”

Who fabricated the intel Rob. Did President Bush fabricate the intel when President Clinton said there were WMD in Iraq (Before Bush was even in the White House)

President Clinton said this on Dec 16 1998 when he ordered a strike on Iraq:

Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons.-- Iraq would be free to retain and begin to rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs in months, not years-- He will surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction, and someday -- make no mistake -- he will use it again as he has in the past.-- So we will pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its weapons of mass destruction and work toward the day when Iraq has a government worthy of its people—

“and we knew darn well that there was no way Saddam could have used that gas against American soil.”

President Clinton said Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world. Rob, American soil is in/on the world. Get a map, check it out.

Look what President Clinton said in the last line I quoted. President Clinton wanted to pursue a long-term strategy to contain Iraq and its WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION.

“And stan, you give yourself to much credit. You're not the bane of civilized society. You're just a brainless, petty partisan hack, more like the gum stuck on civilized society's shoe than the bane of its existence. It's clear for your posts that you're here to vent your hate, not to discuss what is or is not true or what is or is not good for America.
Simply put, you are a hater, and its in the "National Interest" to ignore you.”

Then ignore me Rob. Ignore the facts. Be ignorant.

hey stan-

I've never seen a Bush defender quote Clinton in support of an argument. That is a first, I think, in the history of the world. Too bad you made history sounding like a jacka$$.

uhh, stan? 1998 does not = 2003. Clinton called out Saddam and had the UN on top of him. His strategy was being implemented, Saddam was contained. Ask your idol Richard Perle. When we invaded, Bush lied and said that the inspectors weren't given access.

Fact is, Saddam did not have the WMDs when we invaded. An invasion was not necessary, but the neo-cons had Bush's ear, and regime change and cha-ching oil reserves were priority. Read the news. Now all the neo-cons are running from Bush like a kid from an m-80 he just lit, streaking for cover. They're blaming the administration for complete and unprecedented incompetence. Your FURHER Richard Perle said if it were up to him, HE WOULDN"T HAVE INVADED!!!!!! Their whole ship is going down and, my look how the rats do run.

The "yellowcake" intelligence was a sham. it was fabricated by the administration and used as a cudgel to beat democrats into authorizing use of force.

You're wrong, just admit it. Or don't admit it, just wallow in your wrongness and make the mud thicker by continuing to defend yourself.

You see, it's like you're in quicksand. The harder you struggle, the deeper you sink, and in the bottom of the pit you're in is the inevitability of your wrong-ness.

Anything you say from this point on is like spitting into the wind. You don't have a leg to stand on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.

What are you going to do, bleed on me?

Rob Norris,

Yours is an utterly unreasonable proposition. People are going to coalesce into groups to promote their agendas whether you think doing so is good idea or not. You simply can't mount a reasoned argument in favor of an utterly unreasonable idea, and so of course you haven't.

So top skirting the question: Since your position is unreasonable and antidemocratic significant numbers of people can never be convinced it is right, therefore HOW ELSE do you eliminate political parties if not by force?

And here's another question: even if it were actually true that I defend Bush, how would doing so preclude anybody from from paying attention to reasonable critique? Arguments stand or fall on their own merits (By the way, in case you haven't figured it out, yours fell.)

Third question: since you can't respond coherently to something as simple and straightforward as the first question, aren't you the feeble minded one one?

You will be allowed one chance to apologize.

Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 4, 2006 6:12:23 PM

Rob,

One chance? So now you are regulating my freedom of speech? Are you sure you're not a Republican?

I don't need your permission to respond as many times as I want.

Rob,
“I've never seen a Bush defender quote Clinton in support of an argument. That is a first, I think, in the history of the world. Too bad you made history sounding like a jacka$$.”

Believe it or not, I’m a Republican that likes President Clinton. I didn’t agree with everything he said and did. I don’t agree with President Bush on everything he says or does either. If quoting the facts makes me a jacka$$...... (BTW I agreed with President Clinton when he struck Iraq because the UN was getting nowhere. And he had the balls to go into Kosovo and stop the slaughter when the polls were against it.)

"uhh, stan? 1998 does not = 2003. Clinton called out Saddam and had the UN on top of him. His strategy was being implemented, Saddam was contained. Ask your idol Richard Perle. When we invaded, Bush lied and said that the inspectors weren't given access."

If the UN had been on top of Saddam in 1998, President Clinton wouldn't have bombed Iraq over WMD. The UN was too busy lining the pockets of it ‘Iraq watchers’ during the oil-for-food scandal. Saddam wasn’t allowing the inspectors to do their job as was spelled out in a cease fire the Iraqis signed after the 1st Gulf War. People in the Clinton administration (not the neo-cons, because they weren’t in power yet) believed Saddam was trying to hide something. The UN said the inspectors were being hampered by Saddam -- not then Gov Bush.

“The "yellowcake" intelligence was a sham. it was fabricated by the administration and used as a cudgel to beat democrats into authorizing use of force.”

--Now turn to the front page of the June 28 Financial Times for a report from the paper's national security correspondent--He describes a strong consensus among European intelligence services that between 1999 and 2001 Niger was engaged in illicit negotiations over the export of its "yellow cake" uranium ore with North Korea, Libya, Iraq, Iran, and China. The British intelligence report on this matter, once cited by President Bush, has never been disowned or withdrawn by its authors.—

President Bush, as far I know, cited the intel. He didn’t produce (fabricate) it. President Bush wasn’t in one of the European intelligence services fabricating false intelligence to fool the Democrats. The time period cited in the report included dates when Mr Bush was still Governor of TX.

Maybe Governor Bush was really a British secret agent like James Bond, That would explain everything.

President Bush, or anyone else, would have wrong to ignore the intel at the time. The European intel services reported (and may still believe) Niger was trying to sell nuclear material. Those are the facts.

And now for the rest of your post:

“You're wrong, just admit it. Or don't admit it, just wallow in your wrongness and make the mud thicker by continuing to defend yourself.
You see, it's like you're in quicksand. The harder you struggle, the deeper you sink, and in the bottom of the pit you're in is the inevitability of your wrong-ness.
Anything you say from this point on is like spitting into the wind. You don't have a leg to stand on, like the Black Knight in Monty Python's Holy Grail.
What are you going to do, bleed on me?”

Very intelligent come back, you are quite the witty one Rob.

"Yours is an utterly unreasonable proposition. People are going to coalesce into groups to promote their agendas whether you think doing so is good idea or not. You simply can't mount a reasoned argument in favor of an utterly unreasonable idea, and so of course you haven't."

"sounds good Rob..." -juanito

I don't know, you seemed to like it at first...

"People are going to coalesce into groups to promote their agendas..."

Is that your own empirical observation? Can you demonstrate that people will "coalesce" into groups even if they're offered an alternative to "groupthink?" And what in that premise dictates that people forming groups need to be at odds with each other? I'm just concerned about politicial PARTIES, juanito, not "groups."

Your criticism is shallow. Put some more thought into it next time. You pat yourself on the back because you claim to dismiss my argument with a hackish rhetorical "proof" that only proves you don't understand the argument to begin with. And using words like "utterly" in that context just make you sound like you're desperate.

The idea itself is not "unreasonable" because of your unfounded claim that people will form groups no matter what. Sure, people can form groups, but they don't necessarily need to oppose each other. I think you'll find that, if you think about it, most conflict has its source in those things I mentioned earlier that people would need to move on from.

You're just not comprehending the idea, juanito. I think you need some philosophy to really understand the nuances of it. It's not a black-and-white concept, like you seem to think.

And Rob, your denial is the deepest I've seen yet in these forums. You and John D should start a "neo-con supporters anonymous" chapter, it'll really help you get through these tough times ahead. But back to denial. If you think the "yellowcake" was legitimate from the word go, then you just aren't fully informed. You probably have heard the criticisms of the yellowcake intel, but you can dismiss them because you have faith in Bush, and you don't think that shady things happen at that level of politics, or something. You definitely have some kind of block in your brain that prevents you from seeing what's right in front of your face, and that block is most likely sourced by faith. That is, "belief without reason," and you have no reason to trust BushCo in anything they do. They have proven that.

ANd Juanito, yes, arguments stand and fall on their own merits. That's the basis for my idea of no-party government. But you do defend Bush, you do it all the time. And one who defends Bush is objectively wrong, because Bush is indefensible. That is not a matter of opinion. If you're fully informed, it's an objective fact. So I question the capacity of a person to actually be reasonable when they spend their time in these forums defending Bush. So really, you aren't "qualified" to judge what is or isn't reasonable.

I suggest both you and Stan go get some more information, for your own edification.

And Stan,

Very intelligent come back, you are quite the witty one Rob.

Posted by: Stan | Nov 5, 2006 8:25:54 AM

What I wrote with the Monty Python wasn't a "comeback," it was the original jab. So that above from you is the comeback, and what a pitiful one it is.

And Stan,

Very intelligent come back, you are quite the witty one Rob.

Posted by: Stan | Nov 5, 2006 8:25:54 AM

What I wrote with the Monty Python wasn't a "comeback," it was the original jab. So that above from you is the comeback, and what a pitiful one it is.

Posted by: Rob Norris

OUCH! An 'original' jab. You are too smart for me.

Try to stick to the facts and answer the questions. Quit trying to be cute by quoting old movies.

Your knowledge of Monty Python is impeccable. Your knowledge of the issues I raised is lacking.

Rob,

For all of your sputtering, you have still not answered the very simple straighforward question.

I just don't know what else to say. I guess I'm just not the subtle, philosophical type like you and Mussolini.

PS: You, of all people, sound extremely foolish calling somebody else "desperate"!

Rob,

Oh, by the way, faith is not "belief without reason" as you put it in your last babbling screed. It is rather belief in that which can not be proven. That's not the same thing at all. Faith can be -- and more to the point should be -- based upon reason.

Einstein intuited Relativity without proof. Would you call him unreasonable?

If you hope to try to impress people that you're a deep and subtle thinker (and frankly I think you should give up on that) you should try to get some of these basics nailed down first.

Now that I'm thinking about it, yeah you probably do call Einstein unreasonable.

Ciao, Benito.

"I think you'll find that, if you think about it, most conflict has its source in those things I mentioned earlier that people would need to move on from."

"It would require people abandon their religious superstitions"

"If people are against that, then they would have the opportunity to voice their opposition. Their claim would be subject to a reasonable debate. If their claim stands up to reason, it would be included. If not, it would be excluded."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 5, 2006 10:42:43 AM

We could ban religion and allow only those who agree with Rob to speak and be heard.

That is a brilliant defense of the constiution Rob.

The communists already tried this and it worked out so well for them.

Stan,

It worked real great for the Nazis too!

Rob,

Please, PLEASE give me one chance to apologize, though!

Again, stan with the selective comprehension. Did I say ban all religion? No. I'm just advocating removing religion from politics completely, as in, re-enforcing the separation of church and state. I'm not sure stan, but I think that's already in the constitution. Maybe you can let us know since you're the constitutional scholar.

What's sad is that, based on your comments (stan and juanito) you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and are just attacking. You've managed to somehow call communism a "reason based" system of government by likening it with the idea I propose. Nice logical gymnastics.

Hey stan, can you put your premises behind your head, or are you not that flexible?

"Oh, by the way, faith is not "belief without reason" as you put it in your last babbling screed. It is rather belief in that which can not be proven. That's not the same thing at all. Faith can be -- and more to the point should be --based upon reason."

"Einstein intuited Relativity without proof. Would you call him unreasonable?"

-juanito

The idea that Einstein's intuiting of relativity has anything to do with faith is ridiculous. Is your argument that since he intuited relativity and then he was proven right, that your intuition of God will also be proven right? Or that the intuition of God is somehow the same as his intuition of relativity?

You're pathetically trying to co-opt the scientific credibility of Einstein's theory by likening it to the intuiting of the existence of God. Einstein had concrete, observable reasons for his suspicions about the nature of time and space. There are absolutely no concrete, observable reasons that would lead one to suspect that God exists just as it says he does in the religious texts, whichever ones you choose.

Further, believing in something that cannot be proven is by definition UNREASONABLE. You can't squirm your way out of conceding that faith is irrational by definition, whether you phrase it as "belief without reason" or "belief in that which cannot be proven." The only reason to believe a premise is if it holds up to critical analysis, ie IT CAN BE PROVEN.

Wow, juanito. Now we know that you have no basis for judging what is or is not reasonable. You think faith is somehow a reasonable pursuit.

Hey, i'm intuiting that the world is actually carried around space on the back of a gigantic invisible tortoise. You can't disprove it, so I guess it's about as true as the God idea.

But anyway, why don't you give me just one example where it is reasonable to believe the truth of a premise that is impossible to prove. And don't take the "well, nothing's REALLY provable for sure" road. That's a copout. To the extent that things are provable, give one example where it is reasonable to believe the truth of a premise that cannot be proven.

I can't wait for this one.

"HOW ELSE do you eliminate political parties if not by force?"

I take it that was your simple, straightforward question, juanito? The one you claim I haven't answered?

I answered it immediately, but somehow it escaped you. Maybe it's because you're just reading my posts looking for something to attack and missed it? Here it is again, clearly marked so that you'll be sure to see it this time:

Is that your own empirical observation? Can you demonstrate that people will "coalesce" into groups even if they're offered an alternative to "groupthink?" And what in that premise dictates that people forming groups need to be at odds with each other? I'm just concerned about politicial PARTIES, juanito, not "groups."

The key that you're not understanding is that there is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between a POLITICAL PARTY and a SOCIAL GROUP. Got it?

I've answered all of your questions multiple times. You apparently have selective reading comprehension as well, juanito, and its actually you that is doint the "skirting." Another sad Bush supporter, projecting his inadequacies onto a perceived liberal nazi-terrorist.

You guys are hilarious.

And why didn't you respond to any of the real news items I posted? Neo-cons on the run from Bush, calling his administration incompetent? Rumsfeld charged with war crimes? Recruiters lying to kids, allowing anyone with a pulse into our military?

You guys don't care about that stuff. You just want to wave your flag, cheerlead for the Decider in Chief and feel like you're on the winning team. The contortions of reason that you go through to justify the feeling of your being "correct" is amazing because you don't even realize you're doing it.

Here's another take on heckuva job BuchCo, straight from the horse's mouth. Stan, Juanito, Paulo, John D, Bruce, all of you Bush supporters, can you just finally admit you were wrong? All of the people you used to parrot are running for the hills! They know they were wrong, why don't you?

http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_11_20/feature.html

Still waiting for an answer.

"allowing anyone with a pulse into our military?"
Posted by: Rob Norris

Like I said before, the standards were good enough to keep you.

"There are absolutely no concrete, observable reasons that would lead one to suspect that God exists just as it says he does in the religious texts, whichever ones you choose."

People believe in God because of "Faith". They don't need you're approval to believe in God.

You ridicule people people that believe in God even though the constitution guarantees freedom of religion.

Political parties are fine, politics is fine, ridiculing people that don't believe the way you do is pathetic.

"What's sad is that, based on your comments (stan and juanito) you don't have a clue what I'm talking about and are just attacking. You've managed to somehow call communism a "reason based" system of government by likening it with the idea I propose. Nice logical gymnastics"
Posted by Rob Norris,

You can't even explain what you're talking about.

"If people are against that, then they would have the opportunity to voice their opposition. Their claim would be subject to a reasonable debate. If their claim stands up to reason, it would be included. If not, it would be excluded."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 5, 2006 10:42:43 AM

I never called communism a reason based government. I used your own words about religion and how you think some people don't deserve to be heard. YOUR OWN WORDS.

Explain to me who would be excluded in your utopian, religion-free society.

"You guys don't care about that stuff. You just want to wave your flag,"
Posted by Rob Norris,

Your choice of words here says it all. You could have said 'the' flag but you didn't.

It's your flag too, right Rob?

"allowing anyone with a pulse into our military?"
Posted by: Rob Norris

Like I said before, the standards were good enough to keep you"
Posted by me.

I got so excitied I left a word out. The word I left out was out. Out should have been after you.

Sorry I'm just to explain things the same coherant way Rob does.

Stan has gotten so desperate that he has had to resort to outright lying, straw-men attacks, and assaults against my patriotism. This is on top of already being swiftboated about my ROTC service. Incidentally, all of those techniques are covered in the GOP Political Playbook: How to "Win" an Argument, by Karl Rove with a forward from Paul Wolfowitz and an afterword by Dick Cheney.

"I never called communism a reason based government. I used your own words about religion and how you think some people don't deserve to be heard. YOUR OWN WORDS." -stan

How can you presume to put words into my mouth when everything I've said is right there, spelled out for all to see!

Thanks for proving that the degree to which you can comprehend the written word falls short of the degree needed to understand what I am talking about.

Stan uses a quote from me that essentially says that anyone with opposition will be afforded the right to state their claim. If it stands up to reason, than it is accepted. If not, then it doesn't qualify AS AN ISSUE THAT SHOULD INFORM POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE DECISIONS.

How do you interpret that to be me saying that they "don't deserve to be heard?" I specifically say that anyone will be heard and their claims subject to reason. So stan proves with this assertion that he does not properly understand the meaning of certain words, or that he is a twisted liar.

"Like I said before, the standards were good enough to keep you" - stan

I thought your whole claim against me was that I was "never in" the military? Now I was because it allows you to work in a jab? FLIP FLOP

"People believe in God because of "Faith". They don't need you're approval to believe in God." -stan

I know they don't need my approval. But faith is not a reason to believe in anything, it is the ACT of believing a premise without reason or evidence. So people don't believe in god "because" of faith, faith is the act of believing in God. You clearly don't understand what faith is, either.

And about the flag. Are you in the process of attacking my patriotism, stan? I said "your flag" because while the flags we both are holding look exactly the same, the one you're waving MEANS something far different than the one I've got. You support Bush, and he is an anti-constitution authoritarian executive whose goal is unilateral executive power. That is about as anti-America as you can get, if you take the Constitution to be the document that defines America. The flag I'm holding represents the constitution and the ideas of liberty and justice and freedom, you know, the ACTUAL American values.

And in my "utopia," which I never called it nor do I think it would be, no one would be "excluded" unless they wanted to be. What would be excluded are the irrational concepts from the process of decision making relative to legislation and policy, not people who want to go to church. They could still do that, but they could not expect to have any laws designed to appeal to them, as this current occupant routinely does to the voters who got him there to begin with. I wonder if they know now that he was lying to them too, placating them, appeasing them for political gain, just like he managed to do to you.

Probably not.

"Political parties are fine, politics is fine, ridiculing people that don't believe the way you do is pathetic." - stan

Do you realize that the major religions of the world have ridicule of the non-believers built in? Each religion has its exclusive claim to truth, and all of the non-believers of this claim will end up in hell (excluding certain eastern religions). Believers ridicule non-believers just by the act of believing, because believing entails the assumption that non-believers are wrong, hellbound, and worst of all, morally inconsequential, and that the believers are correct, trutful, and superior as a result. Religious arrogance, one of the worst kinds.

An evangelist on the sidewalk, after you've said you're not interested, he looks at you with ridicule as he walks away, secure in the belief that his knowledge is what is TRUE. The whole purpose of religion is to get all the non-believers to be believers, otherwise they go to hell!!!

The point is, in case you didn't get it, is that religion mocks non-believers and ridicules them inherently. Your claim that I am guilty of ridiculing those who "don't believe what I do" is in fact another classic example of projection, because all you do in these forums is ridicule those who don't agree with you rather than arguing the points.

Further, religion itself inherently ridicules non-believers for the mere fact that they are non-believers. So it is not I who ridicule those who don't share my beliefs, it is rather the religious who ridicule those that do not share their belief. Let's just be glad non-believers are no longer tortured until they confess to being a witch, now's it's just passive ridicule. It is an article of their faith to do so.

"Stan has gotten so desperate that he has had to resort to outright lying, straw-men attacks, and assaults against my patriotism. This is on top of already being swiftboated about my ROTC service."

Let's be clear. I never said you weren't in ROTC (but I am starting to doubt it), I said you weren't in the military like you keep saying.

Anyone can check the other thread. You aren't being swift-boated, you're being called a liar.

Every thing I've said is true.

I spoke to Col Ed Spencer, commander of the AFROTC unit here at the University of Nebraska at Omaha. ROTC students that accept scholarships are not in the military **until** they graduate and are commisioned or become enlisted members because they can't complete the program.

Rob, did you complete ROTC? Did you serve as a Navy enlisted member? If the answer in no, then you weren't in the Navy

John Kerry was in the Navy, he got swift-boated. You're just a pathethic military wanna-be.

"Further, religion itself inherently ridicules non-believers for the mere fact that they are non-believers. So it is not I who ridicule those who don't share my beliefs, it is rather the religious who ridicule those that do not share their belief."
Posted by Rob Norris,

Pick a religion (any religion) and show me how they ridicule other religions. Be specific. Is it documented anywhere?

These are your words Rob:

"Further, believing in something that cannot be proven is by definition UNREASONABLE. You can't squirm your way out of conceding that faith is irrational by definition, whether you phrase it as "belief without reason" or "belief in that which cannot be proven." The only reason to believe a premise is if it holds up to critical analysis, ie IT CAN BE PROVEN."

If you think calling religious people unreasonable and irrational is not ridiculing them, you don't know the meaning of the word.

Am I supposed to be offended at being called a military "wanna-be?"

I did want to be in the military. I was prevented from acheiving that goal due to circumstances beyond my control. Should I be made to feel bad because I wanted to serve my country but couldn't? Does that make one worthy of ridicule?

You're right. What you're doing to me regarding my time in ROTC is not "swiftboating," it's a textbook example of ridicule. You called me a wanna-be to "deride" me.

GOOD JOB, STAN!! YOU DO KNOW WHAT RIDICULE MEANS!!! You even used it in an EXAMPLE! I think you're ready to learn how to tie your shoes now.

Don't worry, I know you still fear change, and moving on from velcro to laces will be a big challenge for you, but you can do it. You can ridicule someone trying honestly to serve their country in uniform, you're capable of anything.

" know they don't need my approval. But faith is not a reason to believe in anything, it is the ACT of believing a premise without reason or evidence. So people don't believe in god "because" of faith, faith is the act of believing in God. You clearly don't understand what faith is, either."
Posted by Rob Norris, Human Dictionary

Here is the definition of faith, it's straight from an online English dictionary. Check out #2.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/faith

faith (fath) n.
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

But this is nothing new for you. You throw words and phrases out there and then say people are too stupid to understand what you mean. You can't argue the facts.

What is your definition of faith since I din't unstand what faith is?

"Don't worry, I know you still fear change, and moving on from velcro to laces will be a big challenge for you, but you can do it."
Posted by Rob Norris, shoe salesman.

There was no velvro on my combat boots

This was posted on the other thread 25 hours ago. Since you seemed to have missed it or are too much of a coward to answer it there, I'll post it here to.

I was in ROTC. It's pretty simple. Are midshipman in ROTC or at the Academy "not in the military?"

If not, what are they? Pretending to be in the military? Do they not answer to their CO and other superior commissioned officers who run the unit? Do they not get billets? Is there not PT? Is there not muster every day? Do they not go on summer cruises on the Roosevelt or train with the Marines in CA? Do they not need to maintain their uniforms?
Posted by: Rob Norris

My son is 15 and in JROTC. He answers to his CO and other superiors that run the unit, He has to perform PT and muster once a week. He wears a uniform.

So, I guess he is in the military too. If he goes to college and takes ROTC there, he'll be a 5-star general when he gets out. Cool.

He hasn't had any summer cruises on the Roosevelt yet, but he did go on an Alaskan cruise with his grandmother a couple of years ago. What kind of 'military' credit does he get for that?

Posted by: Stan | Nov 5, 2006 6:14:39 PM

You cowardly dodged the question of providing an example as to when it is reasonable to believe a premise that you have no evidence or proof for, but did you really post that definition of faith and act like it proved your point? Wow.

Ok. Many words have different meanings. Faith is one of them. When words have different meanings, they are contextually defined, meaning that the word is defined in relation to whatever context it is in.

In the case of our back and forth, the following definitions can be applied to "faith"

2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.

3...The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.

A couple other definitions can be applied as well, more or less. Anyway, the reason why none of that MATTERS is because you are still missing the point of definition #2. It is exactly what I defined it as in my posts. "Belief without reason." The only possible "REASONS" you could have for believing something are logical proof and/or material evidence.

Faith, in the religious context, literally means "to believe without REASON(S)." Essentially there's no difference between "faith" and "Blind faith." Faith is always blind, by definition, because in order for it to be "faith," there cannot be any reason or logic to support it.

RATIONAL= the character of an idea or thing that is defined by logic, reason, and verifiable evidence.

IRRATIONAL=see above, now think opposite

Ergo, faith is, by definition, IRRATIONAL.

And that's just using the definitions of the words themselves. Once you explore the things and ideas that faith leads you to, ie RELIGION, you will find probably the most irrational ideas ever conceived by man.

Many people think that faith is good because it brings people together, promotes charity and the like. But it is not necessary to be faithful to acheive those things. There are plenty of good reasons for charity and togetherness that have nothing to do with god. In other words, "God" is not responsible for those ideas, or any of the other "good" things about religion. Humans are.

And you reposted that one about your kid? I would be embarassed by that one. You do realize you're making fun of a person who wanted to serve their country, had signed up for it and was being trained to be a Naval officer, but couldn't do so because of an accident? And that's all you keep talking about. You have no other points. You're seriously un-informed and apparently afflicted with a comprehension problem.

So how bout that example I asked for earlier. If you give a good one I'll at least know that this back-and-forth is worth continuing.

They have combat boots in the chAir Force? I thought they just had slippers and flight socks.

"They have combat boots in the chAir Force? I thought they just had slippers and flight socks."
Posted by Rob Norris,

Nice. Very witty.

I'll have to tell that one to the AF men and women I work with that have spent almost half of the past three years on 90-day rotations to the dessert away from their families.

I'll tell them you said to pack their slippers with their survival gear and phtos of their kids.

"So how bout that example I asked for earlier. If you give a good one I'll at least know that this back-and-forth is worth continuing."
Posted by: Rob Norris | Nov 6, 2006 8:30:21 PM

If you think you are too smart to continue this conversation you can stop at any time Rob.

"Ok. Many words have different meanings. Faith is one of them. When words have different meanings, they are contextually defined, meaning that the word is defined in relation to whatever context it is in."

In the context of religion faith IS belief. If people believe in religion and if they believe God exists, it is true. If they belive what they read in the Bible, Quran, or Torah that is perfectly acceptable. Maybe it isn't acceptable to you, but is was to the framers of the constitution.

I know you don't believe this. It doesn't matter. People won't stop going to church because you think there is no God.

Get over it. If people want to believe in God, leave them alone.

"And you reposted that one about your kid? I would be embarassed by that one. You do realize you're making fun of a person who wanted to serve their country, had signed up for it and was being trained to be a Naval officer, but couldn't do so because of an accident? And that's all you keep talking about. You have no other points. You're seriously un-informed and apparently afflicted with a comprehension problem."
Posted by Rob Norris,

I've talked about a lot of things. Most you haven't responded to. You've gone on-and-on about how I and others are too dumb to understand your superior intellect.

But so far you haven't been intelligent enough to be able to respond to the fact your 'proof' of military service is a list of things my son does in JROTC.

The only thing that embarasses me is your claim you were in the military when you couldn't even get past 'trying' to be in the military.

And as for reposting things that you haven't responded to, how's this:

You say you couldn't complete ROTC because you got injured. That must have been one hell of a big boo-boo considering there are soldiers that have been returned to active duty after having limbs blown off. Just between us 'military' guys, was the injury that kept you out of the Navy a brain injury?

I have other points, but right now I'd like you to respond to these. Keep it simple and we'll both try and get past 'my' comprehension problem.

You're misinterpreting me again, stan. I'm not saying i''m against people having the right to believe in whatever they want- only insofar as it does not encroach on the rest of us. I'm talking about religion in politics, not religion in one's private life. I'm providing reasons as to why it should be completely excluded from the realm of public discourse as far as legislation and policy is concerned. Religion is a problem when it starts to dictate people's behavior, and then that behavior becomes law, and we have occupants like W in the White House, trying to legislate morality. It's absurd.

At the same time, religious belief essentially dictates to the believer that he force his beliefs on others. It's hard to be both an evangelical christian and at the same time private about your faith, preventing it from encroaching on others. If you're christian and you haven't sold your possessions and followed Jesus'