"Nothing unites people better than a common enemy."

Well, it ain't love of donuts Kari.

Republicans are united?

A disgruntled sense of entitlement, disturbed. And the never-ending search for the culprit.

Hang on Kari. Hang on. The Repubs also have some very healthy "Godless Pagans" and, I daresay, a few who claim no religion. I know many deep conservatives from Ceremonial circles. They grab "I want my country back" stickers from the booths of whiney conservatives at country fairs, and deploy them wryly with the double entendre quite intact.

You are seriously on the offense against a good number of conservatives who are not really as you describe! I was just thinking about the fact that they may not be so united - simply overtaken, frankly. But the ones you describe as their sum and total.

Gosh! It's kinda rare for you to get up such a rant! :)....

[but the party itself is just as you decribe it - i just think you should lay off that jesus guy - he's as pissed and aggrieved as you are regarding what's been done with his Name]

re: Jack just another example of republican victimhood. Poor rich republicans being looked down upon by democrats. I think I'll go cry into my arugula salad.

In response to Kari:

First of all, “the party of Jesus”? Really? I wonder how many Dems would argue that point? And Repubs too!

I know that you meant to refer to those who believe that their party is more closely associated with Jesus. But attacks like these may make the point, don’t you think? People are people. I love how some love to attack Christians saying that they don’t practice what they preach. But standards don’t fall down if we aren’t able to attain them, do they? World peace has been unattainable in history, for example. Don’t criticize the entire religion for setting a bar to strive for.

It’s very common to quote Jesus on the things that make our points. The right does it all the time. All the time. I’ll note that the reference in the Bible to condemning homosexuality (Leviticus) is right next to one condemning the eating of shellfish. The right quotes one, but not the other. Frankly, IMO, neither apply to Christians for various reasons. Now the left is quoting Christ on “other cheek” and “peacemaking”, forgetting that he also wielded a whip to drive people out of the temple and that the Bible says “an eye for an eye”? Context is everything. The book is complex and very hard to understand. I don’t claim to understand it all. But to claim sound bites as doctrine is pretty weak.

By the way, the reference to “the eye of the needle” is a reference to a small opening in the walls of a city that allowed one man at a time to enter, most often needing to stoop to do so. It was to allow trade in the city for the occupants outside the walls without opening the gates to invasion. It isn’t a reference to a literal needle's eye, but to a small opening. A camel could have made it through in most cities, but with very much difficulty. Meaning, God doesn’t condemn the rich, but holds them to the same high standard and recognizes that wealth makes meeting that standard difficult.

The Repubs biggest uniting factor is the failure to go on offense. There's been massive corruption and vote fraud by Acorn - No Response. A Portland Mayor driving his truck around with his pants down, getting in wrecks, molesting teenagers - No Response.

Truth be told - the Republicrat machine is the real problem. Until there's a strong third party - it will be bankruptcy as usual.

The correct answer is G: Debt-financed wars (to be paid by future generations) on brown people to make the world "safe" for a foreign government, namely Israel.

...well at the national level anyway. For local races, hatred of Democrats probably suffices.

Thanks John, I appreciate the info. I'll need to rethink things a bit. I'm a big proponent of original Hebrew and Greek in translations. I still don't get how much people use the translated text to support a view in modern vernacular and swear that God sees it like they do. ie, homosexuals.

Do you agree that "God doesn’t condemn the rich, but holds them to the same high standard and recognizes that wealth makes meeting that standard difficult."?

Sal--exactly. Always the claim of voter fraud, never the evidence. But I do enjoy when ACORN gets slammed--I make a donation to them, happily.

There really is a Republican Jesus.

Republicans are united by opposition to the policies advanced by the Democratic Party. Democratics (I get in trouble for calling you Democrats sometimes) appear to be united by opposition to the existence of Republcans. But in the end, I'll never be as witty as Mr. Roberts.

Jack, I am the granddaughter of a Republican politician who was active in his church, very detail oriented, and closer to maybe a cross between Sen. McCain and AG Kroger (Grandpa was a county prosecutor during Prohibition and later Michigan state AG) than anything else. He was very solution oriented, not the sort of ideologue many seem to be now. I inherited his clippings and know he wasn't anti-tax for the sake of being anti-tax, and this whole rhetoric of private sector jobs being better than public sector jobs was not part of his vocabulary.

I campaigned for Tom McCall's re-election, and my political heroes include Norma Paulus, Vic Atiyeh, Nancy Ryles, Clay Myers, Mary Alice Ford. In 1976 I voted for Gerald Ford for Pres. as the kind of Republican I had grown up around.

But at some point, the Oregon and national GOP decided they didn't want people like me anymore--some even said versions of "go away, we don't want your kind".

Cong.John B. Anderson (R-Illinois) decided to run for President in 1980 because in 1978 he'd been challenged from the right in a primary----apparently being a former Evangelical Layman of the Year was not enough if one didn't follow a particular ideology and theology.

So when I hear / read statements like " "Hatred of Democrats who ridicule and make look down their noses at them, their beliefs and their way of life." I want to ask this question:

Reading the above, did you think I was looking down my nose at Republicans, their beliefs and their way of life?

You have no way of knowing the friendships I have with some Republicans.

And when I was growing up it was never explained to me why Republicans have to be small town evangelicals who attend Values Voters events and own guns. If you don't like that stereotype, do you really believe every registered Democrat "looks down" on all Republicans? Or are stereotypes OK to describe Democrats but not Republicans? I have relatives who were formerly Republicans but changed their registration and/or started to vote Democratic because they didn't like the direction of the GOP. Incl. the mother of a Wellseley classmate of Hillary Clinton who looked at the 1992 GOP convention attacks on Hillary and decided she couldn't vote for anyone who would attack her daughter's college classmate that way.

Or could it be that Jackie Winters, Frank Morse, and a few other Republican legislators stand out as such exceptions because too many fit a stereotype?

When I was growing up, Republicans were serious, well mannered people. Such people still exist, like the ones who say Joe Wilson's shout during the President's address was out of line because Republicans are supposed to be the party of good manners.

One more thing, Jack. "looking down on their lifestyle" begs this question----do you have the same lifestyle as the Republicans you mention? Is there a Republican lifestyle? Because if there is, perhaps that is one of the problems with recent vote results: the GOP changed from a big tent party to a party only wanting people who fit a certain profile. Sorry, you can't blame Democrats for that.

Could it be possible that the decline of voters registered with major parties could be such partisan attitudes? Or haven't you noticed that the fastest growing party is no party at all?

Kari, First, I blame this grumpy outburst on the Washington Huskies.

Second,
   Don't bother wasting your time trying to talk religion with religious people. It's the ultimate no win situation. The eye of the needle camel story is just one example of the ever-ending morass you get into.

  The best line I heard about religion came from a local comedian named John Wetteland: "Don't worry. Your magic story is the real one. Everybody else is just crazy."

  The trap is to give into the idea of this as a Christian nation. Any hint of a theocracy immediately  leads to endless battles between various sects to pick the one true version of Christianity.

  The best I ever did was a discussion on Noah's Ark where the religious types responded that Noah fit the dinosaurs on the ark safely by bringing two eggs of each kind.

I asked how they knew there was one female and one male.

   There was a long pause, then one of them said he had a friend who owned an ostrich farm and he could tell just looking at the eggs if it was a male or female.

   Oooookay! Believe me just save your time and skip using their own belief system against them.

   When you are holy people, you can  do anything you want including killing people who aren't as holy as you are.

    Especially if God tells you it's okay.

Egad. I go away for a few hours to a Board meeting and you kids just rip the house to SHREDS.

Nothing unites people better than a common enemy,I totally agree

LT:

You have no way of knowing the friendships I have with some Republicans.

Bob T:

Why should that surprise anyone? -- this is America. It's not like we're in different sectors, and are tribal with a history of killing each other. Sheesh! "Some of my best friends are Republicans!".

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bill, that's a hilarious story.

To me, Bible verses are like statistics. You can manipulate them to mean anything you want. Enough said.

Bob, my point was to Jack who I believe knows better than to say that Democrats look down their noses at Republicans.

Sterotyping never helps anyone. And snide remarks like Jack's are why I may very well register NAV after the next primary---getting tired of hearing there is a D box and an R box and everyone is supposed to fit the stereotype of one or the other.

"I'd argue that it's the corporate Republicans who are most guilty of this behavior -- as they callously and maliciously misuse the Bible to convince working-class folks that the party of the wealthy, the powerful, and the multinational corporations has their best interests at heart, when nothing could be further from the truth."

Read Kevin Phillips on this topic. What could have made the young man famous for Nixonian rhetoric become the author and commentator who said, "Just as there are people so left wing and out of touch with reality that they wouldn't know how to park a bicycle straight, so there are people so out of touch with reality on the right that they would have the same problem". He talks about Main Street Republicans written off by Wall Street Republicans and the danger of theocracy.

In many cases it wasn't Democrats who made people like Kevin Phillips angry enough to start writing and talking about how the GOP was going down the wrong road, it was formerly active Republicans. Jack can be as witty as he wants, but he won't change that.

Kari, You want hypocrisy? This is my best example and one I came up with on my own: The main emotional issue wielded by the Republican Party is the rights of the unborn. Even gay marriage has not been used as effectively to unite the religious right. And this is not to say that these positions aren't heartfelt by the people who were used this way.

  But how does this same party - and these same people - support a preemptive strike on another country using thousands of tons of depleted uranium?

  Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. This stuff will go on causing horrific deformities and death in babies from here out. Look at the pictures if you dare. And yes, it has hurt our own service men and women too, but I'm looking at this from the point of view of the GOP's main moral issue. So let me ask these holier-than-thou religious conservatives:

  If you support the rights of the unborn, what about the unborn in Iraq?

To me, what unites the republican party in any sense that they are united is their members ability to believe things that are demonstrably false.

In their world, facts are trumped by belief.

The only thing that really ever unites Republicans is Democrats.

Anti-communism has always been a Republican issue.

I do so love lefties talking about the Bible as though they understand it. Kari is game, but he completely blows it on the same level that Christian conservatives did--that distilled, the object of Christianity is self-betterment for the next life. Worldly affairs are incidental to a true Christian, not central. The teachings of Jesus are intended to be carried out on the individual level, not as a societal prescription or model of governance.

Kari's not so subtle conflation of taxes with the charitable giving promoted by Christianity is totally off base. This is especially true when a good deal of the taxes paid in this country directly or indirectly attack the very beliefs of Christian conservatives.

Yes, why aren't they on board for being fleeced by lefty elitist commissars on the behalf of liberal bureaucrats and union members who are actively undermining their way of life?

That's not much of a mystery to this. Social leveling via the destructive powers of government isn't what true Christian charity is about at all. Christians who attempt to commandeer the apparatus of state power for theocracy-lite are just as badly misguided as lefties mischaracterizing the taxation shakedown of the citizenry as the moral equivalent of charity.

In "What's the Matter with Kansas" Thomas Frank asked the wrong question as he marveled that the beggar thy neighbor economic policies of the Democrats didn't easily win the day among lower income conservatives. The class warfare through governmental coercion that is the modus operandi of the jackass party has no real attraction to a true Christian. By and large, Christians do not begrudge the wealthy when "true wealth" to them is measured in the non-economic terms of family, faith, and friendship. Tearing down people to build themselves up is anathema to them. One does not even have to get as far as the distaste many folks have being in league with baby murderers, homosexuality promoters, anti-gun knuckle heads who pontificate on items they cannot even accurately describe, and the religiously hostile elite that runs the jackass party, to understand that hostile economic parasitism has an inherently limited appeal to active Christians.

See what I mean, Kari? Boats just used the most classic example of why talking about religion is a waste of time. He used the phrase, "a true Christian." Because while he gives you credit for being "game" to try and understand it, it is he, Boats, who will explain what the Bible really means. Then the next Boats in the next village will say, "No, Boats is full of it. He is not a true Christian. He is a heretic. He is an anti-Christian."

   And then it is on.

 You regularly hear shows where one protestant sect or another calls the Pope the anti-Christ. I'm serious. In Northern Ireland, people who believe in Christ one way, and people who believe in Christ another way have a long history of slaughtering each other.

  The Sunnis and the Shia in Iraq both believe devoutly in Allah, and look how that worked out.

  So, I'd rather not go there. I'd rather not bring up the subject because it does little good. As soon as you start you're on their turf listening to their interpretation of something, and watching them getting all misty as they explain why they're right and everyone else is wrong. Next, you're listening to George W say that Jesus told him to invade Iraq.

Then, if you happen to say, "Please, shut up. Just shut up", they switch into the "We are even more righteous because we are being persecuted for our faith"-mode. That can go on for the next 500 years.

   I used to be where you are now, Kari. I had long talks where I asked how light that takes something like 100,000 years to cross our galaxy could have arrived here in 6,000 years. How could light from the billions of other galaxies have time to get here showing events that must have happened longer than 6,000 years ago?

  The ultimate, fail-safe answer to that, incidentally, is that the devil implanted these fake events like exploding stars, etc...to make you think the Bible was wrong. Whatever.

 The key, Kari, is not to let it bother you, because it can really be annoying. Anytime someone brings up their religious beliefs I nod and smile respectfully and think of the comedian John Wetteland's line: "Sure, your  magic story is the right one. Everyone else is just crazy."

  Now, I do object to these people who are actively trying to bring about the End Times. That's something we really do have to monitor, but these days, as I grow more and more cynical about our species, I comfort myself with the thought that maybe we have it coming.

Boats, this is the most intelligent statement I have ever heard from you:

"The teachings of Jesus are intended to be carried out on the individual level, not as a societal prescription or model of governance."

WWJD and those who believe strongly in the message of the Sermon on the Mount and Matt. 25 are more appealing to those of us who grew up in Sunday School reading, memorizing, and discussing the Bible than those who seem like they want to trademark CHRISTIAN as someone who is evangelical, goes to Values Voters meetings, and never strays from a strict ideology and theology. Apparently being active in a mainline church is not enough for them.

One problem with debates today is that some people don't want to conform to an external standard such as the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Too many seem to act like "Because I am (insert label here), I have the right to do whatever I want!".

Any American has the right to their own opinion of whether public figures live up to this from the Bible: Micah 6:8 (King James Version)

He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?

Ideology does not meet that standard, nor does yelling at someone in a meeting or in a debate. People can disagree about who meets that standard, but it is an objective standard.

In the JFK Inaugural there is a line that civility is not a sign of weakness and sincerity is subject to proof. I am one person who prefers to support those in politics who can show humility, sincerity, and at least some understanding of the concepts of justice and mercy. 3 decades ago, there were members of both major parties who fit that standard.

If there are now people who say they can count the people in politics who meet that standard on their fingers, or that they left the Republican Party because it did not seem to value such people, whose responsibility is that?

George Lakoff has written a lot about this question. Lakoff is a linguist and focuses on framing but also looks closely at the values that "unite" the major parties/political ideologies. He's one of the best at this stuff.

If you have to choose one thing that conservatives/Republicans have in common that separates them from liberals/progressives is level of empathy. You can look at most issues and see that the level of empathy is a difference maker.

Take healthcare. What party is more concerned with the poor and uninsured? What party is more concerned about universal coverage? What party is more concerned about issues relating the greater good? It's not that conservatives lack empathy all together, they only extend it to a select few.

You can look at a range of issues and see the same thing. Do you think Dick Cheney would be in favor of same sex marriage if his daughter wasn't a lesbian?

Lakoff also connects the different value systems to two general parenting models (nurturing parent and strict parent) and uses a family metaphor for the nation. I come from a Republican family and a conservative rural community and it seems to me that Lakoff has a pretty good grasp on what makes righties tick.

George Lakoff has written a lot about this question. Lakoff is a linguist and focuses on framing but also looks closely at the values that "unite" the major parties/political ideologies. He's one of the best at this stuff.

If you have to choose one thing that conservatives/Republicans have in common that separates them from liberals/progressives is level of empathy. You can look at most issues and see that the level of empathy is a difference maker.

Take healthcare. What party is more concerned with the poor and uninsured? What party is more concerned about universal coverage? What party is more concerned about issues relating the greater good? It's not that conservatives lack empathy all together, they only extend it to a select few.

You can look at a range of issues and see the same thing. Do you think Dick Cheney would be in favor of same sex marriage if his daughter wasn't a lesbian?

Lakoff also connects the different value systems to two general parenting models (nurturing parent and strict parent) and uses a family metaphor for the nation. I come from a Republican family and a conservative rural community and it seems to me that Lakoff has a pretty good grasp on what makes righties tick.

One of the most significant indicators of political ideology is rate of church attendance. Basically the more religious (NOT MORAL) you are the more likely you are to vote Republican. While there are conservative atheists, agnostics, etc, if you do not subscribe to religious superstition, you're much more likely to vote Democrat. Point being, another major difference between left and right is how superstition/religious mythology is valued. When you have a group much more willing to go on something without scientific evidence, your gonna have problems. The least religious democracies like Denmark and Sweden have flourished without the heavy burden of faith-based politics. They don't have voters who choose politicians based on their opposition to stem-cell research and same-sex marriage. They don't have tens of millions of citizens waiting for the rapture. We pay a hefty price for the high level of religiosity in America. And yes, religion can and does inspire good, but that in no way means basing your moral foundation/value system on made up stuff is a good idea.

Well Bill, I am an atheist, so there. However, if one is going to inject supernatural mumbo-jumbo into the debate, they ought to at least not turn it into jumbo-mumbo, te way that Kari does.

Coerced third party taxation has nothing in common with giving freely of one's self to the needy. His vain attempts to equate these things betrays his facile understanding of the Bible.

I'd say that the "Party of Jesus" understands the Bible and itself far better than does Kari.

Boats, I'm sorry if I misunderstood where you were coming from. Myself? I have no idea what's going on but I appreciate the profound scope of the situation.

 I am in AWE. We were not shortchanged on this deal - that, I know for sure.

 Where I'm a hopeless traditionalist is the one universe idea. I'm not saying there aren't multi-universes but I have kissed this part off. I don't have enough time left to wrap my head around the idea even though it would explain a lot of things.

 My big breakthrough is looking at things as force fields. If you walk down the street and concentrate you can see a sort of temporary field of energy instead of matter. You can see matter as energy.

 My idea of heaven would be a lecture room where Michelle Pheiffer explains anything you want to know. At least that would be the first part of heaven.

Value, about this: "One of the most significant indicators of political ideology is rate of church attendance."

So all clergy, regardless of denomination, have the same ideology? What about a church musician (organist,etc.), esp. one who is on staff or on call for churches of multiple denominations?

Does everyone in a particular church who attends more than one service per week have the same voting record, party registration, etc? I don't believe that is true generally. I know there are churches where all people have the same politics, and people who don't feel comfortable with that view change churches.

But if there are several people really active in their church, attend every service the church holds, perhaps even teaches Sunday School or has some other major role, but these people all belong to different denominations, I don't believe they all vote the same.

Measure 36 was supposed to be a church-based measure as if all religious people voted the same way. Except there were demoninations where church members actively campaigned against it, and there were voters (I knew one) who voted for Bush and against 36.

In my experience, generalizing is dangerous. Esp. if it gets to the point of anyone believing "everyone in this group will vote with us". It may well be there are people in that group who disagree with everything such people stand for.

Kari,

Of course Leviticus is OT and Jesus is NT. My error on making it sound like the Leviticus reference was Jesus and not Jesus-people. The point is that people are people, Jesus-people are people too.

I think the people who criticize the religious love to point out apparent hypocrisy. But the religious rarely claim to be following all of the guidance they find in the Bible. And they far too often tell other people how to live.

But the attacks on the religious come almost exclusively from the left. With a generous dose of superiority that far outshines the perceived superiority of the religious. Telling people that they live their lives based on supernatural and fantasy creations is pretty divisive. Why this comes up seems to be to attempt to discredit or dismiss ideas based upon the idea carriers religious beliefs.

The attempts to discredit red ideas is often aimed at dismissal for reasons other than ideas. "Hypocrisy, intelligence, theocratic, rich, corporate-loving, backward", etc etc. Work in ideas and solutions, history and fact. Don't you think?

Dear Bill: matter IS energy. We are but differentiated vibrational rates. Therefore: omituyasin. We are all related.

Hey Rick,while I hear what you are saying, I want to say something gently. Me and my people honor christ and do not deny him. But we are called pagans, godless and devil and object worshipers and expected to go to hell forthwith by those folks you are defending.

I think it's more the hypocrisy or short-mindedness of calling someone else's "magic" not-magic, but yours: magic.

I do not like any in my circle ranting against christians or christianity. We have to exit that loop. We must not perpetuate that which hurts so very much. Our elders work on this constantly. Encouraging the genocided spirit to let go of the hate and fear of the ones who brought it.

So personally, I try not to engage in rants against xians. But those who do, have compassion for them. Have you asked them what abuse a purported follower of the christ may have heaped on them? I think that might be at the foundation of this....

Joshua,

The difference isn't empathy, but how to apply it. Realistically, I understand that the value of taking care of people with the public (governmental) money is a Democratic ideal. And the Repubs believe it is better to give the handout of the fish, but then teach them to fish, make them accountable and if they choose not to fish, then they have made a personal choice. Handout after handout isn't empathy. And helping someone become more dependent on government, or charity for that matter, isn't the ideal either, it seems.

Characterizing the right as evil is inaccurate. Disagree with the approach, but don't attach beliefs, or lack of them, without basis. I think that people need to work, and specifically to work hard, make money and pay for the costs of life. Only in the left is an entry-level job, with minimum wage, criticized because it won't support a family, or individual even. But those jobs were never intended to be careers.

I know that there are times when we all need help. And as stated before, those who see that responsibility as being that of people and not government are much more likely to provide it. So don't say that the right hasn't empathy. It's perceived and delivered differently. Isn't it?

LT: "So all clergy, regardless of denomination, have the same ideology? What about a church musician (organist,etc.), esp. one who is on staff or on call for churches of multiple denominations?

Does everyone in a particular church who attends more than one service per week have the same voting record, party registration, etc? I don't believe that is true generally. I know there are churches where all people have the same politics, and people who don't feel comfortable with that view change churches.

But if there are several people really active in their church, attend every service the church holds, perhaps even teaches Sunday School or has some other major role, but these people all belong to different denominations, I don't believe they all vote the same."

I do not claim that all religious people vote a certain way. All that I am saying is that the things we associate with religiosity like church attendance, belief in a supernatural god, belief in fantastical places like heaven, etc. are more strongly associated with conservatives than progressives. Religion generally helps create the moral foundation/worldview which is at the bottom of our political ideologies. I conclude from this that there is generally higher regard/value for evidence-based ideas on the left and the same for faith-based ideas on the right.

rw,

Agreed. In many ways around this subject, we agree. I don't know that I was defending specific people as much as I was concerned with anyone attacking them. The condescension of anyone about anyone else is always a bit off-putting to me, even when my enemies are attacked. I am sure we would disagree on much, but there is much more to focus on.

My overall point is that the unity promised by our president will never happen if his supporters attack those who disagree with them. Notice that much of the discussion from the right is on policy, ideas and subjects. Much of the response is personal attacks. Those who oppose are racists, Nazi-like and more. Let's discuss ideas and see what will get us somewhere, and identify honestly where that somewhere is. But attacks will NEVER unify this country. By the left or the right. Agreed?

Large numbers of religious people take great offense to religious criticism and cast accusations of intolerance and hatred. Many would like their faith-based ideology to be treated like it's biological, like race or sexual orientation. One of the reasons for the level of religion as well as the level of religious fundamentalism in the U.S. and elsewhere for that matter, is the fact that it is unfairly shielded from criticism. While unfair criticism of the non-religious is welcomed and openly promoted throughout the country. Even shortly after 9/11, "non-believers" were still more despised than muslims according to polls.

Far too many of the "non-religious" are obnoxious about it.

LT:

I may very well register NAV after the next primary

Bob T:

Good move. I think it would help to make both major party organizations see the percentage of people not registered to any party go as high as, say, 80% or so. Anyway, as a registered NA voter I have not seen my political junk mail diminish in frequency as election seasons get underway.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bill McDonald:

In Northern Ireland, people who believe in Christ one way, and people who believe in Christ another way have a long history of slaughtering each other.

Bob T:

Well, that's a real oversimplification. It may look like that to some, but it's mainly tribal now with roots in a genuine independence or Irish nationalism movement. In fact, many Protestants were part of the nationalist movement. The IRA that popped up in the late 1960s was barely related to the old one, and became more of a gangster kind of organization. In the decades that followed, you could find Irish atheists hating each other if one was from a Catholic family and the other from a Protestant family -- the religion in these cases merely helped to identify the other as belonging to one side or the other (Irish mainly, and the other pretty much of English stock from a family given a land grant by Britain a century earlier). The differeces in worship had little or nothing to do with it.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Bill McDonald:

Depleted uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. This stuff will go on causing horrific deformities and death in babies from here out.

Bob T:

Oh nonsense - you must be reading crap by Noam Chomsky or some other idiot who makes money on hate speech.

Look, a half life of 4.5 million years means that you can pick up the stuff and carry it around a bit and there's such a slow deterioration rate that you'll die of old age before any of that will make you ill. It's the short half life stuff that you don't want to get near, like Plutonium-210, the stuff Putin's boys used to kill Livinenko -- they'd never use U-238).

U-238 is used because of its density for shell tips, and here's what genius physicist Richard Mueller says about the use of depleted uranium's use in this regard:

the danger from radioactive material left on battlefields is small compared to general war damage.

You'll get more radiation from what you're breathing in thanks to coal-burning plants that people like Al Gore pushed instead of nuclear energy.

The "depleted uranium" stories are exaggerations written by the same people who write scare stories about the use of nuclear energy -- they don't understand it, so they let their imagination fill in the blanks are too often prone to quote garbage they want to believe.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Jack Roberts wrote:

"My honest response is to echo Ms Mel Harmon above, but if forced to answer I would modify F to read "Hatred of Democrats who ridicule and make look down their noses at them, their beliefs and their way of life."

This is telling. If forced to choose one answer, it is hatred of people who think they they are better than Jack and other Republicans that unites them/motivates them. It's not something noble like preserving the planet for future generations that really drives them, it's those dirty liberals who think they are better than him. This is reflective of the right-wing arrogant attitude that can't stand the fact that someone might be doing something better than them. This partly explains the widespread ignorance amongst the GOP on the successes of western European democracies and the general lack of interest in other cultures. Bush embodied this attitude with his well known lack of curiosity and rarely used passport.

Shallow Republican Motivation:

This is reflective of the right-wing arrogant attitude that can't stand the fact that someone might be doing something better than them.

Bob T:

Some may feel that way (I'm sure many Dems do as well - why wouldn't they?), but most are probably like ex-Sen Stevens of Alaska -- didn't care who looked better so long as he got his pork and earmarks.

Bob Tiernan Portland

Rick: "And the Repubs believe it is better to give the handout of the fish, but then teach them to fish, make them accountable and if they choose not to fish, then they have made a personal choice."

What party has strongly supported public education?

Please don't talk about accountability when you support the party of environmental destruction. Republicans need to expand their understanding of concepts like personal responsibility and accountability.

Bob, "Oh nonsense"? Nice comeback. And congratulations for making blogging history by quoting my number and then screwing it up by a factor of one thousand in the same comment. Way to bring the science.

 My understanding is that a block of depleted uranium is no big deal to be next to, but if it is inhaled into the lungs - say, after a shell of it hits a tank and it is turned into fine particles - then it can do damage to the person inhaling it.

  Bob, I wouldn't expect the government to come clean on this subject. Just look how hard veterans had to fight to get anywhere with Gulf War Syndrome.

 In closing, nobody's buying the know-it-all routine. The bold letter format is a winner, but the know-it-all bit, is <b>NOT</b> working.

To "Republicans shouldn't claim to support teaching",

First of all, the statement was specific to welfare and government support of people. Not education and the environment. But again, simplistic comments like “What party has strongly supported public education?” are of questionable value. On the subject of public education, Repubs support it strongly, but they are much more likely to demand accountability and the highest possible return on the investment of tax dollars.

I know what party has supported throwing a lot of money at an education system that isn’t of the quality that it could be. If the left thinks that foreign health care systems are the model for the US, then why do they keep financing an education system that ranks so far behind much of the developed world’s education systems? In science, the US is 29th, in math, 35th.

I think that the answer is in the Democratic Party’s affiliation with teachers unions. But I'm open as to why we spend a lot for not much. Since 1990, 92 percent of teachers union’s political contributions were made to Democrats. Interestingly, the left always states that we need to spend money to put teachers in classrooms. But the money doesn’t seem to be going there. In California, (a blue state), there is new info that more than half of the people employed in education are in non-teaching positions. For every teacher, there is more than one non-teacher. How much money do we need to spend to get to just mediocre?

And again, the left thinks that tax money equals support. Why does the left oppose school vouchers? Because they have bought the lines of their leadership? Or that they don’t think that competition will result in better schools? Or that the Unions don’t want them? I think those reasons are highly suspect.

As far as environmental destruction, I’m not sure what you mean. If you mean that, again, the Repubs need to be sure that dollars or legislation is needed and is being used appropriately, then yes, that is something I support. Throwing tax dollars and legislation at the environment needs accountability as well. Your statements seem to only suggest that repubs need to be accountable, but not dems. Why not both?

I always thought it was Jesus telling his followers to take up arms and defend capital gain tax cuts that united the Republicans.

That's bullshit. As the 90's era bumper sticker CORRECTLY had it, NUKE THE GAY WHALES FOR JESUS. The thought of doing that is what makes the wingnuts wet themselves when they unite at places like the Values Voters Conference. (The rest of us, of course, have no values, especially when we cast our ballots.)

As for all the silly arguments here about religion and morality: the sooner we separate the two, the better. There's no need to believe in an invisible, vengeful sky god in order to treat other living beings decently.

You know what BOb T? Your clumsily-formatted

"So and So"

"Bob T" call and response always make me smirk a little, as it never fails to cause me to picture Bob Dole!!!

"So and So"

"Boooooooob Dole". :).... funny how it has always made me cringe every time I see one of your contributions.

:)... but you can't fault it for clarity in the call-out!

Joel,

Regarding God belief, I agree. No need to associate the two.

So why the hate for people who have morals and say that they get a lot of them from God? If I'm to judge your morals on their basis alone, and by that I mean the ones you espouse, not ones I attach to you through some other means, shouldn't you do the same? Regardless of how you came by them? The comments about the religious as nutty, or racist, or bigoted, or environmentally callous, or money-oriented, or worse are largely created by the left. If I was to assign all values espoused by ONE leftist to ALL leftists, I could paint the left as very, very bad.

I do think that the approach to lump everyone together is a bad one, for both sides. And to say that the right are haters and the left accept all types is just ridiculous.

Rick, Religious freedom is a beautiful thing and I say run with it. I couldn't care less about that part of it. The End Times stuff? Well, that's different. Let's say, hypothetically, a President was elected who was a really religious person outwardly, but was actually a really sadistic dumb-ass inside. Let's say he wanted to end the world through a full-out nuclear war because he felt Jesus asked him to do this to bring about the End Times. I think this is where the concern comes that seems to you like religious persecution. Because that hypothetical was in full effect and George was actually meeting with people who are trying to bring about the right set of circumstances for this to happen.

  That's where I think we are in the right to question your religion. 
  That's where you've gone from exercising religious freedom to threatening humanity.
  I don't want people with the power to kill everyone on earth near the button, especially if they believe that one day everyone on earth will die. And they also hear Jesus telling them to do things like invade Iraq. It just doesn't seem wise.

 Personally, I'd rather have the Dalai Lama in the White House, than someone who believes it's all about to end. At least the Dalai Lama is working under the belief that he'll have to come back and deal with it later.

 This is where many Christians chuckle and scoff, and say, "How about that reincarnation stuff. Is that nuts or what?"

That part is not a hypothetical. I have heard them.

 Then they go right back to their story with all the belief in the world, even though it sounds just as farfetched if not more so.

 See, their magic story is the right one and everyone else is just crazy.

 And that's fine. Just don't kill off humanity to show your faith. I'm rather fond of some of these people.

Bill, I think we agree on most of this stuff. Of course we, as voters, need to vet those we are offered as candidates for mental illnesses. And I can't tell if you believe that GWB thinks that Jesus talks to him audibly, or the more common figurative use of the phrase. I'm not familiar with that claim. But the assigning motives to end the world to someone is way out there, I think.

Are you saying that you believe that GWB was trying to end the world by arranging the end times prophecies? Or, if I am taking you literally, some of those he met with are trying to do that? In other words, are you saying that our last president is guilty by association? Or culpable in actually making the attempt? Or did he meet with a nut job at some point(s)?

I think that the difference is in questioning religion, or in questioning the application of religious beliefs to public (presidential) life. Or perhaps other vetting. I don't think any modern president has failed to claim a religious belief system in the Judeo-Christian God. So I think that the beliefs are pretty innocuous to the role, or the finger on the button, if you will. But the application of those beliefs is part of what we elect, right?

Can hardly believe that Palin might now be positioning as a Libertarian? This will make our posting Libertarians roll, surely.

This lady is just amazing. She isn't really anything, maybe a mannequin. This year's fashion is the LibTard.... oy.

Rick, Let me answer your questions this way: If there was a secret prophesy that nobody knew of - it was hidden from everyone - and that prophesy was that I would paint my house orange, and one day I got up and painted my house orange, that would be impressive. Now, if everyone knew the prophesy was that I would paint my house orange and I did it, it would not be as impressive. We have a list of prophecies here that everyone knows. For example, the state of Israel is one. So now we have Christian Evangelicals who helped make it happen, pointing to it and saying, "See, our story is true. Look, there's the proof." When they helped make it come true. Another one involves the building of the Third Temple on the site of the Dome of the Rock, a Muslim site. If the Dome of the Rock is destroyed, that will be the reason. Because people who are trying to bring about the End Times, have seen this list and are actively trying to make it happen. Another prophesy apparently involves a confrontation with Iran. There are those who believe, Iraq was fulfillment of a prophesy. Were there people who met with George regularly and advised him that what he was doing was according to scripture? Absolutely. When he was asked if he got advice from his father about the Middle East, he said no, he talked with a higher father, and I don't mean Dick Cheney.

 Do I believe Bush would have blown up the world if he felt it was time according to the Bible? I don't know. He always struck me as a phony bastard on some level. Plus a coward. Personally, I always felt he turned to religion basically to get off booze and try and pretend he was a decent person - which he is not.

  But what could have happened is besides the point.  When you are talking about Armageddon, I think we are already in an area where it is all of our business. That's not some little religious ceremony somewhere. That's why the idea of a devout Christian like Huckabee becoming President is a concern. I know how the movie he wants to see ends.

  In short: Our Middle East policy has been affected by religion, specifically Christian Evangelists.

   I went through a stage where I felt it was a race to disprove this religion before these people ended the world. Now, I am at peace.

  I figure if we're so dumb to let it happen, maybe we deserve to go.

 It used to offend me that the people I love could die because of someone's religious beliefs.

But I feel powerless to stop it. Even mentioning that I'd prefer if they didn't kill everyone is branded as religious persecution.

  I'm not giving up. But with thinking like that, maybe our species deserves to fade away.

"I think that the difference is in questioning religion, or in questioning the application of religious beliefs "

Rick, there was a period starting in the late 1970s (has it ended yet?) when people who were active in mainline churchs (Methodist, some Baptists, Congregational, Episcopal, etc. ) who didn't meet the Evangelical definition of "Christian" got flak from a certain wing of the GOP which believed "people of faith" were only those of their particular theology.

This was especially bad during the Moral Majority years. A school board member in a neighboring county stood up to the Moral Majority and said outsiders had no right to try to impose their curriculum on that school district. He was an active Methodist but if he opposed the Moral Majority how could he be "Christian"?

The Oregonian obituary of St. Rep. Mary Alice Ford (excellent centrist Republican taken out by a right wing Republican in a primary) mentioned that she remembered being told that because she was religious but not Evangelical, she didn't belong in public office.

A Republican Party which wanted those who suppported Republican politicians like Vic Atiyeh, Mary Alice Ford, Clay Myers, Tom McCall, Pres. Ford and others attracted many people who respected them whether or not they agreed. Many of those folks are still around, and may have adult kids who may have supported that GOP but would rather register NAV than support any of the current crop of Republicans.

Too many in the current Republican Party want litmus tests. Republicans have to make a choice. Do they only want voters who pass the litmus tests? If not, maybe the old rule about not mixing religion and politics might be something to consider.

The funny thing about Kari blasting republicans for not living up to "the jesus party" standards, is it's all in his head. Every study ever done on the issue finds that Republicans give, on average, far more (30% is on the low end of the studies), than Democrats.

I hate to let facts get in the way of your soapbox though, so carry on.

So, I will continue to be a republican, BECAUSE I care about the poor. Think about that for awhile.

Uh Luke, I can't say whether your claim abour charitable giving is accurate or not, but I think there's a point being missed. Let's take as a given that every society has needy folks--folks who don't have the basics of food, shelter, and clothing. Is it then some sort of collective, societal responsibility to give these folks a hand? Is it just something that should be handled by individuals and private organizations? A mix? Obviously different societies reach different conclusions. As for myself, I believe there is a collective respnsibility, and I also make charitable donations and do volunteer work in my community.

Inability to pronounce "Kulongoski" unites Republicans?

<h2>No, actually it's the inability to pronounce Bayrack Hoosain Obama.</h2>