Iowa Caucuses '08

[Odin]

Why must he be a foreign policy and economic disaster waiting to happen?

Because he dosent toe the current republican party line: Spend more then any other administration in history (backed by a republican congress) and export ideology via military force.

The fact that he dosent adhere to these new concepts of the republican party scares them.

[Odin]

Because he dosent toe the current republican party line: Spend more then any other administration in history (backed by a republican congress) and export ideology via military force.

The fact that he dosent adhere to these new concepts of the republican party scares them.

Them meaning the rank and file of the party not Lemur, Ice or Sasaki.

Cant edit posts yet so thought I would post a clarification of them

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Apologies for jumping off topic,
Lemur, Sasaki, Ice,
The 97,000 is in the Top 20% for income. It's about the average for someone with a Doctorate. The middle 33% range is $30,000 to $62,500.
Some Fun Numbers. Now that that's done...

That's household income not individual income--the tax is on individuals.

Who but a madman could spout such nonsense?

Ron paul is way ahead of most of the republican candidates and most issues and ahead of many of the democratic candidates on some issues. War on drugs comes to mind. But his economic ideas are terrible (gold standard), he wouldn't intervene overseas even if there were very good reasons for it, and he cites the FDA, FEMA, and the department of energy as wasteful organizations that need to be cut.

comedy answer: even a broken watch is right twice a day

[ICantSpellDawg]

I absolutely love Ron Paul.

I support Romney, but if Romney was beaten by Ron Paul, I would be fine with that. They are my two top choices and have drastically different ideologies. Those are two routes that I think the U.S. should take and either way is fine by me.

[Xiahou]

comedy answer: even a broken watch is right twice a day

Also, while he's in principle pro-free trade, his all-or-nothing approach to it has led him to oppose virtually every free trade agreement that's come up for a vote. As president, with an increasingly protectionist Democrat congress he could do significant damage to both our economy and to our relationships with our allies.

Ron Paul, as he was summed up by the Club for Growth is:the Perfect as the Enemy of the Good. I'd say that's a decent assessment.

Because he dosent toe the current republican party line

No, many of his policies are disastrous- plain and simple. I like much of his ideology, but when it comes to how he wants to put it into practice- he fails.

[Ice]

But his economic ideas are terrible (gold standard),

Who cares?

The point is he is for a more open and free economy with lower taxes.

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. HE CANNOT REVERT US BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD.

he wouldn't intervene overseas even if there were very good reasons for it,

You are very being vague. What are these "good" reasons?

and he cites the FDA, FEMA, and the department of energy as wasteful organizations that need to be cut.

I don't really know much about FEMA or the department of energy, but I'm not really a fan of the FDA. People should be able to take whatever they want, given a warning that it might not be throughly or accurately tested.

Besides a recent drug I was taking which was deemed "safe" by the FDA, wasn't really to safe to me after all. I had some unwritten side effects.

Sorry Saski, I don't really want a nanny state with high taxes and limited freedom.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Thanks for everybody's take on America's next president, Hillary Clinton.

Romney. I declare him unfit to govern a free country. I just read his speech about religious tolerance. There are some good thoughts and reminders about America's tradition of, and path to, religious tolerance in it. However, in his (just) cause to take away reservations about his faith, he forgets one thing: America was not only build on faith, but also on liberty of thought. What of those who are not religious?

I understand that every candidate must pay at least lip-service to America's overwhelmingly religious electorate. And I understand that Romney in particular needs to stress the universality of his faith. But even so, I can't help but be shocked by this speech.

Not the abolition of slavery, nor the civil rights movement, nor the Catholic president Kennedy, nor a female, Mormon, Afro- or Jewish American for president will be the ultimate sign of America fullfilling it's promise of liberty for all, but an atheist president, declaring America to not be one nation under God, but one nation under liberty and equality for all. One day, one day...

Romney's speech in full. Below are two excerpts. Some of which I liked, some of which I fiercely oppose.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

"We separate church and state affairs in this country, and for good reason. No religion should dictate to the state nor should the state interfere with the free practice of religion. But in recent years, the notion of the separation of church and state has been taken by some well beyond its original meaning. They seek to remove from the public domain any acknowledgment of God. Religion is seen as merely a private affair with no place in public life. It is as if they are intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They are wrong.

"The founders proscribed the establishment of a state religion, but they did not countenance the elimination of religion from the public square. We are a nation 'Under God' and in God, we do indeed trust.

"We should acknowledge the Creator as did the Founders – in ceremony and word. He should remain on our currency, in our pledge, in the teaching of our history, and during the holiday season, nativity scenes and menorahs should be welcome in our public places. Our greatness would not long endure without judges who respect the foundation of faith upon which our constitution rests. I will take care to separate the affairs of government from any religion, but I will not separate us from 'the God who gave us liberty.'

"Nor would I separate us from our religious heritage. Perhaps the most important question to ask a person of faith who seeks a political office, is this: does he share these American values: the equality of human kind, the obligation to serve one another, and a steadfast commitment to liberty?

"They are not unique to any one denomination. They belong to the great moral inheritance we hold in common. They are the firm ground on which Americans of different faiths meet and stand as a nation, united.

"We believe that every single human being is a child of God

"Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

"It was in Philadelphia that our founding fathers defined a revolutionary vision of liberty, grounded on self evident truths about the equality of all, and the inalienable rights with which each is endowed by his Creator.

"We cherish these sacred rights, and secure them in our Constitutional order. Foremost do we protect religious liberty, not as a matter of policy but as a matter of right. There will be no established church, and we are guaranteed the free exercise of our religion.

"I'm not sure that we fully appreciate the profound implications of our tradition of religious liberty. I have visited many of the magnificent cathedrals in Europe. They are so inspired … so grand … so empty. Raised up over generations, long ago, so many of the cathedrals now stand as the postcard backdrop to societies just too busy or too 'enlightened' to venture inside and kneel in prayer. The establishment of state religions in Europe did no favor to Europe's churches. And though you will find many people of strong faith there, the churches themselves seem to be withering away.

"Infinitely worse is the other extreme, the creed of conversion by conquest: violent Jihad, murder as martyrdom... killing Christians, Jews, and Muslims with equal indifference. These radical Islamists do their preaching not by reason or example, but in the coercion of minds and the shedding of blood. We face no greater danger today than theocratic tyranny, and the boundless suffering these states and groups could inflict if given the chance.

"The diversity of our cultural expression, and the vibrancy of our religious dialogue, has kept America in the forefront of civilized nations even as others regard religious freedom as something to be destroyed.

"In such a world, we can be deeply thankful that we live in a land where reason and religion are friends and allies in the cause of liberty, joined against the evils and dangers of the day. And you can be certain of this: Any believer in religious freedom, any person who has knelt in prayer to the Almighty, has a friend and ally in me. And so it is for hundreds of millions of our countrymen: we do not insist on a single strain of religion – rather, we welcome our nation's symphony of faith.

"Recall the early days of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, during the fall of 1774. With Boston occupied by British troops, there were rumors of imminent hostilities and fears of an impending war. In this time of peril, someone suggested that they pray. But there were objections. 'They were too divided in religious sentiments', what with Episcopalians and Quakers, Anabaptists and Congregationalists, Presbyterians and Catholics.

"Then Sam Adams rose, and said he would hear a prayer from anyone of piety and good character, as long as they were a patriot.

"And so together they prayed, and together they fought, and together, by the grace of God ... they founded this great nation.

"In that spirit, let us give thanks to the divine 'author of liberty.' And together, let us pray that this land may always be blessed, 'with freedom's holy light.'

"God bless the United States of America."

[Xiahou]

What of those who are not religious?

What about them? I must've missed the part in his speech about compulsory religion for everyone.

[JimBob]

Who cares?

The point is he is for a more open and free economy with lower taxes.

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. HE CANNOT REVERT US BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD.

Yes, but...who appoints people like the Secretary of the Treasury? He cannot do it himself. But he can put people in positions of power who agree with him. And Xiahou hit the nail on the head, his ideology is great but he would be a horrible president practically.

I don't really know much about FEMA or the department of energy, but I'm not really a fan of the FDA. People should be able to take whatever they want, given a warning that it might not be throughly or accurately tested.

Besides a recent drug I was taking which was deemed "safe" by the FDA, wasn't really to safe to me after all. I had some unwritten side effects.

Sorry Saski, I don't really want a nanny state with high taxes and limited freedom.

?
Yes, the FDA puts out bad drugs sometimes, sometimes they're in the pockets of the people making the drugs. But if we get rid of them you wanna think about how many quacky useless harmful drugs are going to be on the market? There's a reason we have an FDA, before we had it people were dying because of tainted products. If the government keeps some greedy schmucks from selling me rat poison as Tylenol then I don't call that a nanny state, and I am more than willing to give up my right to tainted meat.
But that's just me.

That's household income not individual income--the tax is on individuals.

Oops. Missed that little bit, the numbers you want are in the article.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

FOR THE LAST TIME, THE PRESIDENT IS NOT A LEGISLATOR. HE CANNOT REVERT US BACK TO THE GOLD STANDARD.

This is questionable. Congress did enact modifications to an existing act (originally focused on preventing trade with Germany during WW1) that greatly widened the scope of Presidential authority on matters economic.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Section 1. The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March 4, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.

Sec. 2. Subdivision (b) of section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows:


"(b) During time of war or during any other period of national emergency declared by the President [emphasis added by Seamus], the President may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President, and export, hoarding, melting, or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof- and the President may require any person engaged in any transaction referred to in this Subdivision to furnish under oath, complete information relative thereto, including the production of any books of account, contracts, letters or other papers, in connection therewith in the custody or control of such person, either before or after such transaction is completed. Whoever willfully violates any of the provisions of this subdivision or of any license, order, rule or regulation issued thereunder, shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or, if a natural person, may be imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both; and any officer, director, or agent of any corporation who knowingly participates in such violation may be punished by a like fine, imprisonment, or both As used in this subdivision the term 'person' means an individual, partnership, association, or corporation."

Sec. 3. Section 11 of the Federal Reserve Act is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new subsection:


"(n) Whenever in the judgement of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency system of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may require any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations to pay and deliver to the Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations. Upon receipt of such gold coin, gold bullion or gold certificates, the Secretary of the Treasury shall pay therefor an equivalent amount of any other form of coin or currency coined or issued under the laws of the United States. The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay all costs of the transportation of such gold bullion, gold certificates, coin, or currency, including the cost of insurance, protection, and such other incidental costs as may be reasonably necessary. Any individual, partnership, association, or corporation failing to comply with any requirement of the Secretary of the Treasury made under this subsection shall be subject to a penalty equal to twice the value of the gold or gold certificates in respect of which such failure occurred, and such penalty may be collected by the Secretary of the Treasury by suit or otherwise."

Roosevelt had been in office 5 days. He promptly prohibited the private ownership of gold save for jewelry and effectively (de facto, not de jure) removed us from the gold standard -- an action taken formally by Great Britain 2 years previously. Gold, previously valued at $20.67/ounce, was fixed at $35/ounce (deflating the value of the currency by 41%).

Thus an emergency AS DECLARED BY THE PRESIDENT is sufficient to allow for action by executive order.

President Nixon took this further by announcing that the USA would no longer trade currency for gold at the agreed $35/ounce of the era. Private ownership of gold was re-allowed, but since the treasury was no longer trading in gold per se, the currency rapidly became a "floating" currency (as were most major currencies even before this.

All of these efforts were accomplished without benefit of any legislation from Congress.

Should he become President of the USA, Ron Paul could declare that an economic crisis exists wherein US dollars, lacking inherent value, pose a damaging threat to the USA and then issue an executive order cancelling the previously promulgated executive orders regarding redemption of currency for gold and modifcations to its valuation, returning the USA to the gold standard as established by Congress in 1900 -- $20.67/troy ounce. New currency would have to be issued to reflect the correct amount of gold on reserve in the Federal system and what would happen to the current dollars is anyone's guess.

To "stop" Paul, Congress would have to pass specific laws voiding those efforts and maintaining things using the current system. They would also have to do so by a 2/3 majority vote to insure their ability to over-ride the inevitable veto.

...at least that's the way I read it.

[woad&fangs]

I'm pretty sure that we can count on 2/3rds of the Congress to vote against returning to the gold standard. If Paul gets to crazy then the Congress will just impeach him anyways.

[rvg]

I'm pretty sure that we can count on 2/3rds of the Congress to vote against returning to the gold standard. If Paul gets to crazy then the Congress will just impeach him anyways.

It's not good enough. Ron Paul is a loose cannon, and it is way too dangerous to have someone like him in the oval office.

[Lemur]

I think folks are being more than a little unfair to the Paul. I watched an interview with him some months ago, and the journo was throwing all of these extreme positions at him, to which Paul basically responded, "That's where I'd ultimately like to go, but it's going to take a long time, and I wouldn't try to do anything too disruptive at once."

I can see that point. I just don't know, I hear "loose cannon," "loon" and "insane" being thrown around, and the man just doesn't seem to live up to the defamation.

[Lemur]

Hillary update: "Maybe the Clintons aren't as smart as we thought they were?"

But lately Hillary careened off the high road, down the exit ramp and into the bowels of political pettiness. The Clinton campaign’s press release accusing Obama of stating his desire to be president in a kindergarten essay is one for the ages. Mark Penn, her pollster, went on television the following day to say it was just a joke but the damage had been done. The Clintons don’t joke.

Marc Ambinder has a fascinating piece in The Atlantic this month that reveals Team Clinton didn’t see Obama’s presidential bid coming. He reports that in 2006 they still only saw John Edwards as a potential rival, and the story shows they were right — Obama changed his mind to run this time, having always planned to look at the idea 10 years hence. This means the Clinton campaign knows Obama didn’t actually come to the Senate planning his presidential run — but that is beside the point. Ambinder found that Obama’s financial success and “rapturous” reception stunned HillaryLand and she was able to find her footing only after the first debate when her strong response to a question about a terrorist attack, and Obama’s weak one, made him look like a rookie.

[woad&fangs]

It's not good enough. Ron Paul is a loose cannon, and it is way too dangerous to have someone like him in the oval office.

I'm curious if anyone knows his record as a senator. I bet we would see a lot of sensible votes.

[Xiahou]

I think folks are being more than a little unfair to the Paul. I watched an interview with him some months ago, and the journo was throwing all of these extreme positions at him, to which Paul basically responded, "That's where I'd ultimately like to go, but it's going to take a long time, and I wouldn't try to do anything too disruptive at once."

It's tough to make progress towards any reform when he opposes incremental changes because they're not perfect.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Ron Paul has opposed many free trade agreements during his time in Congress:

* Voted against Fast Track Authority[36]
* Voted against a free trade agreement between the U.S. and Chile[37]
* Voted against free trade with Singapore[38]
* Voted against free trade with Australia[39]
* Voted against CAFTA[40]
* Voted against the U.S.-Bahrain trade agreement[41]
* Voted against the Oman trade agreement[42]
* Voted against normal trade relations with Vietnam[43]

While he supports free trade in theory, Rep. Paul chafes at the government's role in the process, arguing that "We don't need government agreements to have free trade. We merely need to lower or eliminate taxes on the American people, without regard to what other nations do."[44] His philosophical support for free trade is evidenced by his support for legislation lifting government-imposed trade barriers, such as the Cuba embargo,[45] and legislation allowing for the reimportation of prescription drugs.[46]

Unlike protectionists who deny the economic benefits of free-trade policies, Ron Paul embraces the importance of free trade, but lives in a dream world if he thinks free trade will be realized absent agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA. Paul himself argues that "tariffs are simply taxes on consumers,"[47] but by opposing these trade agreements, he is actively opposing a decrease in those taxes. While Paul's rhetoric is soundly pro-free trade, his voting record mirrors those of Congress's worst protectionists.

Again from the Club for Growth:

Summation

When it comes to limited government, there are few champions as steadfast and principled as Representative Ron Paul. In the House of Representatives, he plays a very useful role constantly challenging the status quo and reminding his colleagues, despite their frequent indifference, that our Constitution was meant to limit the power of government. On taxes, regulation, and political free speech his record is outstanding. While his recent pork votes are troubling, the vast majority of his anti-spending votes reflect a longstanding desire to cut government down to size.

But Ron Paul is a purist, too often at the cost of real accomplishments on free trade, school choice, entitlement reform, and tort reform. It is perfectly legitimate, and in fact vital, that think tanks, free-market groups, and individual members of congress develop and propose idealized solutions. But presidents have the responsibility of making progress, and often, Ron Paul opposes progress because, in his mind, the progress is not perfect. In these cases, although for very different reasons, Ron Paul is practically often aligned with the most left-wing Democrats, voting against important, albeit imperfect, pro-growth legislation.

Ron Paul is, undoubtedly, ideologically committed to pro-growth limited government policies. But his insistence on opposing all but the perfect means that under a Ron Paul presidency we might never get a chance to pursue the good too.

I can see that point. I just don't know, I hear "loose cannon," "loon" and "insane" being thrown around, and the man just doesn't seem to live up to the defamation.

The gold standard is loony.

OTOH, he's still better than any Democrat candidate.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I wasn't arguing for or against Ron Paul with my post on Executive orders. I was merely countering a claim that, as President, he would not have the power to act on some of his preferences.

I actually like him a bit -- just not as a candidate for President.

Some of his supporters are loons -- but I could make that claim of a lot of our would-bes.

[Lemur]

I must've missed the part in [Romney's] speech about compulsory religion for everyone.

Of course Romney said nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty amused by his wriggling on the issue.

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

[woad&fangs]

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.[/indent]

A new "religion" offends the Evangelicals and their Mormon hero. O NOs!!! Say it ain't so!!!

And here I was thinking that Hypocrisy and Scumminess wears a pantsuit. How wrong I was apparently

This is a prime example of why I dislike Romney.

[Marshal Murat]

Xiahou, what about bias in your articles?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Xiahou, what about bias in your articles?

Honestly, haven't we had enough of that little joke? The point has been made, can we move on?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Of course Romney said nothing against atheists, but I'm pretty amused by his wriggling on the issue.

A spokesman for the Mitt Romney campaign is thus far refusing to say whether Romney sees any positive role in America for atheists and other non-believers, after Election Central inquired about the topic yesterday

It's a sign that Romney may be seeking to submerge evangelical distaste for Mormonism by uniting the two groups together in a wider culture war. Romney's speech has come under some criticism, even from conservatives like David Brooks and Ramesh Ponnuru, for positively mentioning many prominent religions but failing to include anything positive about atheists and agnostics.

Indeed, the only mentions of non-believers were very much negative. "It is as if they're intent on establishing a new religion in America – the religion of secularism. They're wrong," Romney said, being met by applause from the audience.

The American system has nothing to do with Atheists in a similar way that it has nothing to do with fascists. Incompatible concepts.

In order to accommodate either, a re-write of the foundations and wording of the entire system would be necessary.

I am agnostic, but I recognize that "God" and the concepts of the Judeo Christian ethic are the center of the laws of this country. All Religions with similar values based on a superlative are welcome, but anything that contradicts them will need a new system.

A New system may not be what most are looking for. Expect them to push back.

You can look at it in other ways too, it's arguable

[Lemur]

The American system has nothing to do with Atheists in a similar way that it has nothing to do with fascists. Incompatible concepts.

In order to accommodate either, a re-write of the foundations and wording of the entire system would be necessary.

I'm not quite sure how you arrive at that conclusion. The words "God," "Almighty" and "Lord" appear only obliquely in the founding documents. In the Constitution the Lord shows up thusly:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven.

God, the Almighty and Jesus don't even get a mention.

In the Declaration of Independence God shows up, but only in a weird quasi-Rousseau kinda way:

... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them ...

The fact of the matter is that our Founding Fathers were fresh from Europe's Wars of Religion, had Cromwell's puritan paradise fresh in their minds, and wanted nothing to do with creating any sort of Judeo-Christian anything.

The Founders were, by and large, Deists and Pantheists. The modern attempt to re-imagine them as a bunch of Christian fundamentalists is worrisome.

Could America have occurred without Christianity? No way. But it's much more pertinent to ask whether America could have happened without the Enlightenment.

-edit-

I guess no such discussion would be complete without dragging Jefferson into it. Here's what he had to say about the role of religion in the public life: "The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg." Rather different from what we hear today, no?

-edit of the edit-

Then there's the Treaty of Tripoli, signed in 1796, approved by then-President Adams, which has this bit of trivia:

As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

As the accompanying article states:

Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. It was the 339th time a recorded vote was taken in the Senate and only the third time a unanimous result was obtained. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers.

Make of that what you will.

[ICantSpellDawg]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor."

That sounds like a creator with a plan to me. Without those statements, all laws are hollow and arbitrary.

[Lemur]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

That sounds like a creator with a plan to me. Without that statement, all laws are hollow and arbitrary.

You can certainly read it that way, but the text is hardly going out of its way to put God at the center of the action. Do we hold these truths to be God-given? No. Do we hold these truths to be revelatory? No. We hold them to be self-evident.

Compare our Constitution with other charters and documents of the time. It was standard practice to declare, as often as possible, how much God approved of this township or this state. Most such documents would have whole paragraphs extolling the Almighty and declaring that the signers were his favorite people. If anything, our Constitution is barren of the Divine by comparison.

It's true, God does get mentioned, but it's a stretch to take that and conclude that America was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation, especially when so many of the Founders contradict that sentiment.

Which is not to say that America cannot be remade into a Christian nation.

[ICantSpellDawg]

You can certainly read it that way, but the text is hardly going out of its way to put God at the center of the action. Do we hold these truths to be God-given? No. Do we hold these truths to be revelatory? No. We hold them to be self-evident.

Compare our Constitution with other charters and documents of the time. It was standard practice to declare, as often as possible, how much God approved of this township or this state. Most such documents would have whole paragraphs extolling the Almighty and declaring that the signers were his favorite people. If anything, our Constitution is barren of the Divine by comparison.

It's true, God does get mentioned, but it's a stretch to take that and conclude that America was founded as a Judeo-Christian nation, especially when so many of the Founders contradict that sentiment.

Which is not to say that America cannot be remade into a Christian nation.

It's Judeo-Christian ethical origin is a matter of reality, but is not stated within any text. The idea of God, or even a single God IS. In addition, the truths
are "self-evident" as endowed by the creator. If you leave the creator out of the foundation of the nation and the source of the rights that it protects, I believe that you would be misleading yourself. Those rights are not self-evident by any stretch of the imagination without a fancy superlative.

[Lemur]

TuffStuff, our disagreement over the Declaration of Independence will have to stand, since there's no way to resolve a dispute over emphasis.

Do you have any response to the Treaty of Tripoli?

[ICantSpellDawg]

It was not stated in the constitution, so I agree that it was not founded on the Christian Religion. It is founded on the idea of a creator, which I believe was worded as a singular one. (That is my statement on the Treaty which, until you brought it up and I read it, I had never heard of in that context)

The ethical origin of the United State is clearly Judeo-Christian, I don't think you will argue with that. It also has its origins in enlightenment thought (which are largely based on Judeo-Christian morality as well). I think of the two as Father and Mother of the United States. To disregard one or the other would be un-realistic.




This is the first little disagreement that I have had without the contents devolving into personal insults (on either side). Thank you Lemur! Next time I disagree on something with you I will remain civil!

I agree to not hijack the thread to beat any more dead horses (the official sport of the backroom)


EDIT

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/di...y/bar1796e.htm

In the translation from Arabic, count how many times "God" (47) and "American Christians" (10) are mentioned. Same treaty ratified by congress. Article 11 is strangely absent. How much authority do the words in it hold?

Either way, "The treaty of Tripoli remained on the books for eight years, at which time the treaty was renegotiated, and Article 11 was dropped."

[Crazed Rabbit]

Anyone who thinks Kucinich would not be the worst president America has ever had, that he's anything more than a scheming demogouge, that he's any better than a filthy panderer to bigots and rose to power on race baiting needs to read this article on the real history of Kucinich's truly disastrous mayorship, characterized by putting a twenty something with no experience in law enforcement, only blind loyalty to Kucinich in charge of the police.

http://www.clevescene.com/2007-12-05...e-king-of-spin

Crazed Rabbit

[Kralizec]

Your point being...? The general crime decrease in NY is clearly stronger than nationwide. LA is just one other city that's been more successful than average in reducing crime. Newark rather gives the impression that it didn't even have a police station until 1996, and besides with 275,000 people it's a village compared to NY or LA.