Who do you like?

Who do you like?

  • Edwards.

    Votes: 3 10.7%
  • Hillary.

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • Obama.

    Votes: 12 42.9%
  • Kucinich.

    Votes: 4 14.3%
  • A different Democratic candidate.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • McCain.

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Romney

    Votes: 1 3.6%
  • Rudy

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fred Thompson.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • A different Republican Candidate.

    Votes: 3 10.7%

  • Total voters
    28
Well we are aware that there is no separation between church and state in the constitution...that was I believe was developed via a Supreme Court decision...

Constitution says congress shall pass no law....

My past votes have been Perot, Hagelin, and Libertarian....odds are the two party system won't submit a candidate that will get me to pull a lever...or hang a chad...or touch a screen in their favor.
 
Separation of Church and State

The reason for our government from the Declaration of
Independence
: {'The why?" if you will, as contrasted with 'The how? of our Constitution}
In Congress, July 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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 to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. — The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world....​



The why of our nation and government is to secure the unalienable rights humans have been endowed with by our Creator.
Our rights do not come from the government. If the government forgets this, and says our unalienable rights come from the Government, the Government, in effect, makes itself to be God.

Keeping the government from usurping God's place is the true meaning behind the wall of separation between Church and State, imo. That is why the First Amendment says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​
For Congress to make such a law would be encroaching on God's territory, and upon individual conscience, something endowed upon us by our Creator, making the Government into god.
 
The problem I see with Ron Paul's position is that he is promoting the 'Christians are being so oppressed' argument without taking into consideration all of the other religions and spiritualities that may be marginalized. Why should Christianity have special priveleges in this country? People would clearly be upset if Aleister Crowley's "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be the Whole of the Law. Love is the Law, Love under Will," were proclaimed in a sculpture outside of some court. Yet for some Christians, it becomes an issue of civil rights when they are told that promoting religion on court steps via a sculpture of the ten commandents is not okay? :rolleyes: Eh, no... to me that smacks of hypocrisy and special privelege. Law in this country, depsite its dubious origins, has no business being Biblical, just as it has no business being derived from the Koran or the Tao Te Ching.

Hey wait... Tao Te Ching? I could warm up to that idea:

Tao Te Ching: Verse 57

If you want to be a great leader,
you must learn to follow the Tao.
Stop trying to control.
Let go of fixed plans and concepts,
and the world will govern itself.

The more prohibitions you have,
the less virtuous people will be.
The more weapons you have,
the less secure people will be.
The more subsidies you have,
the less self-reliant people will be.

Therefore the Master says:
I let go of the law,
and people become honest.
I let go of economics,
and people become prosperous.
I let go of religion,
and people become serene.
I let go of all desire for the common good,
and the good becomes common as grass.

-- Lao-Tzu
 
Hi...

Well I caved and noted support for Dennis (the Menace) Kucinich. I've never felt much of an affinity for people from Cleveland (John Rockefeller, George Steinbrenner, Don King ). But I've been a Devo fan forever (Whip it Good !).

I find myself agreeing with what Dennis says more often than not, so he's got my vote, until he loses the primaries at least, and then I'll go into default mode again.

Here's an excellent article/analysis from the NY Times regarding the nature of the United States being/not being a "Christian" nation. Very much on the mark for me.

flow....;)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/07/o...em&ex=1192161600&en=5b8b5f75e8b6a577&ei=5087
 
Nooooo problemo...bro ! (don'cha just love alliteration ?)

Oh...and it"s been on the NY Times' top ten list of most e-mailed articles since it was published, which mean that there are lots of people seriously thinking about this. A good sign...I guess.
flow....:p
 
I agree--good article, flowy.

I am doing my best to take a look at all the candidates. I really do not want to "waste" my vote this time, if there can be such a thing in reality. I still think it may be a little too early to make a firm commitment, but I do believe we should all be watching very mindfully as events of the coming months unfold. I have my favorite, and have had for a long time, and with good reason in my opinion. And maybe I will talk more about this at some point. I am trying my best to take a bi-partisan approach (or tri-partisan, or non-partisan or however you want to think of it), but the truth is, I have become quite partisan in this lifetime. I just have a very difficult time supporting any candidate running on the GOP ticket. I really do. Oh gosh, especially right now. I really hope that expressing these thoughts doesn't serve to lose me too many friends here in C-R, but I guess if that is the case, then the comraderie is not that strong anyway. Like I say, I am willing to listen, but it will take some mighty powerful convincing. :eek:

InPeace,
InLove
 
I just have a very difficult time supporting any candidate running on the GOP ticket.
I was quite interested in debate and politics in jr and sr high school... it seemed then we had Republican and Democratic Platforms, and we had conservatives and liberals in both parties. Something has changed over the years...there does not appear to be a platform for either party any more and the conservatives and liberals have supposedly gathered to their party lines... Bush and the old republican congress in no way represent or act like the party of 30-40 years ago. And democrats lean so far to the fringe during the primary and so far to the middle during the general election that the same candidate speeches and rhetoric are unrecognizable just months apart.

Third party politics is my home.
 
Ron Paul was on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer tonight but I missed it.

Alternative Party politics fascinates me. An old girlfriend of mine once ran for Lt. Gov. of California on the Natural Law Party ticket. I wonder what Nader is planning this time.

Chris
 
I like Stephen Colbert.

I am America! (And so can you!).

Or Vladimir Putin, yeah, that sounds like a recipe for good foreign policies.
(Da, I vant you to slieep deez polonium chit into hees doughnut)

But in all seriousness, I like none of the current candidates.

I vote for a Republican, I get screwed on the war in Iraq, abortion rights, and the environment.

I vote for a Democrat, and I'm probably going to get screwed on Iraq anyway, and definately on illegal immigration.
 
Dennis Kucinich is asking that supporters of his motion to begin impeachment proceedings against VP Dick Cheney send him supportive e-mails that he can present to Speaker Pelosi and Rep. Conyers.

impeachment@kucinich.us

If you care please show your support.

Chris
 
Ron Paul was on the News Hour with Jim Lehrer tonight but I missed it.

Alternative Party politics fascinates me. An old girlfriend of mine once ran for Lt. Gov. of California on the Natural Law Party ticket. I wonder what Nader is planning this time.
Ron Paul $4mm in one day! Natural Law Party, I worked for Hagelin twice. Watched Buchanon's gang run away with the nomination on a technicality, Hagelin would've been on two ballets if one gavel had been pounded.
 
Ron Paul $4mm in one day! Natural Law Party, I worked for Hagelin twice. Watched Buchanon's gang run away with the nomination on a technicality, Hagelin would've been on two ballets if one gavel had been pounded.

Yeah, I read about Paul's haul. Pretty cool!

A funny thing happened: Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy.

Chris
 
A funny thing happened: Pat Robertson endorsed Rudy.
I marriage and reconciliation made on a plane trip to Israel I hear... quite the scary bedmates, I wonder what promises were made to illicit that. They are diametrically opposed on so many issues, could it be that Pat thinks Rudy is the only one that can beat Hillary and it is a lesser of two evils?
 
My intuition tells me that if Rudy gets the nod, then Pat will be the next vice.

Deals like this are made all the time between full fledged members of the "empire".

And it makes a perverse sort of sense in terms of the GOP trying to unite the splintered right wing with some of the rest of the Republicans who still might possess a degree of sanity.

flow....;)
 
My intuition tells me that if Rudy gets the nod, then Pat will be the next vice.

Deals like this are made all the time between full fledged members of the "empire".

And it makes a perverse sort of sense in terms of the GOP trying to unite the splintered right wing with some of the rest of the Republicans who still might possess a degree of sanity.

flow....;)
Eeeeeekkk!!!!
36_2_39.gif

That would be enough to scare any sane Republican to a third party!
 
Hi SG...Indeed a scary thought, but then I am motivated to ask...WHAT THIRD PARTY ?

After brother Perot's two runs for President it was as though the donkeys and elephants went into stampede mode and made an unholy bargain with each other to do whatever it took to forever banish the idea and possibility of there EVER being a viable third party in the USA.

Look what happened to Ralph Nader last election. He had to sell his soul to both the donkeys and elephants to just get his name on the ballot in many states simply because he pulled so many votes in the 2000 election running on the Green party ticket. No my dear, we now have a Plutocracy of the Reds and Blues, and they will allow no one else to enter the game no matter what it takes to maintain that status quo.

Just look at the great number of candidates in both herds so early this time. Subliminally this says that there are so many good and qualified people in each party that we shouldn't even think "third party". Think that's a coincidence? Nope, just another facet of the overall "grand exclusion" strategy to prevent a viable third party.

No in my book this is all a recipie for political disaster for both parties and eventually the nation as a whole. For the past few years I've been telling whoever asks me about it that both parties are now in the "terminally corrupt" stage of their lives.

flow....:rolleyes:
 
Back
Top