Redstate

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

What, if anything, should the federal government do, or cease doing, to address this problem?

"People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors." -Edmund Burke

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

I have this strange fantasy that when Republicans say they are for smaller government, they actually may mean it again one of these days.

Allan Bartlett

Powder Blue Report

The penultimate in 20/20 hindsight is anyone who points out that Iraq did not attack us on 9/11, like that fact will change anything at this point.

Consensus doesn't prove anything, in science or anywhere else, except in democracy, maybe. - Reid Bryson, speaking on Global Warming

The AUMF-Iraq is crystal clear to anyone who reads it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

FYI Neil, Harry Browne would never have approved of the war in Iraq. It's crystal clear that us being in Iraq hasn't changed things for the better in the Middle east. If anything, it has made things a lot worse.

Allan Bartlett

Powder Blue Report

that, unlike GWB and his minions, he'd never attempt to answer your questions 3 and 4. Both assume facts not in evidence or at minimum for which you've provided no foundation. So, hopefully, you'd get a smackdown for your bad question, and he'd say what he wanted.

Clearly, since your whole line is Ron Paulism, why would you care what FDT was asked or how he answered?

In Vino Veritas

as Thompson laughs so hard he falls off his chair.

on 7 December, when will you also support the repeal of the Second World War and the restoration of the legitimate Nazi government?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Candidates for public office are not allowed to promise jobs to people, including judges and cabinet secretaries (running mates are different).

Of course, that wouldn't stop Fred from saying that all the names on that list are fine people.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

...that he would seriously consider them for the Supreme Court, without promising that any of them would be nominated.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

Has Fred™ shown some propensity toward being a tax-hiker that I don't know about?

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

But I get the impression EPU is hinting in that direction...

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

Just for the record, EPU is a big-time free-market, low-taxes, low regulation, low government meddling, originalist justice loving, anti-entitlement, anti-government-funded education, pro-military, pro-family, pro-federalist, wall-up-the-border, pro-GWOMI conservative.

I fail to see anything in my questions that suggest even the remotest possibility that I wanted Fred to raise taxes or increase spending (other than MILITARY spending, which is all good, and does not require raising taxes -- just defunding the Murtha-Reid-Feinstein earmarks oughta get us a couple of new aircraft carriers, yes?).

The answers from Fred™ that I was kinda trolling for, inre China, are something like this, in no particular order:
(a) slam that favored-nation status on China, and quit giving them ANY legal access to our technology.
(b) aggressively defend the USA from their ILLEGAL accessing of our technology.
(c) publicly call (and continuously agitate) for China to become a free country. NO deals, no freindship till that happens.
(d) adopt an extremely aggressive military presence in the Taiwan area, to thwart and defend against any invasion or attack.
(e) while we are at it, go ahead and CHANGE the official American position inre Taiwan, so that it states that Taiwan is a sovereign nation.
(f) damage their trade business over here (I am against tariffs and embargoes, in general). How precisely, well maybe that's what I'm asking. Let's put it this way. If I knew that my cat food had an ingredient from China, I would find another brand. I just bought a Nady wireless mic over the internet from a company in Memphis (I'm in Dallas, FYI). When I received it, it had a freaking 'Made in China' label on it. If I'd known, I'd have GLADLY spent more money for a product not made in China. Maybe Fred would advocate a full-disclosure policy regarding ANY product that has Chinese components. That would make a decent hit on their market share here in America, I'm guessing. Just food for thought.

Those are MY answers to my questions. But I like to see Fred's answers.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

Most Favored Nation no longer exists. It was renamed to the more accurate name of Normal Trade Relations. If we remove that, then we raise taxes on all Americans who buy goods from China. So if you dislike higher taxes in the form of tariffs, you might re-think your support for removing that status for the PRC.

thank you,

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

So THAT's what you meant. Could have said so.

Brother, THAT's not raising taxes, that's just a fanciful analogy that might hold some merit if it were not China we were talking about. It is a fact of business life that if you have a vendor who has extremely favorable prices, but that vendor keeps peddling CRAP to you, you can DUMP that vendor. The vendor who replaces him will cost more. His stuff will be better. If switching vendors for this reason causes your own prices to rise, you are not PUNISHING your customers. That is a necessary cost adjustment in order to produce quality goods, to which your own reputation is attached.

In a similar vein, let's say the vendor's products were OK, but you knew that vendor to be a financial supporter of Al Queda. Al Queda's goal, as we know, is to end freedom. Then you dump them again, because they are using their profits from you AGAINST you. Once again, you are not punishing your customers.

So take your pick, as it relates to China. They sell us crap, and they are using their business with us to feed up a repressive, expansionist empire.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

So your position is that tax increases you approve of are not really tax increases? How were you expecting Neil to work that out?

As for the claim that excluding or taxing cheap products is not punishing customers, that is just risible. There may be circumstances in which it is justified, but to suggest it doesn't punish customers is utterly absurd. It forces people to pay higher prices than they would otherwise choose to pay. Customers bear the cost for that.

If the products are not of sufficient quality, Walmart, or their customers, can take a decision not to deal with specific Chinese (or indeed other) suppliers. Their call, not yours.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

(4) Their dumping inferior CRAP, with no quality controls, on American markets.

Well now, just what do you think China does? Fly over American cities bombarding our retail outlets with inexpensive merchandise, which we are then simply forced to sell to consumers?

Chinese-made products are in our stores because American-owned and operated businesses want them there. They'll want them there as long as consumers are willing to buy them.

So ask not what Fred Thompson can do about Chinese merchandise, ask what you can do about not purchasing what you don't like.

So ask not what Fred Thompson can do about Chinese merchandise, ask what you can do about not purchasing what you don't like.

Apparently he also wants to stop the less-well-off from getting necessary goods (such as clothes for growing children) cheaply, thus stretching their money further and improving their standards of living.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

These people are poor. Can't their children go without like they used to in the good old days?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

You guys are running with a topic WELL beyond what I am advocating. Maybe I mis-spoke, maybe you misunderstood, I don't know. So let me take a second shot at explaining my views regarding trade with China:

(1) Regarding quality controls -- inside the USA, we have a tremendous amount of regulation on just about everything you can think of -- far more than is necessary, and de-reg is a topic for another day. OUR guys don't get to put radiator fluid in dogfood (I'm guessing glycogen is a more expensive ingredient than polyethylene glycol), nor do we get to use lead-based paints on our baby toys.

But suffice it to say that American manufacturers are put at a competitive disadvantage when THEY are over-burdened with regs, but importers have no such regs. My guess is that the foreign manufacturers ARE governed by the same regs. If so, China has made a practice of BLATANTLY IGNORING them, in essence nullifying them.

(2) Regarding inferior CRAP -- well, what can I say. Poisoned dog-food, poison toys, the stories continue to amass. It's not just cheap toys, cheap clothes, I don't care about that. It's cheap, inferior CRAP that purports to be good-quality stuff. That Nady wireless I bought, let me continue the story. Three out of 4 channels worked. I had to send it back.

(3) The American response I'd like -- I am not advocating some kind of blockade. I guess I AM advocating some kind of lower trade-partner status -- I don't know all that much about such things, but if we are giving them subsidies, then STOP. If we are giving them ANY unnecessary competitive advantages, then STOP. In part because of the inferior CRAP, in part because they are a huge human-rights violator, and in part because they are positioning themselves militarily to be our enemies.

The REAL response I'd like is because due to continuing issues with their INFERIOR CRAP, that it become necessary to inform consumers when a product is from China or if important components came from China. You advocate consumer choice. I advocate INFORMED consumer choice.

I'll be directly clear. I want to hurt the Chinese government. I personally would engage in a Chinese product boycott if I only knew what products were Chinese (like that Nady wireless). I don't give a hoot if other people aren't with me.

(4) To the 'this is a tax' meme that QLangley and Neil Stevens are throwing at me -- oh give it a rest, boys. That's crap. Might my suggestions cause prices on Chinese goods to go up? Maybe so. You could say 'this is LIKE a tax' if you want to. Not much of one, though.

But the federal government has a legitimate and constitutional interest in regulating foreign trade. Especially if that trade is with a partner who (1) is making a policy of peddling cheap crap under the guise of quality goods (2) enslaves their population in order to get a cost advantage, and (3) is a very likely potential military threat.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

You may not mean to. You may not even know it. But that is what you are calling for. Normal trade relations means the lowest level of tariff. You are therefore calling for higher tariffs. As for the notion that the US subsidises imports, that's just silly. Chinese imports are taxed. You want higher taxes.

You are right that American business is over-regulated. So is business in most of the developed world. That is one reason manufacturing is continuing to migrate to lower cost producers. The best way to solve this is to cut regulation.

Regulation is far from the best way to make products safer. No-one is forced to buy Chinese products, and if they do not meet appropriate standards I have much more confidence in Walmart to cut them off than I do in Congress. Labour unions and rival manufacturers don't fund the campaigns of Walmart board directors.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

So it boils down to this for you then: If the US bumps China's trade partner status down from "please anally rape us" to "you know, you could use vaseline once in awhile", then that's RAISING TAXES.

OK, true, in the sense that it's raising taxes ON CHINA. And I am perfectly aware that this reflects itself in higher cost of goods in the United States. By oh, say what, 0.1%? It will also cut into their profits some and put them at a competitive disadvantage -- since low cost is their selling point (and ONLY selling point since their stuff is CRAP), they can't raise their costs indiscriminately. They'll have to eat some of the tariffs.

OK, I admit it, I'm really Walter Mondale, I didn't want to have to admit that. So if you want to go around shouting, 'Hey, EPU's a TAX RAISER because he wants to drop China's trade partner status to punish them for abusive and dishonest trading practices', well, then go ahead. Tax raiser, tax raiser, tax raiser.......

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

kuddos for that first paragraph alone!

It is a simple and fair one. You want to raise taxes paid, not by the Chinese, but by American consumers.

Your anal rape fantasies aside, there is no subsidy from the US government to Chinese companies. Obviously you believe having taxes too low is a really bad thing, and America would benefit from having these particular taxes higher would be a good thing.

I don't say you are Walter Mondale. I don't know whether you want the _overall_ tax burden to be higher or lower. I just don't think you should be able to advocate a tax hike and then claim it is not a tax hike.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

It is not a simple and fair description. I'll give you that there's a grain of truth to it, but it is NOT an equation, the correlation is not 1-to-1, nor is it simple.

there is no subsidy from the US government to Chinese companies.. I never said that. Look again. I said IF we were doing that, then stop. And by the way, China has been sucking the State Department teat for technology and trade favors and advantages ever since Clinton Inc landed in DC in 1993. Do you care to deny that? According to QLangley math, that equals subsidies.

Obviously you believe having taxes too low is a really bad thing, and America would benefit from having these particular taxes higher would be a good thing. That's bull too.

I just don't think you should be able to advocate a tax hike and then claim it is not a tax hike. I've already admitted that bumping China down to "please use vaseline" would have an effect on the price of consumer goods -- of say, 0.1%. So am I claiming it's not a tax hike?

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

It is not a simple and fair description.

You advocated increasing a tax and I called it a tax increase. Simple. Fair.

China has been sucking the State Department teat for technology and trade favors and advantages ever since Clinton Inc landed in DC in 1993.

What favours and advantages are you talking about?

Obviously you believe having taxes too low is a really bad thing, and America would benefit from having these particular taxes higher would be a good thing. That's bull too.

No, it is an obvious corrollary of your advocating a tax increase.

I've already admitted that bumping China down to "please use vaseline" would have an effect on the price of consumer goods -- of say, 0.1%. So am I claiming it's not a tax hike?

No, not now. That was your starting point. You have conceded that it is a tax increase. But you think that my calling it a tax increase is not simple or fair. And, by the way, can your keep your anal rape fantasies out of this discussion. I am sure it is a breach of the posting rules. You may consider this a more tasteful way of describing a tax increase, but I think the phrase 'tax increase' sums it up quite well.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

but if we are giving them subsidies, then STOP. If we are giving them ANY unnecessary competitive advantages, then STOP. In part because of the inferior CRAP, in part because they are a huge human-rights violator, and in part because they are positioning themselves militarily to be our enemies

Agreed - the federal government shouldn't be using all American citizen's funds to subsidize a foreign company, a foreign government or a smaller group of citizens.

I'm not opposed to holding domestic and foreign merchandise to a small, very limited set of regulations - probably much much smaller than what we do today. I'm open to discussing what those should be.

China's culture and governance is irrelevant to whether our government should prohibit or restrict American companies from conducting trade with Chinese companies. American companies are capable of determining what is or isn't "crap" and what will or wont sell to American consumers so that's outside the purview of our government as well. We're not yet engaged in a hot war with China and although I would agree they are by far the biggest long term threat to American superiority in the years to come, I see vigorous trade as one of the best ways to avoid such a conflict - trade builds a mutual interdependence between nations. It seeps our culture and beliefs into theirs. The web of trade can help ensure that the guaranteed costs of a war measurably outweigh the potential gains.

You advocate consumer choice. I advocate INFORMED consumer choice.

I advocate consumers informing themselves and companies informing the marketplace. I advise against government coercing consumers or companies. Consumers for whom information is critical will seek out those companies that offer such, or utilize other means to gather same (e.g. Consumer Reports, UL). Companies may see a competitive advantage, much as some tried to differentiate themselves in recent years with "made in America" tags. Consumers who prioritize low cost above all other considerations will continue to find companies that are more than willing to cater to their desires. Why do we need to insert the government in between consumers and companies?

I'll be directly clear. I want to hurt the Chinese government. I personally would engage in a Chinese product boycott if I only knew what products were Chinese (like that Nady wireless).

My guess is that if you call companies and inquire they will tell you, if that isn't already evident from existing product labels.

But the federal government has a legitimate and constitutional interest in regulating foreign trade.

Its interest in the freedom of American citizens to engage in business and trade and pursue success and happiness far outweighs most circumstances I can think of where they might consider restricting same. Not all - but most, and in my opinion that includes China (and Cuba for that matter, just to stir the pot).

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

I would love to see 90% of government regs go out the door. That would solve some of the problems I see, especially in giving American businesses a fighting chance to compete.

But there is a 0, as in ZERO percent chance of that kind of deregulation happening in our lifetimes. That being true, China presents a great big problem. American manufacturers are regulated to death, while China abuses the trust we give them.

I'll have to disagree with you strongly on 2 points though.

First, China's oppression and virtual enslavement of their population, and their aggressive military posture at this point -- to me those are relevant here, and a BIG PROBLEM. Oh, not to mention their contribution to Iran's military technology. China literally is an enemy of America, a mortal threat to Taiwan (a dear and loyal ally of ours),and an enemy of freedom across the world. Why should they profit from trade with us? And yes, yes, I GET IT -- it would raise the cost of consumer goods in the US. So what?

Second, it's impossible in a practical sense to KNOW what goods and ingredients come from China. A whole lot of stuff is not marked. I have made up my mind as a consumer, I will not buy ANYTHING that I know to be from China, or know to have Chinese ingredients. They have richly earned my spite.

But how am I to know whether my catfood has glycogen laced with radiator fluid from China? Who the heck would have EVER thought that? So also, I should call Nady to ask if their electronics are from China before I buy something from them online? I guess I know that one now.

There is no possibility of a consumer boycott -- because you can't tell what is from China -- even though I suspect strongly there would be a sizable crowd with me on this.

I see this to be an area of government intervention. Full disclosure required. Not for products from India, Taiwan, Mexico, Japan, Spain, Morocco, South Africa, Egypt, or Canada (well maybe Canada, but only because they're all meth-heads).

Only China. China cheats. American consumers like low prices, but they also like catfood that does not kill their cats.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

you want to know why Americans should profit from trading with China?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

but yardwork calls. That's not an equivalent statement to what I said.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

You said: Why should they profit from trade with us?

I said: you want to know why Americans should profit from trading with China?

Since trade is a voluntary exchange for mutual profit you cannot have one without the other. You can't stop the Chinese from trading with Americans without stopping Americans trading with the Chinese. You cannot tax a trade between Chinese and Americans without taxing trade between Americans and Chinese.

So the two are exact equivalents.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Quentin, you are remarkably tenacious, which would be an admirable trait if you actually had a valid point. You continually draw inferences that YOU call equivalances, and you continually insult me because I don't bow to your oversimplified claptrap. You have ascribed to me motives that are not true, and you ignore inconvenient facts -- most notably that lowering China's trade status HAS A WHOLE LOT MORE TO IT than the economic effects on our side that YOU call a tax.

I'm not going to continue this. If I want to argue with children I'll go to our city council meetings.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

You seem determined to get the last word on this.

I have not insulted you or ascribed to you any motives whatsoever. I don't know why you are keen on this particular tax, and don't care. I only objected because you denied that this tax was a tax.

I have not said that there are not factors other than economics involved. I specifically said that you may well feel this particular tax is justified on other grounds. You are welcome to believe that. But I am not obliged to agree.
If you are going to argue with me, please dispense with the dishonesty and the personal insults.

The only one hiding from reality here is you. And as for your risible last line, what I call a tax, is a tax. What do you call a tax? If you want to argue with children, that is probably advisable. It is about your level, as you seem to resort to lies and insults when you don't have anything sensible to say.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

As far as your objections,

First, I clearly take a differing opinion than you on the matter of our current disposition with China. Nothing prevents American citizens from working to try and affect a change in China's behaviour re: human rights. I have no problem with an American administration that persuades China to embrace certain reforms. But the surest way to curtail and disable any effort along those lines is to escalate and take an aggressive stance and close off any available lines of communication. It would appear to me that recent trends support a correlation between rising cooperation and trade and certain economic and political reforms.

I don't hold out some false hope that China idolizes America and wants to be just like us in every way possible. But I also don't subscribe to a theory that the Chinese are all warmongering barbarians who are just waiting to slit our throats. The truth is probably that the velocity of reform there will be capped according to the rate at which older hardline Communist regime leaders fade away and a new generation or two take their place, concerning themselves more directly with the welfare of their nation and its people rather than in attempting to achieve some abstract Marxist worker's paradise.

This isn't to say they wont be very competitive and attempt to equal us as a superpower and seek to tilt things to their favor just like we do today. But we ought to stay focused on continuing to do everything we can to make America strong, full of opportunity, exploit the economic advantages we have, etc. And the more mutually dependent trade ties we have with China, the more they see us as a valuable element of their own economy and standard of living, and the chances increase that our 'conflict' with China remains in the form of an economic and technological advancement race rather than outright war.

As far as your second objection, I empathize, but when you allow the market to go where it wants you're going to find out whether your viewpoint is shared by a great many people - in which case the companies will respond, they will compete and work to earn your business, they'll do "china free" labels or so on... or, in the other case, maybe people are more willing to live with the risk and go cheap, and you're in a small minority, and at that point I would hope even you would agree that the government ought not go messing around for the sake of the vocal opinion of a very small group of consumers.

Generally speaking the ideal situation after a "poison catfood" scare should be an informed consumerate that remembers never to buy the offending brand. With do or die pressure like that exerted on companies, they will - by themselves - take the necessary measures to ensure safety. The more we train citizens to wait for the government to solve all their problems and protect them from every harm, then the less capable, informed, and responsible they will become.

It's war -- so when can we start shooting back at the enemy Democrats?

What does it matter if he can list the 4 bills he sponsored that became law? Is the ability to look things up somehow important for the president? Doesn't he have people to do that for him? Or are you trying to test those people's ability to run a basic search of congressional history? Either way, question 1 seems pointless to me.

And your third question assumes that republicans will not take back the majority in congress in the 2008 elections - something which may or may not happen, and should thus be phrased as such instead of as an assumed fact.

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

Ah my youngling, let me enlighten you.

First of all if you have an eight year career and you only pass four bills within that time, it can be telling of your priorities. He averaged one law for every two years of his career. I could care less if it's Fred or someone on his staff that tells me what the 4 bills were, but those four bills were the pinnacle of his career in bringing change for the American people. Thus, he may have probably worked the hardest or most effectively on those bills. I'd like to know what they are as they may paint a picture of what was most important to him during that time.

In regards to Republicans taking back congress in 2008, the numbers of open GOP seats vs. Democrat seats does not paint such a rosy picture. Although we can gain seats, it's a pretty much forgone conclusion that there will be no majority change in 2008. Optimism is a good thing; just don't let it change the hue on your sun glasses.

Curious now, what were the four bills he got passed?

I see, you are seeking a concrete measure of his priorities from his successful bills...makes sense at least now...

As for letting optimism place rose colored glasses over my eyes, I would like to point out that I did not assume republicans would take back congress, I merely stated that since that election is still in the future, by more than a year no less, we shouldn't necessarily assume that republicans won't take back congress either. A lot can change between now and November 2008...

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

n/t

n/t

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

They are simply high risk - but an insurance company will still write a policy for someone high risk if they will pay enough in premiums to make it worthwhile for the insurer. On the other hand, if you want the government to provide "free" healthcare...why would a Fred support that?

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first."
Ronald Reagan

Are we really going to question a REPUBLICAN about failing to vote for a classic Clintonesque bill?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

Ask any cop you may know if they like having body armor. This is going to come up in the primaries so he'd better have an answer. I'm really uncomfortable with this quote from the debate on the legislation.

"Some localities are enlightened and have provided money for body armor."

How does this play in the general election when law and order swing voters are needed for victory?

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

His senate record is open for discussion the last I checked. What does it matter that I'm "a 1 hour wonder" in your words? The Thompson campaign is soliciting questions from this website and I've been a reader for about a year now. As it stands I think Thompson is the GOP's best hope for holding onto the Whitehouse, but he needs to get ready to discuss that Senate record in light of today's challenges if he is going to be successful.

Regards

. . . that if something is important, the federal government should pay for it? Does this leave any role for states and municipalities at all?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

...but I would like to know how Sen. Thompson views his past position on this issue in light of the post 9/11 world.

he still believes that policing is principally a local matter. Perhaps you are aware of a constitutional amendment that has changed this.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

Private property rights are very important in America, not just items you own, but your house, your land etc. What I value is someone that can draw a line between PP rights and common sense in our social society. If a hillbilly neighbor wants to let the grass grow long and keep three used derby cars in his front yard, where can we draw the line? Should it be federal,state, or local? I hate the fact that horses are slaughtered, but it goes to PROVE the fact that whatever we find un-needed or unwanted in this country, we dispose of..or kill. Most men are not against any animal slaughter, but many men feel that abortion is wrong(ones I know). On the other hand most women are against the cruel methods used during slaughter(not the act itself)while they support the right to an abortion. Just because it is not a human doesn't mean that the idea of killing a National symbol for a frenchies dinner plate is socially right. We stand up for what WE believe in this country, not what the market dictates we sell our souls for! The Catholic church banned human consumption of horse in the 700's, most people don't even realize that it is Taboo for a reason.

Bush was always weak on border security, and he was a Mexiphile from way back. On the other hand, you go too far sir, Bush HAS protected this country in many ways, just not on illegal immigration (not that anyone else has)

Molon Labe!

I hate to tell you, but I think asking a company to hold a part time job open when the requirements are for full time is asking way to much from a company. In a good world it could happen, but there is another person waiting in the wings for most of these jobs that is willing ot work full time. Including our "immigrant" friends. These companies are (sadly enough) forced by law to hold a job while a mother is off per FMLA. (should they have had to be forced?) They feel they have already given up enough and I am sure pregnant women in Mexico would work while giving birth if they had the chance-so where will these companies move to? It is sad, but that is capitalism for you.

Hi!

Some friends of mine say that the biggest reason they do not offer part time work is because of regulations and taxes make it too expensive to take on part time workers.

I think if the government gave tax incentives to take on more moms as part time workers businesses would take the tax breaks, but I am open to other ideas as well.

:)

How about we lower taxes for everyone and keep government out of the business of social engineering?

"How about we lower taxes for everyone and keep government out of the business of social engineering?"

Hi,

I support cutting taxes across the board too, but using tax cuts to specifically target the women's vote can't hurt anyone and would be good for kids.

Large tax cuts for new middle class families also would be easier to pass in Congress than, say, capital gains.

It hurts by the message it sends.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

What message hurts us, that the GOP supports helping moms afford to stay at home with their kids by cutting taxes?

Aren't we supposed to be supporting the nuclear family?

Yup, when we tell people that the government needs to be in every home like that, micromanaging society, we send a terrible message.

When we flagrantly ignore the Constitution and Property Rights, by selectively taxing people to subsidize select families, we send a terrible message.

When we don't lower tax rates across the board, and not just selectively, we stray away from what should be the standard Republican message on taxes.

Leave targetted tax cuts to the Democrats like President Clinton.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

I must respectfully disagree. Family is more important than tax fairness.

Giving extra tax breaks to families is no more unconservative than the Child Tax Credit or the Personal Exemption.

We should help stay at home moms and promote the nuclear family via tax cuts because too many children are growing up in broken homes.

Allowing fathers to keep more of their money will make middle class life more affordable for parents.

You can have tax fairness and make family your top priority.

Family is indeed important- more important than tax anything, if you ask me. That's precisely why we don't want the government involved in managing, incentivizing, funding, or controlling any part of it. That part should be left up to you and nobody else.

It's not good for the family or the government to stick government in the role of sugar daddy.

A ship in the harbor is safe
but that is not what ships are built for

ALL tax cuts are incentives for certain types of behaviour. If you don't want tax cuts to incentivize behaviour then by definition you don't support any tax cuts.

Cutting captial gains is an incentive to invest, cutting business taxes is an incentive for people to open businesses.

Incentivizing the nuclear family is a legitimate use of tax cuts, just as legitimate as child tax credits (which Bush heavily promoted) and cutting capital gains.

If you don't want tax cuts to incentivize behaviour then by definition you don't support any tax cuts.

Nonsense, and I'll thank you not to misrepresent my position. I don't oppose tax cuts. What I oppose is social engineering on the part of well-meaning but ham-handed big-government authoritarians- this kind of "let's expand the role of government in everybody's lives so we can [do x]" nonsense is what disgusts me about the liberal left- if it's so important, you don't need government authority to force it upon anyone.

I can support tax reduction without agreeing that congress should attempt to govern, through the power of the purse, any aspect of daily life they might see fit. In fact, by reducing taxes, we reduce the leverage government actually has on people.

I understand your point- that any tax necessarily impacts behavior- but I reject the notion that the proper role of government is to regulate or control anything as sacred as the structure of the family. No matter how well-meaning, it's the sort of big-government thinking that's anathema to real conservatism and its net consequence is less, not more, freedom for everyone.

This is not to say I don't strongly support tax reform- I do. I think our tax code is a hopeless mess of ineffective social engineering, special-interest favoritism, legalized bribery, and expensive red tape.
I support the FairTax legislation currently before congress, and strongly feel that if we want a tax system that will promote what's important to people, we'll give them a tax system that lets them decide on what's important to them, rather than giving that power to congress.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!

No, it's not nice, but you and I both know a thread like this is a magnet for Democrats to come in and try to muck things up.

So when I see someone who could EASILY have come in and registered just to push for Democratic policies, I make the natural conclusion.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

is pretty much a fulltime liability and that's why many employers don't make much use of them. Most production level work is pretty much fungible; you need x hours of work to get a particular job done and it doesn't matter what sort of increments you get it in. In today's tax and regulatory environment, it is cheaper and easier to pay overtime or pay somewhat higher salaries and expect higher hours than it is to allow work to be done in smaller increments.

I'm no great fan of FMLA because of the way it gets scammed, especially the dependent care provisions, but maternity/paternity leave isn't one of my problems with it. So, you've recruited and trained a good employee who happens to get pregnant (I know all the "the company didn't make the baby arguments," I've made them too.) and you'd rather kick your investment to the curb and hire off the street again? The law only gives a twelve week return right after unpaid absence and allows the employee to privately purchase their health insurance is they have it. That is hardly an onerous burden.

In Vino Veritas

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

I am tired of hearing that China is our friend, that China is a great opportunity for business.

China is a communist totalitarian dictatorship. The Chinese plan and think ahead, not to the next physcal quarter or next year or next decade, they think in terms of multiple decades and further out.

In the future China will be the biggest threat to our way of life both politically, militarily and economically.

I believe that we should ban imports from China into this country. Companies can build their factories for BBQ grills and paper umbrellas elsewhere on the Pacific rim.

I am 51 so this is not going to effect me, but i have a 7 year old son and it may very well effect him.

Like SS and medicare we should not wait till the monster is at the door to do something.

have to publicly answer that question in a political forum. That is a question for private conscience and for those with whom one might associate in religious practice. Religious tests from the Right are just as offensive as anti-religious tests from the Left; to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

In Vino Veritas

Do you think it's inappropriate to ask a candidate if he/she believes in God?

Here's a link to an earlier post (about Mormonism, and link goes specifically to my take).

-
NARF

I read your comment. So, would a candidate not believing in God necessarily conflict with your politics/political stands? If so, how?

As I said, "I would have no problems voting for Catholics, Jews, Mormons, Hindus, atheists, etc., because I know enough about these religions to know that they don't necessarily conflict with my political stands."

That said, it's undeniable that atheism is a central tenet of Marxism. What I'm saying (and what you asked) is that atheism isn't necessarily incompatible with my political position, as are JWs, Wahhabists, etc. Atheism may lend itself to certain political philosophies, but such a leaning isn't a necessary component of atheism.

-
NARF

Fair enough, with a couple of clarifications. First even IF (for the sake of argument) atheism correlates with Marxism, and even if it makes it more POSSIBLE for one to accept Marxism by removing religion's cultural or theological opposition to Marxism (which may be all you meant to say by "lend itself to"), it doesn't necessarily (and I would say just plain doesn't) follow that atheism "lends itself to" Marxism in the sense that being an atheist makes Marxism more APPEALING. Marxism is primarily about economics and putting the supposed collective benefit over individual opportunity and liberty (economic, political, or other). It's obviously terrible economics and terrible in terms of liberty. I see nothing about not believing in God that would make Marxism seem more attractive.

Also, when I speak of someone not believing in God, that includes agnostics as well as atheists. Is your answer any different for an agnostic candidate?

As for the "lends itself" claim:

The central tenet of Marxism is that man is inherently good. Once the idea of private property and its attendant cultural protections (i.e., family, religion, etc.) are swept away by the revolution of the proletariat, all humanity will work together for the good of all humanity. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Most organized religions (Christianity in particular) reject the idea that man is inherently good. This makes it pretty hard for Marxists to recruit adherents of other faiths. If you believe that people are naturally inclined to stab you in the back, it would be stupid to sign up for a political system that relies on the kindness of strangers. And, of course, add to that Marx's exhortations to destroy religion.

On the other hand, atheists and agnostics generally don't reject the idea that man is good; in fact, many atheists openly embrace it. Once that assumption is accepted, it's not very hard to come to the conclusion that if we all worked together instead of being selfish, things would get better.

It's late, I'm tired. If this post doesn't make sense, check back with me in the morning.

-
NARF

Your comment seems to support what I was saying: that atheism (or agnosticism) makes it more POSSIBLE for one to accept Marxism (by removing religion's theological or cultural objections to it), but again, being an atheist or agnostic doesn't make Marxism more APPEALING, as I've explained. A long time ago I believed in God, then became agnostic. At no time did it even enter my mind that Marxism had more appeal after I became agnostic. Why would it? Why would becoming an agnostic make collectivization of property, a command economy, or deprivation of liberty more appealing?

While this may not be what you're doing exactly, I think some aspect of this classic example of faulty logic may be getting in the way of your thinking on this topic:

CORRECT (logical)
Premise: All dalmations have spots.
Premise: Rover is a dalmation.
Conclusion: Rover must have spots.

INCORRECT:
Premise: All dalmations have spots.
Premise: Rover has spots.
Conclusion (incorrect): Rover must be a dalmation.

It sounds like you're thinking along the lines, similar to the "Incorrect" example above that:
Premise: If one is Marxist, his political beliefs will lead him to be an atheist in many/most/all cases.
Premise: Candidate X is an athiest.
Conclusion (incorrect): Candidate X's atheism will lead him to be a Marxist in many/most/all cases.

I'm not saying you've necessarily made such a clear-cut logical error, just that your argumentation seems to reflect some degree of inverted logical flow along those lines.

And/or you may be thinking in another faulty manner:

Premise: Marxists tend to be atheists.
Premise: Candidate X is an atheist.
Conclusion: Candidate X is likely to be a Marxist.

In other words, just because Marxists tend to be atheists, doesn't mean atheists tend to be Marxists, although, even if that were the case, it doesn't mean that Marxism became more appealing to them by virtue of their being atheists; as I've said, it just may make it more POSSIBLE by removing a source of absolute objection to Marxism (religious) that makes it impossible to even consider. It doesn't mean that Marxism (the bad economics and bad principles regarding liberty) become any more appealing to the atheist. Just a the first silly illustration I can think of, if one is under 5 feet tall, it may be impossible to punch Yao Ming in the face, and it may be that all the people who have punched Yao Ming in the face have been over 5 feet, but that doesn't mean that someone over 5 feet has any particular desire to punch Yao Ming in the face.

ok, a slightly less silly illustration and one that has a bit clearer parallels to this issue:

Most of the parents in a neighborhood have forbidden their daughters from dating the Jones boy. The daughters have all always obeyed their parents' rules (because they trusted their parents' wisdom and/or feared punishment). Some of the girls decide that they will no longer obey their parents' rules on anything. A couple of these disobedient girls date then Jones boy. So there's a correlation between general rejection of the parents' rules and dating Jones. But that doesn't mean that Jones became more attractive to the group of disobedient girls BECAUSE they are now disobedient, but rather simply that the couple of girls that DID find him attractive no longer felt held back.

I can understand a logical fallacy when I see one.

Let me try to make this clear, one more time.

First off, given any random atheist versus any random Christian, the atheist is more likely to be a Marxist than the Christian is. That's because Marxism is ardently atheist and anti-religious. A Christian Marxist is a contradiction in terms; I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying it would take a lot of mental contortionism to fit the two together. There's no such inherent contradiction in being an atheist Marxist.

What's the root cause of the incompatibility between Christianity and Marxism? It's that Christians believe that mankind is innately evil, while Marxism assumes that mankind is innately good.

Now, moving on to your hypothetical (and to make this clear, it's something I have not yet touched upon, but which you have introduced): the question of a person who repudiates his Christianity and becomes an atheist. Does this repudiation make the person more likely to accept Marxism, or does this repudiation not change the possibility of acceptance of Marxism? Yes, I believe it does. One epistemic barrier has been lifted -- namely, the avowed hostility that Marxism has to organized religion. The other epistemic barrier -- the belief that mankind is evil -- has been severely weakened, since the new atheist no longer has any religious impetus to believe this.

I'm not saying that atheism logically leads to Marxism; I'm not saying that atheists will naturally become Marxists; and I'm not saying that we shouldn't vote for atheists since they might suddenly become Marxists. I'm saying that atheism is compatible with Marxism in a way that Christianity is definitely not.

BTW, you can substitute most organized religions for "Christianity", as well as "agnostic" for "atheist". That's not to say I believe Christianity is equivalent with other major religions, just that I expect any other organized religion to be just as co-hostile with Marxism.

-
NARF

I was under the impression that Marxists were required to be atheists. I think Marx was rather clear as to what a Marxist must believe (there are no cafeteria Marxists).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Even if that is/were the case, that's exactly the logical flaw I'm talking about. If all or most Marxists are atheists, it does not mean that all or most atheists are Marxists.

Who is saying, "all or most atheists are Marxists"?

-
NARF

I was replying to Herodotus' comment.

I did not say that it did, or did not (yuck that is an ugly sentence). I was just commenting on the relationship between Marxism and Atheism.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

Well, the context here is the question of whether or not an atheist candidate should be rejected or raise substantial concern due to some supposed inclination toward Marxism or at least substantial risk that he is or will be a Marxist. We're not talking about being concerned that a Marxist is an atheist, but vice-versa. If there is no reasonable cause for concern that a candidate who is an atheist is or will be a Marxist, then what's the purpose of your point? And even if we're not talking about a candidate, but just discussing whether an individual atheist is likely to be a Marxist, same question. A Marxist may be likely to be an atheist, but that says nothing about the likelihood that an atheist is a Marxist.

"...then what's the purpose of your point?"

I simply responded to the following.

"First off, given any random atheist versus any random Christian, the atheist is more likely to be a Marxist than the Christian is. That's because Marxism is ardently atheist and anti-religious. A Christian Marxist is a contradiction in terms; I'm not saying they don't exist, I'm saying it would take a lot of mental contortionism to fit the two together. There's no such inherent contradiction in being an atheist Marxist."

To the best of my knowledge it is impossible to be a Marxist and not be an atheist. I stated this as fact clarification/inquiry (perhaps he was aware of a specific exception Marx may have made).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

See this dissertation on Frederic Hastings Smyth. For something more modern, check out liberation theology's appropriation of Marxist thought.

-
NARF

My original post made the claim that religion can be an indicator of political stances, and specifically pointed to Jehovah's Witnesses, Wahhabist Islam, Satanism, and certain strains of Buddhism as entailing unacceptable political stances. Atheism does not entail such stances. But there is some correlation between atheism and Marxism -- moreso than any other religion.

-
NARF

Is this an endless loop?? We're right back to where we started, with you making an assertion of correlation with some implication that this correlation should be considered when considering a candidate who is an atheist, which you seemed to then deny, but without which, there would seem to be no purpose in your pointing it out in this context (and you haven't answered that question of why you would point it out if you weren't suggesting it be a factor in considering an atheist candidate). Am I to repeat everything I've explained to you and go around in another circle?

Let me put that in the form of some questions, and please answer in a new comment downthread:

1) If a candidate were running for the Republican nomination fo president and you knew nothing about him except that he was an atheist or an agnostic, would you believe there is a significant chance he is or will become a Marxist? (by "significant chance" I mean whatever degree of likelihood is sufficient to concern you and weigh against him in your choice due to the possibility that he is or will become a Marxist)

2) If you had heard that candidate's positions and expressions of political philosophy and economic views and there were nothing to indicate that he is a Marxist or that Marxism would have any appeal to him, would you believe there is a significant chance he is or will become a Marxist?

3) If your answer to even just #2 is "no", then why did you bring up the supposedly significant correlation between Marxist and atheists, even IF that premise is correct (which it may not be, but I'm accepting it here just for the sake of argument)? In other words, if you're NOT suggesting that the supposed correlation should be or could be a legitimate factor to consider when considering an atheist candidate, why did you bring it up (repeatedly)?

ok, there's nothing illogical in what you've just said. But the genesis (pardon the pun) of this dialogue is the question over whether or not a candidate should be rejected if he's an atheist (or agnostic), or if it should at least count against him substantially. If your point is simply that one being an atheist makes it more likely that he is or will become a Marxist simply because Marxism is no longer incompatible with religious beliefs (which are now gone), then that not illogical and is probably true, BUT the question is, is there enough of a reason to think that being an atheist makes a given person (the candidate in this case) MUCH more likely to be a Marxist, to the extent that your point is worth making and worth the unfair discrimination it can cause? If Joe Schmoe is running for office and is an atheist, and Joe has stated his political philosophy, preferred economic policies, views on individual liberty, etc., and all of the above are fundamentally different and incompatible with Marxism, why should we be concerned about any connection between atheism and Marxism, and some supposed substantially increased likelihood that Joe is or will become a Marxist? Just because ONE obstacle to Marxism (religious) is not present? If not, why did you bring up the whole connection between Marxism and atheism? That's why I questioned your logic. Either you are simply saying what you just said above, in which case your argument is not illogical but has no reasonable purpose, or you are implying something different regarding correlation and causation, in which case there seems to be a logical flaw.

To illustrate my point above -- and believe me, I'm not trying to be snarky or offensive, just having a discussion with you -- let's someone expressed their position that they would not vote for an atheist. And then someone else comments and says that, while he wouldn't necessarily rule out voting for an atheist, it's worth noting that most practicing homosexuals don't have deep religious faith, and he wouldn't vote for a practicing homosexual because they would likely favor social policies that he opposes (and for the sake of argument, let's accept that assumption as valid). Then I point out that, while those with deep religious faith may be less likely to be practicing homosexuals because of their faith forbids it or is otherwise incompatible with it, there's no reason to believe that an atheist is MUCH more likely to be a homosexual, practicing or otherwise, such that it should be a concern about an atheist candidate. That commenter then says, "No, I wasn't suggesting that", to which I reply "Then why did you bring it up?"

Therefore you shouldn't vote for white candidates, right? Because whites are more likely than blacks to be atheists and therefore more likely to be Marxists, and therefore be Stalin, right? On the other hand black people are more likely to be liberal . . . ahhhh! What do we do?

I know. Let's judge people by the policies they advocate and their abilities, and executive experience, and other relevant factors.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

Let's judge people by the policies they advocate and their abilities, and executive experience, and other relevant factors.

That's just crazy talk, Quentin.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

International Editor of

...as in the GOP debates, why not ask if they believe in God? I know I and many other voters would never vote for an atheist. I personally would not vote for a non-christian, either.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

If you'd rather vote for a Christian like Bill Clinton over any number of Jews, Muslims, Agnostics, or Atheists, then I think your political priorities are weird.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
I voted Harry Browne in 2000, but will never vote Ron Paul.

So you can't have a majority coalition in a mostly Christian nation?

And mind telling me the names of any conservative atheists and/or agnostics? I was under the impression that there were none, unless you want to include libertarians under the definition of conservative.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

You can't afford to be placing unnecessary and divisive religious tests on people and still have a working coalition.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

And mind telling me the names of any conservative atheists and/or agnostics?

Ahem.

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

The question as put by the original poster to whom I responded is the most specific affirmation of Prostestant Christian Faith. When you add the second question, it is a specific affirmation of literalist or fundamentalist Prostestant Christian Faith. I don't believe either to be a legitimate test of one's viability as a political candidate and both are arguable unconstitutional religious tests if imposed as a requirement to hold office.

I don't really have much respect for professed atheists since it requires a degree of arrogance that I find unfathomable to deny the existence of something Supreme. That said, I'd prefer a sincere practitioner of any number of faiths over the slickly coiffed, silver-tongued Pharisiachal "Christians" who are ostentatious "practitioners" of the Poor Man's Country Club variety of Christianity.

I just don't have much use for and have great doubts about representations of Faith made from the stump or on the Courthouse Square. Though I was raised a Predestinarian, I've come to put much more stock in Works than in protestations of Faith, e.g., Bill Clinton.

In Vino Veritas

I was under the assumption that Christians, by definition, believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. Are you saying Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians do not believe such a thing? As one of the latter I find this rather insulting.

I also doubt that only Protestants believe the Bible to be the holy word of God.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

one accepted Jesus Christ as one's personal savior, not whether he was the Son of God.

As to the rest; which Bible?

In Vino Veritas

...He is the personal savior of all who choose to believe in Him and His sacrifice.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Well then, in my view, your difference of opinion with Conan is one of degree, not principle. Conan wants to know if a candidate subscribes to a specific religious belief, and you want to know if there is at least some religious belief (or some belief in God, if that's more accurate).

As a note, someone who does not believe in God need not be an atheist. There are us agnostics out here. Perhaps you find us slightly less "arrogant" since we don't claim to KNOW that there ISN'T a God, just that we don't know that it is unknowable.

I disagree with Conan on principle. I do not believe in specific religious tests in public life. I do believe that one should show some thoughtful, consistent, principled belief structure and be able to show that one has not only professed those beliefs, but acted in accordance with them.

And I know the difference between atheism and agnosticism, so don't lecture me; I find you barely tolerable under the best of circumstances.

In Vino Veritas

I disagree with Conan on principle. I do not believe in specific religious tests in public life. I do believe that one should show some thoughtful, consistent, principled belief structure and be able to show that one has not only professed those beliefs, but acted in accordance with them.

So your "principle" is that belief in God is necessary to for all of the above to be evident, and Conan's may be that a PARTICULAR faith is necessary. As an agnostic, I say neither is necessary, and I wouldn't consider an atheist any less capable of demonstrating those traits than a person "of faith". So to me, your difference with Conan seems more a matter of degree than of principle. You both require some "faith" and think questions of faith are legitimate to ask a candidate.

And I know the difference between atheism and agnosticism, so don't lecture me; I find you barely tolerable under the best of circumstances.

LOL. Hey, if you had been at all precise my distinction would not have been necessary, but you implied a division between people who "believe in God" (my question) and those who have the "arrogance" to "deny the existence of something Supreme" (i.e., atheists). If you divide the world into groups, leave someone's group out and then seem, at least by omission, to lump them in with another group and attach a negative characterization, don't be surprised, much less irritated, if they bring your oversight to your attention. ok, there, good buddy?

any objective evidence for His existence or nonexistence. But my personal experiences and emotions have persuaded me that there is a God, and that He is beneficent and all-knowing - and I wouldn't doubt that for a second.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

So would you agree that it's not irrational to be an agnostic? What about an atheist? And why would you not vote for either, or for that matter for a non-Christian?

And neither is theism.

To answer your second question:
Because atheists and agnostics are morally deficient - it's a lot easier for a man to steal/kill/lie, barring the possibility of future punishment, if the only thing governing existence is the principle of random chance. If atheists deny the existence of God because there is no empirical evidence for his existence, then they deny the existence of a fixed morality, for it too lacks empirical evidence.

Consider also that most, if not all, atheist heads of state have been mass murderers (Lenin, Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Castro) and that my personal experience with atheists is that they are vehemently anti-religious, and you can see why I will never vote for an agnostic or an atheist.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

snarky one line comments that add nothing to the conversation and exist solely to insult the poster.

Oh wait, I don't.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

When I pointed to real, genuine backers of Ron Paul in a seedy corner of the Internet, you said I was playing guilt by association games, even though I was repeatedly stating Ron Paul's not one of them, but he just needs to denounce them.

And now you associate me with the worst murderers of the 20th century.

You've got a pretty twisted view of the world, fella.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Neil, you're saying things I like (and it has nothing to do with html). I'm getting scared. I'm shaking. ;>

Kind of funny, from a RS rules standpoint (IF SoCon's comments are not a violation), that associating atheists with all those mass murderers is not considered inappropriate or is at least permitted (again, IF it is permitted), but if someone made similar association of Christians or Catholics or Jews, h*ll would be raised here (or at the very least, heck).

"And now you associate me with the worst murderers of the 20th century."

Not at all. I was merely making a point - that atheist heads of state have historically been mass murderers. There is a historical basis for not selecting atheists as heads of state. I don't see you running for president.

And with Paul, you ARE playing guilt by association - by insinuating that a large portion of Ron Paul's supporters are Nazis - now why would you bring that up unless you wanted to smear him (or me)?

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

If I were trying guilt by association, I'd say Ron Paul is bad for having those people backing him.

But I'm saying the opposite: I'm saying he has a reputation to uphold, and he needs to do it by denouncing these people and asking them to stop supporting him in Republican polls, stop putting his picture next to their views and on their sites, and certianly not to send them any money.

I'm saying he's someone who can easily rise above those people, but he won't do it.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

So you're saying Ron Paul personally puts his picture next to white supremacist rants? And that he personally hands out cash prizes to Nazis?

It sounds like YOU'RE the crazy one.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

I need Franz to come bark at me every time I reply to you.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Yeah Neil, you're late for your murdering and stealing tonight, too.

SoCon, if someone was saying that we definitely should not elect a Christian president because Christian leaders over the centuries/millenia have been mass murderers, would you not think an association was being made between Christians generally and those mass murderers, at least to suggest that electing a Christian presents that danger, and wouldn't you think that inappropriate and take offense?

Only misguided and downright wrong. Atheists are a minority, yet the few atheist heads of state that have existed have been, as I mentioned, mass murderers. By contrast, Christians make up the majority of the world's population, and by extension, a good portion of the world's heads of state. Many relief foundations are Christian, and many poorhouses and orphanages are run by Christian groups. Helping the poor and the needy is a Christian duty.

Now, considering that atheism has only been somewhat widespread since the 1600s, it is certainly some coincidence that atheist dictators have murdered over 130 million people, isn't it?
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

Well, I'll just say that I have a VERY different view of morality and of atheists. I don't really feel like going further into it, and it would probably require a massive threadjack anyway.

I do want to poin tout that, while any source of fear of punishment or promise of reward can have a positive effect on behavior, belief in God is no more necessary to be a good person -- and of sufficient character to be president -- than belief in Santa Claus is necessary for a child to behave well (so he gets a toy instead of coal).

Atheists can (and have) used Darwinist theory to justify criminal acts and violence towards his fellow man. Without a belief in the supernatural/God/religion/etc, there is nothing that really tells us whether we shouldn't (again, barring the possibility of future punishment) kill and steal to better ourselves. After all, it happens all the time in nature - that which is strongest will and should survive.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Thank you for saying something so ridiculous that I can't feel the least bit offended or bothered. And if the only thing holding you back from murdering others is fear of punishment from God, I sure hope I'm not near you if/when you ever lose faith! Anyway, I'm late for my murdering tonight. Oh, and my stealing (Geez, almost forgot the stealing, heh heh).

I'm only saying that atheism is inconsistent with a belief in morality. You may believe in morality yet still be an atheist - but that doesn't mean you are being consistent in your beliefs.
___________________________
Faith is the highest passion in a human being. Many in every generation may not come that far, but none comes further.
- Soren Kierkegaard: Fear and Trembling

LOL !!

As an evangelical I am sad to admit that your arguments actually are all too common in evangelical and Christian circles. Morality and ethics are shaped by many factors only one of which may be the fear of divine punishment. The fact that Western culture has been shaped by the Judeo-Christian values and morality is undeniable. Many who today are atheists are still indebted to the moral framework that goes way back to the 10 commandments and even Gen. 4 where Cain's murder of Abel is condemned. Many atheists and agnostics adopt a high moral code because they believe it is the best way to live regardless of any divine opinion pro or con.

Even the Apostle Paul acknowledged this when in Romans 2:14 he said,"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them."

He said "when" not "if" so Paul clearly knows that Gentiles and that includes all non-Jews and non-Christians are capable of living according to the high moral requirements of God, except of course for the requirement to worship Him alone. However, they are as capable of civil morality as anyone else, because like all of us "their consciences" are what guide them.

There is great diversity among Christians in political views. Jim Wallis author of God's Politics is a marxist leaning socialist, yet his confession of faith is consistent with the historic creeds. I know many evangelicals who are loony tunes when it comes to political philosophy and undestanding government. I don't care what religious faith a person has or doesn't have if they understand good government and have the basic moral vision ensconced in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

And don't argue over who killed more people atheists or religious people - that is a logical fallacy since neither the tenets of atheism nor Christianity advocate killing.

Would I like to see a Christian as President? Yes, but only if they had a clear vision of limited government, strong defense, personal freedoms, economic freedom and so on. Jefferson was agnostic, but was a strong advocate of religious freedom and contra Patrick Henry, Jefferson was right to oppose the establishment of the Christian religion by the state.

It is past time for the Republican Party to get beyond religious tests and get back to conservative principles (however you define them).

My comment above is directed to SoCon and all other Christians who want a religious litmus test.

Thank you! See my comment downthread "Reply to torrant".

You can believe in any religion and it still doesn't mean you're being consistent in your beliefs. The former does not cause the latter, it merely frames it.

My question is actually related to this one. I am a wheelchair-bound paraplegic who could potentially benefit from embryonic stem cell research (ESCR); however, I am adamantly opposed to ESCR. I believe it is wrong to create a life simply for research purposes and then destroy it. As President, would you continue President Bush's policy of restricting federal funding for ESCR? At the same time, would you promote research using adult stem cells?"

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

I imagine that DA Arthur Branch would have convinced his ADA to plead the case down to a lower punishment than the 12 years the dude is getting for shooting a drug dealer in the buttocks.

"We should scrap this “comprehensive” immigration bill and the whole debate until the government can show the American people that we have secured the borders -- or at least made great headway."
Fred Thompson

I'm not going to substitute some hyped description of the story over the accounts presented to the jury, which caused the jury to convict those men.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Founder and contributor to The Minority Report and Senior writer for The Hinzsight Report

Then Fred will laugh and people will stop saying he doesn't smile.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

hmm...I'm wondering why having a gay brother makes someone want to eat fish.

Ya' know, when I first thought of writing that I just thought it would be silly in a completely meaningless way, but it actually could be a pun (in a way that would actually have a plausible connection between the two).

...a long habit of not thinking a thing wrong, gives it a superficial appearance of being right...

---Thomas Paine---

How, in a government much bigger and less centralized than one in a state, can you assume that the Feds are any better than the government of any state?

At least in New York you know where the corruption is and can try to root it out, since it's all right there in one place. Not so with HUD or any other federal department. So much is way off in Washington that it ducks scrutiny.

Local control exposes corruption as much as anything else.

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

Everyone knows the Bilderbergers are behind the stuff coming up in Uzbekistan...

HTML Help Central for Red Staters
Reality: Thompson/Romney Dream: Santorum/Watts.

John Edwards already asked this question, as he is desparate for an Iowa win. And it's obvious by her answers that she intends to claim that everything Bill did positively during his presidency was her doing, and that leaves all the negatives for him. Watch the dems debate sometime. It's hard to criticize the other side if you don't know what they're saying!
Also, Czar Clinton has not shied away from her war vote. In essence, as a woman, she has gone hard to the right of her opposition. She has to. She wants to look "tough enough" to be president.
Nice try, Bob.....but Clinton has outsmarted ya. No one will ever say she's an idiot. She's wrong on many issues, but she's a smart cookie and that just won't derail her.