Traditionalism Rocks, Neo-liberalism Fails Again

The Left loves to hate Karl Rove. But like him, or not - he does know politics, almost as much as Barone knows election demographics. I pointed this out in  post or comment yesterday.

Republicans received a hard shot in Mississippi. Greg Davis (for whom I campaigned and who was a well-qualified candidate) narrowly lost a special congressional election in a district President George W. Bush carried four years ago with 62% of the vote. Democrats pulled off the win by smartly nominating a conservative, Travis Childers, from a rural swing part of the district who disavowed Barack Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and hit Mr. Davis from the right.

Putting aside the words conservative and liberal for a moment, what much of America supports is traditionalism. And that ain't Barack Obama or the current Democrat elite. While the GOP is imploding, the neo-liberals (who are really anything but liberal) that comprise the Left, better be careful about over-estimating their draw.

Americans reject the Left more than they do the far-Right. Recent election results may spell trouble for a currently misguided GOP. But they still speak volumes in support of a traditional America.

And that is much more akin to genuine conservative-thinking than that of the new libs we see in the blogosphere. Unfortunately, we haven't seen much genuine conservatism from the GOP in a while either. And there-in lies their problem.

Comments

[jharp]

Jharp

The State created marriage?

Do tell

It is called a marriage license.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- you say 'gay marriage' and those words can easily be understood as 'carefree union between a man and a woman'.

Now I ask again in reference to homosexual (defined as same-sex) and marriage (DoM act, as in the State, has defined this as 'union between a man and a woman') what does this 'same-sex union between a man and a woman' mean? --"

Read posts below.
Civil rights, equal protection under law, constitutionality issues regarding the power of governments. It's basically all there.

If you have a legal contract recognized by the government, you cannot restrict two people from entering into it. Marriage = legal contract. Union between man and woman = Hermaphrodite. I don't know what a Same-sex Hermaphrodite is. I do know what a legal contract is. The state governments can't discriminate between who can and can't enter into legal contracts any more than they can discriminate between who can and can't own property.

It's that simple.

[syn]

One more thing; homosexuals have NOT been banned from marriage, in fact they marry all the time and even have children however since marriage is defined as 'a union between a man and a woman' the law prevent those of the same-sex to marry.

A Democrat president had the opportunity to veto the Defense of Marriage Act which mens that the State defined marriage as 'a union between a man and a woman'.

Perhaps you should ask yourself why a Democrat president signed the Defense of Marriage Act whereby preventing any opportunity for this thing termed 'gay marriage'.

That said; I'll wager both Llama and jharp cannot even define the word 'fetus'.

[syn]

'Civil rights, equal protection under law, constitutionality issues regarding the power of governments. It's basically all there.'

Defense of Marriage Act.

[syn]

'Union between man and woman = Hermaphrodite'

The State, of which you are so fond, has by law stated that union between a man and a woman = Marriage.

Please do continue

[syn]

'The state governments can't discriminate between who can and can't enter into legal contracts any more than they can discriminate between who can and can't own property'

Indeed, yes, so what is your problem?

[jharp]

syn,

"Defense of Marriage Act."

Do you not understand how our government works. In Ohio we learned about it in 7th grade civics class.

You know like the legislature passes laws. Citizens have the right to challege them in a coutroom.

The court determines if it passes constitutional muster.

Give it some time. Same sexes couples will soon be recognized as "married"

It wasn't until 1967 that the court ruled blacks and whites had the right to marry.

[Worst President Ever]

The California decision was made by an over-overwhelmingly republican court. Six of the seven justices on the court were appointed by republicans.

Close to 50% of marriages to end in divorce. That's the real threat to your sacred institution.

[jharp]

The state governments can't discriminate between who can and can't enter into legal contracts any more than they can discriminate between who can and can't own property'

Indeed, yes, so what is your problem?

That most States do discriminate in denying same sex couples that same rights as opposite sex couples.

Though not in California anymore.

Got it now?

[jharp]

"The State, of which you are so fond, has by law stated that union between a man and a woman = Marriage."

And the State Supreme just yesterday ruled that this violates the California State Constitution.

Why do you hate our form of three coequal branches of government?

Would you rather we went back to being ruled by a King?

[seekeronos]

"--- You may not like that two men can enter into a legally binding marriage contract, but society has no compelling interest in preventing it. ---"

To the extent that it is a door-opener for all sorts of evil perversions of marriage, society does have a compelling interest in denying the "right" for sodomites to marry.

They may make civil contracts, they may do business, trade property or leave estates as they please, but for us to give full faith and credit to sodomite marriages that we do for proper, heterosexual marriage is to validate homosexuality and all the baggage that comes with it as something to look up to.

Even worse is the "Pandora's Box" it opens for pedophiles and all other forms of sex offenders to demand their "rights" to be equally recognized.

"--- Jharp: The State created marriage? ... It is called a marriage license. ---"

God created marriage when He formed Eve out of Adam and gave her to him as his "helpmeet" or wife. Temples and Churches and Synagogues have certified marriages between men and women in the presence of witnesses for the vast sweep of human history. It is only in the last 100 years that we have surrendered our right to marry to the oversight and permission of the State.

Therefore, I deny that the state(s) "created" marriage.

"---
Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
---"

On marriage being a "constitutional right" -- it is not a right for unmarried persons to get married, any more than there is a "right" to own property, in the sense that a non-property owning person should expect the government to provide him with the same:

Single men and women marry and raise families. Am. 14 Sect. 1 may provide a basis for the FF&C clause where states recognize marriage certificates/licenses from other states, but it does not set a bar for WHO may marry or not.

Likewise, it does not guarantee property ownership to paupers, but protects that property of those men and women who have worked and paid for property acquired through contracts or sales.

"--- The state governments can't discriminate between who can and can't enter into legal contracts any more than they can discriminate between who can and can't own property ---"

States can and do discriminate on who may or may not lawfully enter contracts, and within differing degrees.

In some or many states, minors cannot legally enter into contracts w/o parental assent; in others, they are entirely forbidden from the same. Felons may not purchase or acquire firearms. There were bars also regarding marriages between mentally unfit persons. There are other laws regulating contractors.

Am. 14 Sect. 1 has mostly to do with the naturalization and citizenship of former slaves, and to a lesser degree, naturalized foreigners who became American citizens, as well as re-integrating former citizens of the Confederacy, as well as to bar the newly re-admitted Southron states from discriminating against the new class of black freedmen.

In fact, I'd say that based upon its language, Am. 14 Sect. 1 has much more applicability to unborn babies and not infringing upon their lives than it does with safeguarding marriage.

[seekeronos]

"--- Would you rather we went back to being ruled by a King? ---"

As a matter of fact, I'd rather we were ruled by King Jesus on His throne in Jerusalem, but don't worry, that day shall come eventually.

And from the way things are winding down here on earth, I'd say that'd be sooner more than later.

[seekeronos]

"--- That most States do discriminate in denying same sex couples that same rights as opposite sex couples.

Though not in California anymore... ---"

Perhaps for a window of a four to six months, until that SCoCA decision (mockery of God's Law) is overturned by a California Constitutional Amendment securing the definition (and the right) for marriage between men and women to be the law of the state.

And God willing, it will be so: for we will pray, fast, and labour with all due diligence to see it so.

"--- The California decision was made by an over-overwhelmingly republican court. Six of the seven justices on the court were appointed by republicans.

Close to 50% of marriages to end in divorce. That's the real threat to your sacred institution. ---"

This is a real threat, one which should be prayerfully and fastingly approached but not the salient threat being discussed here.

Perhaps in time we can see the no-fault divorce laws stricken down. We'll work the more immediate threat to our way of life and our marriages and our families for now.

[IslamoLlama]

"-- Defense of Marriage Act --"

Similar enough to the California law. It wouldn't survive the appeals process any better than the one recently struck down. As it stands, DOMA does nothing to outlaw state-sanctioned gay marriage. The definition within DOMA does not extend beyond the scope of DOMA. That is to say, marriage is defined as 'one man and one woman' only for the purposes of this particular piece of legislation. To claim that DOMA has rewritten Webster's Dictionary is rather laughable.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage

Here, look it up.
"-- 1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage --"

I could go into how, once again, your deliberate ignorance doesn't do much to answer the legal questions at hand. Not even sure what giving you the medical definition of a fetus is - 8th week after conception, although what this has to do with gay marriage, I'll never know - but I'm sure you'll be back to scream and holler about how gay marriage isn't possible by definition.

Seek
"-- As a matter of fact, I'd rather we were ruled by King Jesus on His throne in Jerusalem --"
You elected Bush and worshiped him like he was. I think that's as close as you're going to get. Enjoy it while it lasts.

[seekeronos]

From M-W.com --- the part that Moe left out...

"---
1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage
---"

This is a seemingly minor point, but that last bracketed bit there is a usage indicator, that is to say, definition 2 is qualified by the use of the "marriage" in the context of "same-sex marriage".

Or Cambridge American English Dictionary's definition which is even less ambiguous:

"---
marriage
[Show phonetics]
noun [C/U]
a legally accepted relationship between a man and a woman in which they live as husband and wife, or the official ceremony which results in this
---"

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=marry*1+0&dict=A

But quibble and strain gnats all you like, it still doesn't change the definition of marriage on the law books in most states.

As for George Bush, I may have voted for him in 2000, but I worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ my Saviour.

For cursed is he who places his trust in man:

"----- Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. (Jeremiah 17:5, KJV) -----"

[bobInStamford]

Traditionalism rocks in the land where toothpaste is the enemy and your pappy is your brother. November can't come fast enough!

[IslamoLlama]

"-- As for George Bush, I may have voted for him in 2000, but I worship the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus Christ my Saviour. --"

If only that were true, Seek. You've put up your little false idols to play at being a Christian, but your fate looks very grim.

On the one hand, you have confirmation of your beliefs - that there is a God and he is full of love and grace for all his children - only to come to the horrible realization that "love and grace for all his children" leaves you cheek to cheek with all those evil gays who were supposed to be burning in hell. Your prejudice and hate will bar you from passing the Gates of Heaven and you'll spend eternity wandering the gray wastes of purgatory until you get over yourself.

On the other hand, you have no God to come sweep you up and save you from yourself, and your death will lead you to the oblivion that all living things one day embrace.

Either way, I see some very serious disappointment in your distant future. I'd make my peace with the queers now, while you have the chance. This mindless, self-rationalizing hate will only make your days trapped in the mortal coil that much more unbearable.

[seekeronos]

"--- If only that were true, Seek. You've put up your little false idols to play at being a Christian, but your fate looks very grim. ---"

So says the would-be prophet of Ba'al.

But this is the confidence which I have in the salvation which is mine through Christ Jesus: (all verses taken from KJV unless otherwise noted)

"----- These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (1 John 5:13) -----"

"----- And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life. (1 John 5:20) -----"

And touching on how to be saved:

"-----
9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
-----"

And while you claim to be able to prophesy an evil end for me, I know that my Saviour and my God hath redeemed me, and shall keep His promise, for He cannot lie:

"-----
17 Wherein God, willing more abundantly to shew unto the heirs of promise the immutability of his counsel, confirmed it by an oath:

18 That by two immutable things, in which it was impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

19 Which hope we have as an anchor of the soul, both sure and stedfast, and which entereth into that within the veil (Hebrews 6:17-19)
-----"

You say:

"--- Your prejudice and hate will bar you from passing the Gates of Heaven and you'll spend eternity wandering the gray wastes of purgatory until you get over yourself. ---"

For one, there is no purgatory, only Heaven or Hell are your options. As for my prejudices and hates, I'd be a liar if I said I didn't have any. Those which are out of line with God's Word I must confess as sin and repent of them; the only prejudice and hate Christians are supposed to have is toward sin.

And would that I could hate sin with a perfect hatred, even as King David did, and moreso, as Jesus does.

Psalm 119:9-11 says:

"-----
9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.

10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.

11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
-----"

Indeed, if we draw near to God's Word, it shall transform and purify us.

Then you claim:

"--- On the other hand, you have no God to come sweep you up and save you from yourself, and your death will lead you to the oblivion that all living things one day embrace. ---"

O deluded fool! Because of your foolishness, you say that there is no God...:

"----- The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good. (Psalm 14:1) -----"

... you risk denying yourself the very salvation which Christ died for you to have!!

As for me, I know you my Saviour is, and though I shall surely die in this mortal body someday (or meet Him in the air, should I live to see the Rapture) and be given a new and imperishable, faultless and sin-free body.

Not because I "deserve" it for being "good", for it is written:

"----- For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God (Romans 3:23) -----"

and:

"----- For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 6:23) -----"

For salvation can never be gained through our works, as Isaiah preached:

"----- But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. (Isaiah 64:6) -----"

And to the Ephesians, Paul wrote:

"-----
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:

9 Not of works, lest any man should boast. (Ephesians 2:8-9)
-----"

I bear no enmity towards gays and lesbians and other "alternative lifestyle choosers"; but I simply will not tolerate any attempt to legislate perversion and import their depravity and immorality as the new societal norm wherein I have any say over it.

I am compelled to resist evil as a child of God:

"----- A righteous man falling down before the wicked is as a troubled fountain, and a corrupt spring. (Proverbs 25:26) -----"

For the "gay agenda" is to destroy traditional American family values, marriage, belief in God, and to promote worship of the sin-corrupted created being over the Creator.

"----- Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set. (Proverbs 22:28) -----"

To let them have their way, be it through these first little steps like gay marriage or public school indoctrination that perversion is "normal" and "acceptable" as in California SB 777, among three others... is to destroy the foundation of this country.

"----- If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do? (Paslm 11:3) -----"

Yet I rejoice to hear of gays and lesbians who repent and trust in Jesus Christ to deliver them from their sins as much as I do for anyone else does; that is my prayer for them.

Contrary to your perverse thinking, I pray that they see that today is the day of salvation, and that now is the acceptable time (2 Corinthians 6:2) ---:

"----- The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. (2 Peter 3:9) -----"

And this applies to you to, Llama.

[Worst President Ever]

So do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that there's no such thing as evolution? That the fossil record isn't really what it seems?

[seekeronos]

"--- So do you believe the Earth is 6000 years old and that there's no such thing as evolution? That the fossil record isn't really what it seems? ---"

I am willing to accept the literal seven-day Creation young earth cosmology, if in fact it is so. However, the day-age theory and gap theory may better accommodate an old-earth model.

The important thing to keep in mind though, is that it is the Creator who was the force behind this universe coming into being, and not some random chain of otherwise unlikely events meshing together over billions of years. There is simply too much order and consistency in the universe for it _not_ to have been the work of a brilliant and thoughtful Author (Designer).

[Worst President Ever]

No, complex designs in nature are no a proof of God's existence. The mechanisms of evolution provide a much better explanation than the hand of an invisible designer.

[seekeronos]

And this, WPE:

"--- No, complex designs in nature are no a proof of God's existence. The mechanisms of evolution provide a much better explanation than the hand of an invisible designer. ---"

... is where we must happily depart, for your faith in Darwin and Dawkins compels you to believe in this sad and unpromising idea that you are but a random chain of amino acids that evolved from some excited sea slime, destined for a random death, after which your atoms will be returned to a decaying universe, a mere unremarkable speck in sea of randomness.

As for me, I know that my Creator has made me and knows the number of the hairs on my head, and cares for me enough to send His eternal and immortal Son to be born a man, die for my sins, and rise again to fulfill God's promise of redemption to a sinful and lost race of mankind.

We shall see at the end whether the Eternal God is True, or a lie within at most, 80 years (I am talking about the end of natural lives, and not anything about raptures or apocalyptic revelation)... and I am confident that I shall not die for a lie.

[jharp]

"I know that my Creator has made me and knows the number of the hairs on my head, and cares for me enough to send His eternal and immortal Son to be born a man, die for my sins, and rise again to fulfill God's promise of redemption to a sinful and lost race of mankind."

Best to you. And if you're wrong no big deal to you. Too bad for gay Americans though. If I'm wrong it's to be a problem to me.

The kicker for me. If I lie and say I believe when in truth I don't it ain't gonna do me any good with an all knowing God which he has purported himself to be.

Sure wish he'd send a little signal and solve most of the world's problems.

And I can't get over all of the false evidence he planted. Seems disingenuous to me. After all we're talking about an eternity in hell as I understand it.

[seekeronos]

"---
Sure wish he'd send a little signal and solve most of the world's problems.

And I can't get over all of the false evidence he planted. Seems disingenuous to me. After all we're talking about an eternity in hell as I understand it.
---"

He has sent many signals, through prophets and preachers and finally, His Beloved Son.

All of His deeds are revealed to us in His Word.

As for solving the world's problems, He will do this too, when He returns to establish His 1,000 year reign from Jerusalem. But as for now, this corrupted and fallen world and the life we live in it, it is for us to trust in the Creator's plan for redemption.

Wherefore God says:

"----- Call unto me, and I will answer thee, and show thee great and mighty things, which thou knowest not. (Jeremiah 33:3, KJV) -----"

Furthermore, He wants to make His plan known to you:

"-----
11 For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, saith the LORD, thoughts of peace, and not of evil, to give you an expected end.

12 Then shall ye call upon me, and ye shall go and pray unto me, and I will hearken unto you.

13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.
(Jeremiah 29:11-13, KJV)
-----"

And that plan for salvation is for any who will hearken unto God's Word.

[Worst President Ever]

You're welcome to believe anything you want. But intelligent design is a hoax. It's simply an attempt to shoehorn creationism into a pseudo-scientific frame. You may believe in Intelligent Design, but there is no objective evidence to support it.

[Darth Malice]

Karl Rove is no conservative.He kept advising GW and the Republicans to go left(education bill,immigration,Harriet Miers)and this is where we are at.Obama and the Dems are going to win the biggest blowout in US history thanks to the RINOS..thank you GW,McCain,Hastert,Specter and too many to name....the Conservative revolution was fun 1980-2004 and now it is truly dead.

[Fred Beloit]

Moe demonstrates her in-depth knowledge of the government bond market; "So I can loan government money and guarantee I'll get my money back plus interest."

Unfortunately this demonstration does nothing to refute what I said.

Moe, a sterling Champion of the SSSSSTTTTTUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUPPPPPPPPPIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIda.

[Fred Beloit]

Mr. Ever makes this astonishing claim: "Tax and Spend Liberal Bill Clinton balanced the budget."

That forces us to ask, "Mr. Ever, can you explain in layman's terms how Clinton did this"?

[Fred Beloit]

It is really quite comical to read Moe's impassioned defense of gay marriage and attacks upon Christendom at a time when Moe, if she really cared about religious freedom and gay rights, should be most concerned about the growth of Islamic sects who wish to kill homosexuals. Champion of the Bbaaarrbbaaarrrriiiic.

[Fred Beloit]

"...the Conservative revolution was fun 1980-2004 and now it is truly dead." Sorry to read this from you, Darth. It is an exaggeration. The Rinos have sold us out, but I ain't quite dead yet and neither are most conservatives. By the way, I don't accept that it was a revolution. It was an anti-revolution, a recovery from false hope and bad change.

[Fred Beloit]

This claim by Worst Ever needs to be amended from this, "Tax and Spend Liberal Bill Clinton balanced the budget."

To this, "The Republican 'Contract with America' resulted ultimately in the balanced budget."

Mr. Ever insists on trying to rewrite history.

[seekeronos]

for WPE et. al:

I believe that if you look at the evidence and what the Bible says, you will find a surprising amount of correlation.

Check out "Answers in Genesis" at http://www.answersingenesis.org - they have an excellent case for the science behind Creation.

For DM: methinks your prediction will bear true. And even if JMac wins, we will still likely lose Congress to the far left. Check out the Contstitution Party's nominee, Chuck Baldwin -- if you believe that we should return to constitutional government - he is the man to pray, fast, and vote for.

Re: Islamification

Fred, the far left attacks Christendom because we are an easy mark. Typically, we do not challenge their attacks as we should.

Plus, Islam and Marxism make for temporary bedfellows in the destruction of the West. Once their goals are accomplished, then they shall turn on each other with utmost savagery.

[Fred Beloit]

Harpo, Moe, and Worst Ever, what are YOU prepared to give up?

From TheAtlantic.com"

"James Fallows in "Entitlements" (November, 1982), and, eleven years later, Peter Peterson in "Facing Up" (October, 1993), both argued that entitlements distributed to the middle class account for the largest unnecessary drain on the federal budget. Social Security, Medicare, civil service pensions, and military retirement pay, they explained, dole out significant sums annually to many already financially comfortable. In "Entitlements," Fallows traced the history of such programs, and suggested that well-meaning reforms with unforeseen consequences are what led to the problematic and unsustainable entitlement system in the first place. Both authors argued that the middle-class must learn to sacrifice the government-financed windfalls to which it had become accustomed. Fallows wrote: "Our national accounts will remain out of balance until we wrestle with the IOUs that middle-class America has issued to itself, through Social Security and Medicare." Peterson concurred: "Most Americans--emphatically including the middle class--will have to give something up, at least temporarily, to get back our American Dream.""

[Worst President Ever]

Wrong again Fred. At least you're consistent.

The cornerstone for reducing the deficit during Clinton's years was passage of The Deficit Reduction Act of 1993.

It got exactly ZERO republican votes.

[Fred Beloit]

The truth of the matter, from Allpolitics:

"The balanced budget amendment failed in the Senate on March 4, 1997, by one vote -- the same margin of failure as during the 104th Congress. Though Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss.) has predicted it may come up for another vote in this Congress, for the time being the idea is dead. There is no vote scheduled in the House, which easily passed the amendement in the 104th Congress."

"The premise of the balanced budget amendment is simple. By law, the federal government would be required not to spend more than it receives in revenues. The requirement could be waived, however, by a three-fifths vote of Congress. Current versions of the amendment also require a three-fifths majority to raise taxes.

Clinton and many Democrats contend the amendment would put the federal government in a fiscal straightjacket that could have disastrous effects during recessions , when revenues could fall sharply. One effect, they suggest, could be the impoundment of Social Security checks. They also object to requiring a super-majority to raise taxes.

Republicans say those fears are overblown and argue that having piled up a trillion-dollar debt, lawmakers' profligacy can only be restrained by an amendment. They point out most states are required to balance their budgets..."

[Fred Beloit]

Hahahha. Read the below again from 3/97 and tell me how I'm wrong again.

[Fred Beloit]

"SEN. TRENT LOTT: Today we celebrate the beginning of a new era of freedom. We have joined the President, and we have come to an agreement that will lead us to less Washington spending, to tax relief for working Americans, to security for our senior citizens, and less dependency on the government, more responsibility, and opportunity for individuals, communities, and states.

This truly is a great moment. We made a decision earlier this year that we're going to work together to get this victory for the American people. And that's what it's really about. It's not about partisan politics. It's not about who's President or who's in the Congress. It's about returning the government to the people.

CHARLES KRAUSE: There were only a few dissenting voices, among them liberal Democrats, who say the plan favors the wealthy."

[Worst President Ever]

It's a fulltime job correctly your BS, Fred.

You don't need a balanced budget amendment to balance the budget. Or don't you understand that? And Republicans have been the worst offenders at blowing the deficit out of the water.

As for your Atlantic article -- It was written in 1993. The budget was balanced in 1998. So the premise, noted in the sentence below, is obviously wrong.

"Our national accounts will remain out of balance until we wrestle with the IOUs that middle-class America has issued to itself, through Social Security and Medicare."

Seek: I understand there are plausible interpretations of Genesis which bring it more in line with accepted science. But Intelligent Design isn't provable by science.

[Fred Beloit]

The comment quoting the post below is from PBS under this heading: "Balance the budget in 5 years, give $91 billion in net tax breaks and change Medicare. The Congress and the White House appear to have a deal."

From PBS July 1997

[Lala]

Here's an article about the great socialized medicine that Great Britain has and that we might soon be looking at - rationed care

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=565430&in_page_id=1774

[Fred Beloit]

Mr Ever, have you never heard of footnotes, documentation, supporting evidence? All you seem to do is continue to make unsupported and false charges.

If you were serious about balancing the budget, which neither you nor most Dems are, you would be looking for a way to stop Congress from over-spending to buy votes to keep themselves in office. If you don't agree on an amendment to stop this, what is your practical way to stop it?

[Lala]

Seek,

Maybe Genesis can't be proven by science but neither can the "big bang" theory or any other theory that says that something came from nothing. I am still waiting to see something that has evolved. I know animals have adapted to their environment but a goat is still a goat.

[Fred Beloit]

Thanks, Lala. Socialized medicine, the Holy Grail of the Libs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monty_Python_and_the_Holy_Grail

[jharp]

Fred,

Who is proposing socialized medicine?

Are you a liar or do you not know the difference?

[jharp]

Seeker,

"Sure wish he'd send a little signal and solve most of the world's problems."

I should have been more clear. I sure wish he'd send a signal in order to convince more into believing. Thus solving many problems.

More than half the folks on earth are going to burn for an eternity in the fires of hell as it is now.

I think your God is a deceptive God. He plants false evidence that proves the Bible is filled with falsehoods. And relies on one believing the 2,000 year written words of men that are filled with these falsehoods.

And won't offer a single concrete clue to save more than half the earth from going to hell.

[jharp]

Lala,

Seventeen year girl dies after insurer denies coverage.

http://cbs2.com/local/nataline.sarkisyan.CIGNA.2.615167.html

[Fred Beloit]

Ugga Bugga say, "...do you not know the difference?"

Taxpayer-paid and socialized medicine = free medical service for the injured and sick. Government billed to pay for doctors, nurses, MRIs, etc, etc

Taxpayer-paid health care insurance = Taxpayer payments through government or directly to private companies to insure all, sick and injured or not? Profits taken by insurance companies as well? Sounds to me like it will cost more than socialized medicine. Please point out my errors, Harpo. I would appreciate it.

From "The Hill":

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s (D-N.Y.) proposal to mandate that all people purchase health insurance would be a boon to the industry, filmmaker Michael Moore said Friday.

“Can you imagine, every time Sen. Clinton says that, the licking of the lips that goes on with these health insurance executives?” Moore said during a conference call with reporters."

[Lala]

"In Canada, dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week. Humans can wait two to three years."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110010266

[Fred Beloit]

Well, Harpo, if ambulance chaser Mark Geragos makes an accusation we know it must be absolutely true.

[Lala]

Fred,
I lifted this from overlawyered.com. As usual there is more to the story than what the MSM reports.

"By Observer on January 11, 2008 2:39 PM

It's my understanding from reading other articles about this case that the young lady's doctors believed that her recurring leukemia (treatment for which led to her liver failure) was going to prove fatal, and that the liver transplant, even if successful, would only prolong her life by about 3 months. If that is true, then it seems to me that it would have been irresponsible for any doctor to perform (or approve) a transplant. The young lady's health was already seriously compromised by the effects of the chemotherapy and the bone marrow transplant. Doctors determined that there was little chance that the liver transplant would be sucessful, given her condition. Why then should an available donor liver have been given to this patient, when there are so many other people waiting for livers -- people who, unlike this poor young lady, actually would have their lives saved by a transplant? We have a limited amount of donor livers available to people in need. We have an obligation to make sure that livers (and other donor organs) go to those who are most likely to have their lives saved. It makes no sense to transplant a donor liver into the body of a person who is unlikely to survive the transplant operation and who, if she does survive the operation, is unlikely to survive her underlying illness for more than a few months. Some people think it was "cruel" to deny this young lady even a very slim chance of surviving for a few more months. I think it would have been more cruel to deny some other liver transplant patient on the waiting list the chance at life that that person would have been denied if the liver had gone to the young lady in this story."