House Backs Obama's Afghan Surge, Amid Calls for Exit Strategy

"Sometimes great presidents make mistakes," declared Massachusetts Congressman Jim McGovern as he announced his intention to vote against $97 billion in "emergency" supplemental funding for the continued U.S. occupation of Iraq and President Obama's dangerously misguided plan to surge 21,000 more U.S. troops and trainers into Afghanistan.

McGovern is a Democrat who supported Barack Obama for president last year.

But McGovern is not willing to write Obama a blank check for endless warmaking.

And he is not alone.

The congressman was one of five dozen House members who voted Thursday against the "emergency" supplemental, which passed the House on a 368-60 vote. Of the 60 "no" votes, 51 came from Democrats, almost all of them members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Nine Republicans, some of them anti-war, some of them budget hawks, voted "no."

The level of Democratic opposition was significant and reflected concerns that were summed up by McGovern.

"The mission has greatly expanded and the policy is vague," the Massachusetts congressman explained Thursday. "The more stuff I'm exposed to the more uneasy I get about what we're doing here. I get this sinking feeling that we're getting sucked into something that we'll never be able to get out of."

Despite the fact that veterans of the Afghanistan fight were lobbying in opposition to the supplemental funding it was always expected that the spending plan would gain House approval Thursday, just as the Senate is all but certain to approve a variation on the plan next week.

These rubber-stamp votes are being taken despite a lack of serious planning by the administration or debate by the Congress.

So McGovern is doing more than just objecting. He is establishing the framework for the discussion that must be had about when and how the U.S. will exit Afghanistan.

On Thursday, McGovern introduced H.R. 2404, a house resolution requesting that President Obama provide an exit strategy for U.S. military forces in Afghanistan by the end of the year.

The measure has 73 cosponsors, most of them Democrats associated with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Several powerful committee chairs have signed on, including Michigan Democrat John Conyers (Judiciary) and Minnesota Democrat Jim Oberstar (Transportation and Infrastructure). Additionally, there are a number of Republican backers, including longtime Iraq War critics such as Walter Jones of North Carolina, John Duncan of Tennessee and Ron Paul of Texas. Some unexpected Republicans have signed on as well, led by California conservative Dana Rohrabacher.

"In a very short-time Peace Action and a large coalition of NGOs worked with Rep. McGovern and the Congressional Progressive Caucus to garner over 70 original cosponsors to H.R. 2404 asking for an exit strategy for the war in Afghanistan," says Peace Action political director Paul Kawika Martin, who has worked closely with McGovern and members of the CPC on this issue. "This represents concerns by constituents with the U.S. policy in Afghanistan."

Martin expressed disappointment that the House Democratic leadership refused to allow the bipartisan bill to be offered as an amendment or adopted into the supplemental.

Peace Action and other anti-war groups called for members of Congress to vote ‘no' on the supplemental measure as part of a broader push to cut funding for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even as Congress rejects that wise counsel, Martin described H.R. 2404 as a vehicle to begin framing a smarter debate about the Afghanistan imbroglio.

"We call for an immediate halt in air and Predator drone strikes that kill, injure and traumatize innocent civilians and drive people to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Instead, the U.S. and international community should increase funding for Afghan-led humanitarian aid, development work, and land mine clean up while supporting regional diplomacy," explained Martin. "McGovern's bill is an opportunity for the congress to begin having these discussions."

Comments (141)

1. Two bad signs for this actually occuring-

   1. "The measure has 73 cosponsors, most of them Democrats associated with the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Several powerful committee chairs have signed on, including Michigan Democrat John Conyers (Judiciary)"

   2. John Nichols demanding it and citing the above as how "powerful the demand is in Congress."

   (Just going by history)

   Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:56pm

2. I've stated before that Bush was wrong to use this "Exit Strategy" political spin during the 2000 election.

   President's cannot legitimately have any exit strategy other than

   1. Surrender

   2. Complete Victory.

   Anything else is likely to more resemble #1, and is certainly not good foreign policy or military strategy.

   Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 1:06pm

3. Hmmmmm.....I am having deja vu.............

   Posted by OneVote at 05/14/2009 @ 1:07pm

4. Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 12:56pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   yes, but pressure is good.

   personally i would love to see more protests like those over at the healthcare hearings.

   there was a certain dignity to those.

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 1:19pm

5. Its so heartening to see how Islamic Terrorist facism has won so many hearts and minds among the leftwingnuts! No need for Al Jezzera or other propoganda networks in the U.S.A.!

   Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:51pm

6. Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:51pm | ignore this person | warn this person

   HEY RIO...where you think the following report is from? copy/paste the tiny url and find out.

   ----------------------------------

   Taliban wants 'new world order'

   Zardari, right, said that the Taliban 'wants to change the way of life of the world' [EPA]

   Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani president, has said that his country's fight against the Taliban is not just a domestic battle but one that the whole world needs to be wary of.

   Speaking during a news conference in London with Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, Zardari said the Taliban are seeking to create a "new world order" and that more effort was needed by the international communty to defeat the fighters.

   Standing alongside Brown, Zardari said: "It [the Taliban's cause] is a long-term endeavour and we are both united to fight against this endeavour which is challenging our way of life and wants to change the way of life of the world."

   The president's comments came as the Taliban in Pakistan warned politicians from the Swat valley that they and their families will be attacked unless they quit their posts in protest against the continuing army offensive in the troubled region.

   http://tinyurl.com/pq253j

   interesting stuff...

   Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 2:08pm

7. i say nuke 'em!

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:21pm

8. exit afghanistan, enter pakistan, exit pakistan, enter iran, exit iran, enter iraq...

   the circle jerk of greed!

   BUY THE GODDAMN POPPY CROP, AMERICA.

   $5 billion per year, tops.....

   Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:25pm

9. Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 1:06pm

   Could you describe what Complete victory would look like? Honeslty I am curious. I can't picture it.

   Posted by comancheamerican at 05/14/2009 @ 1:51pm Are you trolling again? Your anger toward the left is so disproportionate to reality it results in your spewing of bizzare posts like this one.

   Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 2:31pm

10. Could you describe what Complete victory would look like? Honeslty I am curious. I can't picture it.

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 2:31pm

    hunting for jesus.......

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVGmbzDLq5c

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:41pm

11. Could you describe what Complete victory would look like? Honeslty I am curious. I can't picture it.

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 2:31pm

    Complete victory in any military operation is overpowering your enemy so that they are incapable and/or unwilling to resume hostilities against you.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:47pm

12. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVGmbzDLq5c

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:41pm

    I actually watched this as part of an MSNBC article.

    Praise G-d for the faithfulness of these soldiers and their desire to see people set free from sin and death. That chaplain made me proud.

    One of my sons has the pictures from the Easter service they held in one of Saddam's palaces in Baghdad in 2003. They are wonderful.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:50pm

13. Complete victory in any military operation is overpowering your enemy so that they are incapable and/or unwilling to resume hostilities against you.---------Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:47pm

    But you don't "plan on killing them"....right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 2:56pm

14. i say nuke 'em!----Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:21pm

    FROSTY! For shame!

    That's ACOOK's line!....heheh

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 2:57pm

15. Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I'll bet Larry's praising over the proselytizing would evaporate quite quickly if those soldiers were....

    Mormons!

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 2:58pm

16. http://tinyurl.com/pq253j

    interesting stuff...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 2:08pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    i wonder if RIO checked the source of the article...

    it was al jazeera...warning about islamic extremists patiently working to establish a new world order...

    thought RIO might be suprised...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 3:01pm

17. Complete victory in any military operation is overpowering your enemy so that they are incapable and/or unwilling to resume hostilities against you.---------Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:47pm

    But you don't "plan on killing them"....right?

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 2:56pm

    You answer your own question Mask. How would a dead person make a decision to be willing or unwilling to resume hostilities?

    And incapable does not require their deaths, it means they lack the means of resuming hostilities, as in military capability.

    Yes, it can involve death, but none of this necessitates it.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:06pm

18. But are they in violation, Pastor?

    Are they proselytizing or 'giving gifts'?

    Is the rule of law on Earth "not a big deal" for you?

    Will G-d know the difference?

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/14/2009 @ 2:56pm

    I watched the entire segment when it was broadcast on MSNBC, rather than this snippet. When heard in it's entirety, I found nothing that violated military rules.

    Christians in the military are bound by both their military vows of obedience and their vows to obey Christ. they find a way to do both as best they can. But, if it comes to a hard decision, they are committed to obeying Christ over man.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:10pm

19. Hey John, Here's an update on your Golden Girl: Seems now ole' Nancy claims they were briefed on waterboarding but given only the legal opinions saying it was ok.

    Seems she "wasn't aware" there were dissenting opinions as well.

    I'm thinking such an honorable member of our government would have at least suspected and asked for (especially considering how much she loved George Bush) the dissenting legal briefs, don't you, John?

    John?

    Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/14/2009 @ 3:19pm

20. Complete victory in any military operation is overpowering your enemy so that they are incapable and/or unwilling to resume hostilities against you.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 2:47pm

    Hmmm, so if we leave, and the Taliban is "unwilling" to bring the fight to the US, we can achieve complete victory?

    That seems like the only realistic option for "victory".

    Posted by Extraneous at 05/14/2009 @ 3:28pm

21. Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:06pm

    Again, just mocking your idea that we don't "plan" on killing anybody in a war...therefore it's not "murder" (Your definition, not mine).

    But love your response to my response to snowball...

    would you be as happy if those roselytizing soldiers....were Mormons???

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:30pm

22. 2. Complete Victory.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 1:06pm

    And hence the problem. We have no known definition for this, in this context.

    This stuff is getting really old.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 3:38pm

23. But love your response to my response to snowball...

    would you be as happy if those roselytizing soldiers....were Mormons???

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:30pm

    I would respect their right to do so, but obviously from a spiritual standpoint, I would not like to see them lead people to hell.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:40pm

24. Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 3:38pm

    Of course we do..."Victory" is Afghanistan as a "rapidly Christianizing, laissez-faire economy ally who does what we say....democracy optional!"

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 3:41pm

25. BUY THE GODDAMN POPPY CROP, AMERICA.

    $5 billion per year, tops.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/14/2009 @ 2:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    I am still convinced this Afghansi thing is still all about drugs, just like it was for our colonialist forebears.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 3:42pm

26. Go Red Wings.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 3:45pm

27. I am still convinced this Afghansi thing is still all about drugs, just like it was for our colonialist forebears. Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 3:42pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    and this is based on what? before we invaded Afghanistan, the northern alliance were the dope guys and the Taleban were the eradicate opium guys.

    same with rapists. when the Taleban were in charge, rapists were on trial. now, rapists are in the gov't.

    the Taleban kept strict order. that is why they are so popular. we will not succeed in shoving our puppet gov't down the people's throat. we have been trying to do so for 8 years.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 4:05pm

28. same with rapists. when the Taleban were in charge, rapists were on trial. now, rapists are in the gov't.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 4:05pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    and what a wondrous day for women it will be when the taliban returns!!!

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 4:36pm

29. the best reason for getting out and minding our business if possible is the fact that the economy is about to hit shit point #2...

    the first aftershock is about to hit. first round layoffs and cutbacks are now rippling and business that depends on those apex producers are going to feel the pain.

    if anyone thinks the american consumer CAN or even SHOULD go back to the credit enabled spending orgy of yesterday they are CRAZY!!!

    THESE WARS ARE NOT FREE. WE ARE NOT THE WORLD'S POLICEMAN. WE CANNOT AFFORD THAT ROLE.

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 4:43pm

30. and this is based on what?

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 4:05pm

    Tweet!!! Ineligible Receiver. I require notice before being unignored.

    Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 5:30pm

31. Christians in the military are bound by both their military vows of obedience and their vows to obey Christ. they find a way to do both as best they can. But, if it comes to a hard decision, they are committed to obeying Christ over man.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 3:10pm

    I'm curious...since being a soldier usually involves killing people (although not always...my Dad in WWII is an example...he was an engineer), and Christ really doesn't want anyone to kill (he is called the Prince of Peace for a reason), how does any Christian soldier who must kill in a war "find a way to do both" without

    1. ignoring Christ's teachings against killing, or 2. disobeying an order to kill?

    Perhaps I am missing something, but that seems just the slightest bit schizophrenic to me...and it sounds like you're advocating a form of Christianity in the military in which it's OK to call yourself a Christian and yet not follow his teachings against killing. It seems to be a "convenient" form of Christianity: "I'll believe in his teachings when my government tells me to and when my government (in the form of a superior officer) tells me I must kill, then I won't follow Christ's teachings...I will follow the order of my fellow man over those of my god."

    BTW, I realize the issue is much more complex. However, Christ was against war. Soldiers must fight in war. You can't REALLY have both can you?

    I have never really understood why all true Christians aren't pacifists...but then again, I believe there are very few "true" Christians in this country.

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/14/2009 @ 6:47pm

32. http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/ 15/curl-speaker-misspeaks/

    "My statement is clear, and let me read it again. Let me read it again. I'm sorry. I have to find the page," said a flustered Mrs. Pelosi, shuffling through papers, her hands quivering a bit, as she sought to stick to her prepared text.

    "When -- when -- when my staff person -- I'm sorry, the page is out of order -- five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing -- informing that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place," she said.

    *********************************************************

    Your President wins by 10 points: You increase your lead in the House and flip a Benedict Arnold in order to get to a fillabuster proof Senate. And what's you first order of business?

    "Hey, I know! Let's slaughter one of our teammates. You know, our leader in the House."

    With political instincts like that, it's no wonder the Republicans are always eating your lunch.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 6:56pm

33. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/14/2009 @ 6:47pm

    Stephen,

    I'm pressed for time, but I've saved your post and I will answer you tomorrow

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 7:35pm

34. With political instincts like that, it's no wonder the Republicans are always eating your lunch.----Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/14/2009 @ 6:56pm

    Uh, yeah, Darin. Repubs are knocking 'em out of the park.

    So what is the quantum signature in the Universe YOU're in?

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 8:47pm

35. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/14/2009 @ 6:47pm

    Stephen, be prepared to be lectured that Jesus was in fact a die-hard, nuke-em-til-they-glow militarist....and laissez-faire capitalist by the way....who fully endorsed every war that Larry (antisoc) endorsed and believes that total war is cool...oh, of course for "self defense", naturally.

    And he'll agree with you that there are "few Christians in this country"....he just thinks it's him and a few friends of his.

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 8:50pm

36. "Christians in the military are bound by both their military vows of obedience and their vows to obey Christ. they find a way to do both as best they can. But, if it comes to a hard decision, they are committed to obeying Christ over man."

    Oh, that's right--I have seen all those photos of our soldiers wielding ploughshares.

    Posted by onthehelm at 05/14/2009 @ 9:19pm

37. The Afgan campaign would have been difficult even if we had gone about it intelligently. Sadly Bush's mindboggeling detour into Iraq and it's support by the Right has made our mission almost impossible. But I'm sure Ditto-heads and Fox Watchers will soon be blaming Obama.

    Posted by Regroupthink at 05/14/2009 @ 9:30pm

38. Posted by schnellerheinz at 05/14/2009 @ 5:30pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    dann eben nicht.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/14/2009 @ 9:38pm

39. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 05/14/2009 @ 6:47pm

    Jesus said that the peace He came to bring is not peace as the world understands it. (Jn 14:27, Jn 16:33, Lk 19:42, He came to bring peace between mankind and G-d. And the peacemakers He calls Christians to be, is to bring people the peace of G-d that comes from being reconciled to Him.

    Romans 12:18-If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men.

    So, we are to try to live peaceably with others. However, it doesn't mean that there is not a place for the sword.

    Romans 13:3,4-For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. 4 For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

    Jesus explained to Pilate that He did not defend Himself was because He was born for the purpose of dying on the Cross.

    John 18:36-Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, My servants would fight, so that I should not be delivered to the Jews; but now My kingdom is not from here."

    But He will one day come in Judgment bearing a sword;

    Revelation 19:11-16

    Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war. His eyes were like a flame of fire, and on His head were many crowns. He had a name written that no one knew except Himself. He was clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. And the armies in heaven, clothed in fine linen, white and clean, followed Him on white horses.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 9:58pm

40. Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 9:58pm

    See? Jesus loves nukes.

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 10:06pm

41. continued to Stephen

    Rev 19 continued

    Now out of His mouth goes a sharp sword, that with it He should strike the nations. And He Himself will rule them with a rod of iron. He Himself treads the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. And He has on His robe and on His thigh a name written:

    KING OF KINGS AND LORD OF LORDS.

    The Beast and His Armies Defeated

    Then I saw an angel standing in the sun; and he cried with a loud voice, saying to all the birds that fly in the midst of heaven, "Come and gather together for the supper of the great God, that you may eat the flesh of kings, the flesh of captains, the flesh of mighty men, the flesh of horses and of those who sit on them, and the flesh of all people, free and slave, both small and great." And I saw the beast, the kings of the earth, and their armies, gathered together to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army. Then the beast was captured, and with him the false prophet who worked signs in his presence, by which he deceived those who received the mark of the beast and those who worshiped his image. These two were cast alive into the lake of fire burning with brimstone. And the rest were killed with the sword which proceeded from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse. And all the birds were filled with their flesh."

    the counsel that many pastors like myself give to individuals who are pondering the decision on military service is that G-d leaves that up to each individual. If you believe you are called to be a pacifist, do so with honor.

    If to serve, Jesus allowed for service when asked, by saying we are to submit to govt. And self defense is a cornerstone for life. So a person who believes they can serve their country in the military is free to do so

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:08pm

42. Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:08pm

    How is it God is both pro-self defense (to the point of sanctioning war which will often involve hundreds or thousands of "collateral damage" deaths of non-combatanents)....and pro-pacifism?

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 10:25pm

43. as usual, asocialist chooses to interpret the bible exactly as he wishes to, in order to support the views he has already formed. there is scant evidence to suggest that john 14:27 was EVER intended to allow asocialist to define the word "peace" to mean what it seems to mean to him, namely "the special kind of peace that can only be achieved via carpet bombing". in fact, it is more often interpreted exactly the opposite, to mean that Jesus' peace is the exact OPPOSITE of asocialist's more "worldly" definition.

    see, asocialist, that's the problem. you want to have it both ways. you want to pretend to be both more worldly, and more spiritually enlightened, than everyone else, yet the two positions just don't add up. you retreat from the obvious contradictions by running to the book of revelations, which has as many different intepretations as there are interpreters, and which allows you to declare any damn thing you please and find support for it.

    the red queen: "when I use a word, it means exactly what I choose it to mean, no more, no less".

    welcome to wonderland! tea will be served soon by the mad hatter, antisocialist, and all his friends!!!

    Posted by canaro71 at 05/14/2009 @ 10:46pm

44. How is it God is both pro-self defense (to the point of sanctioning war which will often involve hundreds or thousands of "collateral damage" deaths of non-combatanents)....and pro-pacifism?

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    yes...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/14/2009 @ 10:52pm

45. How is it God is both pro-self defense (to the point of sanctioning war which will often involve hundreds or thousands of "collateral damage" deaths of non-combatanents)....and pro-pacifism?

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 10:25pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Because God isn't either. If God was just and merciful as LVL claims him to be. He wouldn't allow innocents to die as a result of the wars of others. If God was infinitely merciful I imagine he wouldn't even allow suffering the world, considering being infinitely merciful would mean that you wouldn't allow even deserved suffering.

    These questions are the ones that led me away from Christianity. Any religion that uses the words of a person who was supposed to be a pacifist in order to justify the killing of others is not a religion for me which is why religion is not for me. Christians use their religion much as radicalized Islamists do.

    KKK members use religion and nationalism to justify their actions. Religion and Nationalism can be considered two of the greatest evils in this world, both have been the cause of most of the greatest evils committed in this world. Look back at any major war and you will see at it's heart one of the two.

    My battle is always that I think nationalism and religion are important because they create a community, which is important to human beings however both are dangerous as well because they lead you to dislike outsiders. Just like LVL says that all the actions the military commit are to protect this country, so the KKK says all the blacks and Hispanics they kill are simply to protect this country and that anyone who supports them are traitors. Yet I think all nationalists like LVL are incapable of seeing that what they are doing in the end is of little difference.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 03:10am

46. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 03:10am

    Hey Comfy,

    I'm about half-way through the book below:

    The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements

    by Eric Hoffer

    http://www.amazon.com/True-Believer-Thoughts-Movements- Perennial/dp/0060505915/ref=sr_1_1? ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242385180&sr=1-1

    Hoffer was a dock worker in the '50s who wrote a book. He's not an acedemic so it's not that kind of book. It is a bunch of observations and conjecture about how mass movements gain traction and take off. Some of the observations are insigtful. Some are just gross generalizations and sterotypes.

    Religion and Nationalism feature prominently as do political movements.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:04am

47. Uh, yeah, Darin. Repubs are knocking 'em out of the park.

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 8:47pm

    I turned 18 in 1983 and voted for Reagan in 1984 (as a college freshman at a Liberal Arts school in Mondale's home state of MN).

    Over the course of my political lifetime, Democrats have enjoyed a 3% - 4% advantage in registered voters. Yet, Republicans have had the majority of electoral success in the 25 years that I've been paying attention.

    You guys tell yourselves that it's because Republicans cheat, but this morning, I was thinking that in the last decade Dems have cheated Reps out of three or four Senate seats.

    Tim Johnson in 2000; You flipped Jeffords by bribing him with a committee charimanship in 2001; You stole Alaska in 2008 because the prosecuter cared only about getting a conviction of Stevens, not a conviction that could withstand appeal, and now you flipped Spector.

    And you still have utterly failed at healthcare since 1993. The only success was Bush's prescription plan which incorporates private insurance and is wildly popular and costs much less than OMB projections.

    So the last election is about the only thing you guys have to crow about in the last 25 years and your first order of buiness is to ruin Peolsi's political career.

    Nice job there, Einstein.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:17am

48. 4 / 5 movements agree: brainwashing is effective!

    Posted by snowball666 at 05/15/2009 @ 07:07am

    That made me smile. The book was a gift from a coworker who thought that it provided a lot of insight into the Obama phenomenon.

    To a certain extent some of the things I've read in it are akin to astrology: a broad generalization that can be made to fit almost any sitution. So, I don't think President Obama's broad support is a result of brain washing. But, there are some insights into the desire to belong.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 07:24am

49. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 03:10am

    Well, Larry's no racist. He's merely taken Augustine's "just war" concept and run with it to the point that "The Lord has no problem with a few tactical nukes being popped off, rather than negotiate a peace with some Commies!"

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 07:58am

50. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:17am

    Interesting theory of history, Darin, but a few major flaws.

    1. Reagan won in 1980 on Carter's recession and the Iranian hostage crises...even Conservatives admit that. He won again in 1984, because both events were gone.

    Yet, conservatism, despite claims by the Right AND Left, never fully blossomed. Reagan got his tax cuts and defense spending increases...but he didn't 'cut Government' all that much. In fact, he INCREASED the size of Government by the addition of TWO new Cabinet positions AND added some 200,000 Federal employees. (Note: Clinton CUT 65,000 Federal employees.)

    Additionally, Reagan eventually reneged on his "no new taxes" (as Bush-41 would later) by increasing corporate taxes in the 1986 Tax Reform Act and agreeing to gas taxes.

    As noted Bush-41 basically won on Dukakis' ineptness and a continueing good economy, but NOTE, he promised a "kinder, gentler" governance, indicating quite clearly that the REAGAN model was "unkind and crueler". So again, where was the "win" for conservatism.

    Then two terms of Clinton, and not only peace and prosperity, but a FISCAL CONSERVATIVE ideal never reached under Reagan or Bush-41...a balanced budget and then surpluses (real or not...another debate).

    Yes, yes..."That was Gingrich, not Clinton!!!"...again, another debate. But the point is that those fiscally conservative budgets came under a DEMOCRATIC Presidency, not a Republican one.

    Then Dubya, who only won on an Electoral College victory, not a popular one. And his re-election in 2004, which was based on nothing more than a weak Kerry and us being at war. And I can prove that because of what happened in 2005 with his attempt at Social Security privatization.

    So...

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 08:07am

51. What exactly are YOU "crowing about"???

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 08:07am

52. Posted by snowball666 at 05/15/2009 @ 08:23am

    Well....1. Yes, but Reagan's (and the Right's mantra) back in 1980 was "cut Government, eliminate bureaucracy". Adding TWO NEW Cabinet level positions and 200K new Federal employees is the OPPOSITE of that. RR was no liberal, naturally, but he was far from the ideal his Myth has been created by the modern cons.

    2. "Desert Storm" was under Bush-41, not Clinton.

    But yes, it was "relative peace" with the VERY minor action of Bosnia/Kosovo. Can that even be compared to Iraq or Afghanistan???

    3. And yes, despite the moans here at "The Nation" and on the Hard Left, I seriously doubt anybody less ideological in the country would say that Clinton's economy wasn't SOME form of "prosperity" will tens of millions of new jobs.

    But my basic point to Darin remains...where ARE his "conservative victories"...Republican? maybe. But on tenuous grounds. A fair economy and no hostages and Reagan would have had a tough time against Carter, given how radical his PROMISES were. Bush-41 would have never won with Reagan and Dubya didn't win popularly, but via the System (and as soemtimes argued a JUDICIAL RULING!).

    Gingrich's victory was impressive, but not unexpected after the P.R. disasters of 1993-1994...and eventually the GOP Congress degenerated into what they SAID they came to DC to stop.

    So I ask...where ARE the victories of the Right in the last 30 years? Superficially, yes...a guy with an "R" behind his name was President for 20 years...but taxes went up under them, government increased under them, no major program was eliminated, and when they DID try something BIG (like Social Security "reform")...it bombed.

    BTW, I realize this gets me into debates with both the Right AND Left.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 09:37am

53. We have to feed the MIC it's raw meet or it gets testy. The MIC and those behind it run this country, not the president nor congress.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 10:23am

54. We have to feed the MIC it's raw meet or it gets testy. The MIC and those behind it run this country, not the president nor congress.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 10:23am

    Are you Frosty's brother?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 10:29am

55. Are you Frosty's brother?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 10:29am

    Or he could be....Eisenhower or Douglas MacArthur.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:18am

56. we are all brothers......

    unless we are prophets, of course.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:32am

57. Are you Frosty's brother?

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 10:29am

    Or he could be....Eisenhower or Douglas MacArthur.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:18am

    Call me Frosty's distant cousin. I did grow up in the frozen northern U.S. I just don't believe that we should dump all of our national resources into the military industrial complex. Our defense spending is completely out of control. If we can't be in multiple skirmishes in the world, the defense contractors aren't happy. Gotta keep makin them weapons and killin bad guys.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 11:33am

58. The Word of God.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 9:58pm

    uh, don't you mean "G-d"?

    (larry have you erased all the "o"s in your bible? beter get busy.)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:34am

59. Hoffer was a dock worker in the '50s who wrote a book. He's not an acedemic so it's not that kind of book. It is a bunch of observations and conjecture about how mass movements gain traction and take off. Some of the observations are insigtful. Some are just gross generalizations and sterotypes.

    Religion and Nationalism feature prominently as do political movements.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:04am

    today he would be called an actuary.

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:36am

60. I just don't believe that we should dump all of our national resources into the military industrial complex.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 11:33am

    those were dumped a long time ago.

    ask the chinese (and the saudis and the russians and the and the and the and the and the and the)

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:38am

61. Or he could be....Eisenhower or Douglas MacArthur.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:18am

    Want to share with the rest of us, where Ike or Mac called the military stupid or evil?

    Or when Frosty has said anything close to this?

    <A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction. Our military organization today bears little relation to that known of any of my predecessors in peacetime, or, indeed, by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Now this conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development.>

    From Eisenhower's Farewell Address.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 11:40am

62. I turned 18 in 1983 and voted for Reagan in 1984

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:17am

    wow, you were stupid (or greedy or both) back then, too.

    LET THE BUBBLE INFLATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:40am

63. war now, war forever.

    Gates estimates the Afghani army will be ready to defend our puppet gov't in two to four years. that's in addition to the eight years we have bled there already.

    this is just INSANE.

    remember folks, it was NOT the Taleban, which attacked us on 9/11.

    this entire war is essentially a punitive expedition, with the added twist that we are punishing ourselves.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 11:43am

64. i haven't called the military "evil".

    stupid maybe, but really, it's humans that are stupid.

    "hey, look. the new BAMBI movie is out. there's a great scene where bambi takes a cluster bomblet and shoves it up an ayrabs ass!"

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:44am

65. Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 11:40am

    Want to share where WOLFGANG called the military "stupid or evil" or did he refer to the Military-INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX?

    BTW, like quotes?--

    "It is part of the general pattern of misguided policy that our country is now geared to an arms economy which was bred in an artificially induced psychosis of war hysteria and nurtured upon an incessant propaganda of fear."

    -General Douglas MacArthur

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:47am

66. MY GOD'S GONNA KICK YOUR GOD'S BUTT!

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:48am

67. But then again, Larry....you know what an "America-hating lefty" ol' Doug was!

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 11:49am

68. Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 11:40am

    If I recall correctly, 1980 was the repug convention that introduced Dubya to the world & the suckling trolls. Of course, the Great Communicable prevailed & infected the nation.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 11:43am

    The effort seems to be - take the Taliban out of the 12th century & bring them (minus casualties) into the modern world. Be careful what you wish for, neo-libs.

    Later, dudes. off to the village now.

    Posted by Sorelish at 05/15/2009 @ 12:04pm

69. Gotta keep makin them weapons and killin bad guys.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 11:33am

    I believe Pink Floyd made a song about quite awhile ago. I think it's called, Not Now John. It's off the Final Cut album.

    Fuck all that we've got to get on with these Gotta compete with the wily Japanese. There's too many home fires burning And not enough trees. So fuck all that We've go to get on with these.

    (Gotta get on with these!)

    Can't stop Lose job Mind gone Silicon Stroll on What bomb? Get away Pay day Make hay Break down Need fix Big six Click click Hold on Oh no Bingo! (Bingo!)

    Make 'em laugh. Make 'em cry. Make 'em dance in the aisles. Make 'em pay. Make 'em stay. Make 'em feel ok.

    Not now John We've gotta get on with the film show. Hollywood waits at the end of the rainbow Who cares what it's about As long as the kids go? So, Not now John We've gotta get on with the show.

    (ooooo, Noooo!, Gotta get on, Gotta get on, Gotta get on)

    Hang on John I've got to get on with this. I don't know what it is But it fits on here like Hssss Come at the end of the shift We'll go and get pissed. But not now John I've got to get on with this.

    Hold on John I think there's something good on. I used to read books but..... It could be the news Or some other amusement Or it could be reusable shows.

    Fuck all that we've got to get on with these Gotta compete with the wily Japanese. No need to worry about the Vietnamese. Got to bring the Russian Bear to his knees. Well, maybe not the Russian Bear Maybe the Swedes. We showed Argentina Now let's go and show these. Make us feel tough And wouldn't Maggie be pleased? Nah nah nah nah nah nah nah!

    Whooh!

    One! Two! Free! Four! (Not now John we've gotta get on)

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 12:06pm

70. It was the Taliban, however, who provided the base and later refuge for the sons-of-bitches who did, EMILE. You are making excuses for probably the worst organization to befall the Moslem world since the Isma'ili's. The sooner the world is rid of them the better.

    Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/15/2009 @ 12:07pm

71. Later, dudes. off to the village now. Posted by Sorelish at 05/15/2009 @ 12:04pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    village? east or west?

    the hipsters have long fled the Village. they are now to be found in the wild reaches of Williamsburg and Bushwick. c'mon down

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 12:14pm

72. The sooner the world is rid of them the better.

    Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/15/2009 @ 12:07pm

    Who was it who aided and help train the Taleban against the Russians?

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 12:17pm

73. See? Jesus loves nukes.

    Posted by Mask at 05/14/2009 @ 10:06pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    he must have that in common with shiva...

    Posted by ibbleblibble at 05/15/2009 @ 12:20pm

74. The sooner the world is rid of them the better. Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/15/2009 @ 12:07pm

    and you wish to pay for that in blood and treasure?

    and you think it is america's role to use its military to oust every terrible regime in the world?

    there aren't enough troops or money in the entire world to accomplish that.

    by all reports, everyone is armed to the teeth in afghanistan. if the people of that country hate them so much, let them fight them and drive them out.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 12:28pm

75. Yes I know Wolfgang. We also helped Saddam once too. Way the game gets played I guess.

    Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/15/2009 @ 12:34pm

76. <i>Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 08:07am </i>

    The impact of what you and Darin have said is that the American people are, as a general principle, politically moderate.

    <i>Posted by antisocialist at 05/14/2009 @ 10:08pm </i>

    That seems like the fairest counsel you can provide. Balancing the apparent absoluteness of Jesus' commandments with the lesser-evil-type decisions that must often be made is a very difficult endeavor. Though I think your pro-war interpretations of certain verses are highly suspect, I understand and have a lot of sympathy with the proposition that violence can sometimes be the lesser evil.

    One question, however, on a point you made earlier: is it your position that all Mormons go to hell? Or more broadly, since I assume you're saying that all Mormons are non-Christian, is it your position that all non-Christians go to hell? How is that consistent either with your own theology of the Atonement or the definition of God as perfectly loving?

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/15/2009 @ 1:10pm

77. Yes I know Wolfgang. We also helped Saddam once too. Way the game gets played I guess.

    Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/15/2009 @ 12:34pm

    I'm not attacking you. I am pointing out that we've been on both sides of the equation so many times, we don't know who our friends and enemies are. In some cases, all we need to do to see the enemy, is look in the mirror because we've been our own worst enemy by trying to control the world when we can even get our ducks all in a row here in the U.S.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 1:11pm

78. I wonder where or when all of this will come to an end. First we were in Afghanistan, then Iraq and now Pakistan....we're just sending money to them (presently) we can't afford to send. What's next Iran, Syria.....If I didn't know any better, I'd almost think that the pentagon, and the folks pulling their strings are literally trying to bankrupt the U.S. treasury while at the same time destroying the U.S. military.

    I thought Obama would have us on our way out of Iraq by now, and would have been smarter than to go wading into Afghanistan and Pakistan, but, I was wrong on both accounts.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 1:24pm

79. war.

    easy to get in, hard to extricate.

    Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 1:42pm

80. The impact of what you and Darin have said is that the American people are, as a general principle, politically moderate.----Posted by Thrawn at 05/15/2009 @ 1:10pm

    Exactly so.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 1:47pm

81. Don't worry, I didn't take it as an attack. True though, you never know who your next enemy will be. Short of taking Washington's advise literally, though I'm not sure its avoidable. Perhaps with more smarts we could minimize those situations, but if we are going to be any kind of a factor in world affairs, it goes with the territory.

    Posted by PRESTERJOHNofASIA at 05/15/2009 @ 2:14pm

82. the American people are, as a general principle, politically moderate.

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/15/2009 @ 1:10pm

    the american people, like people everywhere, are politically oblivious.....

    Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 2:24pm

83. the american people, like people everywhere, are politically oblivious.....----Posted by frosty zoom at 05/15/2009 @ 2:24pm

    I'm sorry, FROSTY, could you tell us again who YOUR (Canadian) Prime Minister is? Then we'll hand you the first stone to cast.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 2:44pm

84. So I ask...where ARE the victories of the Right in the last 30 years?

    ...but taxes went up under them, government increased under them, no major program was eliminated, and when they DID try something BIG (like Social Security "reform")...it bombed.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 09:37am

    Victories for the Right. Let's start with low hanging fruit:

    Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas vs. Ginsburg and call it half for Souter.

    This gave us a SCOTUS Ruling that the 2nd amendment is an individual right to own firearms.

    Top marginal tax rates went from 70% to ~35%. Yes, that has dramatically increased revenue to the treasury (we told you so), but the Right is happy because markets are more free.

    Cap gain taxes are 20%?

    There are now a host of tax avantaged savings (IRA, Roth, Coverdale, 529c, HSA, 125c) vehicles that promote the idea that the individual is primarily responsible for himself and his family. These are wildly popular.

    Welfare reform.

    NY city is livable again (thanks to a law and order Republican Mayor).

    We won the Cold War. We won the war of economic philosophy. There is no question that well-regulated free market capitalism is unquestionably the best economic model to organize around and centrally planned economies are not gaining ground anywhere.

    Today, 51% of Americans self-describe as pro-life. That had been as low as 33% in the last generation.

    And finally, the greatest victory of all...

    Fox News is #1 in the ratings.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 2:45pm

85. One question, however, on a point you made earlier: is it your position that all Mormons go to hell? Or more broadly, since I assume you're saying that all Mormons are non-Christian, is it your position that all non-Christians go to hell? How is that consistent either with your own theology of the Atonement or the definition of God as perfectly loving?

    Posted by Thrawn at 05/15/2009 @ 1:10pm

    It's because Christian theology states that the mercy and love of G-d is that G-d doesn't desire the death of any sinner, yet all deserve death. Because of His mercy and love, He provided a way to escape the penalty that all mankind is subject to.

    It is mankind that condemns themselves to hell, not G-d. By rejecting G-d's gift of life through Christ, mankind chooses hell and death over life.

    Universal salvation was never the theology of the body of Christ and cannot be found until more recently. It is a false doctrine.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 3:03pm

86. House Approves Blank Check for War...

    The words of that platoon minister come to mind, proselytising his soldiers the other day. His words can be substituted to explain this phenomenon perfectly.

    "The special forces guys - they hunt men basically. We do the same things as Christians (Capitalists), we hunt people for Jesus (Money). We do, we hunt them down," he says.

    "Get the hound of heaven (Hell on Earth) after them, so we get them into the kingdom (Capitalism). That's what we do, that's our business."

    Posted by fakedemocracy at 05/15/2009 @ 3:03pm

87. We won the Cold War.....Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 2:45pm

    That's complete horseshit and you know it. You, the GOP didn't win the cold war. The cold war started directly after WWII and continued all the way into Ronnie's presidency.

    The Soviet economy imploded just as our is doing now. So the question is, who's the winner now? China or India or maybe even Russia?

    Spending unlimited money on weapons and weapons systems is just plain stupid. Most of it collects dust, becomes obsolete.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 3:41pm

88. I'm sorry, FROSTY, could you tell us again who YOUR (Canadian) Prime Minister is? Then we'll hand you the first stone to cast.

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 2:44pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Thats 'Canadien' to you Maskie - and don't you forget it.

    Terry Harper of course - former NHLer.

    Frosti seemded stumped - pardon the intrusion.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/15/2009 @ 3:47pm

89. Spending unlimited money on weapons and weapons systems is just plain stupid. Most of it collects dust, becomes obsolete.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 3:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Yeah....but we sure did outspend em didn't we. Too bad we won't have any social security, medicare, medicaid, public health, etc. - but we sure spent them into submission. Brilliant statesmanship, and besides, it made alot of folks very, very rich.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/15/2009 @ 3:50pm

90. Terry Harper of course - former NHLer. osted by OneVote at 05/15/2009 @ 3:47pm

    Of course he'd have to be a hockey player, though it surprisingly isn't Bobby Orr. Then again, Bobby Orr rates up there with the Gods in Canada, not some lowly prime minister.

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 3:52pm

91. Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 3:52pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You mean Saint Bobby Orr?

    That guy was just unbelievable. Nobody in the NHL could touch him. Outrageous talent.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/15/2009 @ 3:56pm

92. antisocialist-According to you it is decided in advance who goes to heaven and who doesn't because you believe that God has the chosen,like yourself, born into the right religion,but has most everyone else born into the wrong religion making the afterlife predetermined and has nothing to do with what we do or believe because few people change religions..

    Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2009 @ 4:05pm

93. That guy was just unbelievable. Nobody in the NHL could touch him. Outrageous talent.

    Posted by OneVote at 05/15/2009 @ 3:56pm

    Agreed!

    Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:33pm

94. Religion and Nationalism feature prominently as do political movements.

    Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 06:04am

    I will add it to my reading list.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:35pm

95. Well, Larry's no racist. He's merely taken Augustine's "just war" concept and run with it to the point that "The Lord has no problem with a few tactical nukes being popped off, rather than negotiate a peace with some Commies!"

    Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 07:58am

    Oh, I am not arguing that Anti is racist. I don't think that. He fears anything he doesn't understand, and since he is very very very close minded the wealth of things he doesn't understand makes bill gates seem absolutely poor, but I don't think he is racist.

    My point is simply that he thinks that through his nationilism and the will to kill everyone before talking to them is his way of defending the country from external threats. I am just positing that the Neo-Nazis feel the same way. To him Communists threaten the future of this country and we should kill all Communists, or Islamists threaten this country and we should kill all Islamists because it isn't possible to neogtiate with anyone who isn't willing to submit fully to your will. Well neo-Nazis believe that they must purge this country of blacks and hispanics and jews in order to protect it because the goals of minorities is to kill and rob the master race. Just like the goal of all Muslims is to kill and rob anyone with freedom.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:41pm

96. Haven't we heard this before from our armchair warriors while babbling in comfort in their climate controlled DC offices ? You must give me what I ask for to keep my multi-national corporate backers happy.

    Trillions of war dollars later, Americans are gradually realizing the evils of unregulated capitalism. The duplicitous behavior of Bush and Obama have lead us down the path of financial ruin trying to stimulate our economy with defense allotments because that's where the money is.

    Peace, Cosmic

    Posted by Cosmic at 05/15/2009 @ 4:46pm

97. "We won the Cold War. We won the war of economic philosophy. There is no question that well-regulated free market capitalism is unquestionably the best economic model to organize around and centrally planned economies are not gaining ground anywhere. "

    South America sure is starting to itch for a bit of socialism actually.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:48pm

98. By the way Darin you say that Treasury funds increased because of lowering taxes. You can't make that tie because in order to do it you have to ignore every other variable involved in between.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:49pm

99. My point is simply that he thinks that through his nationilism and the will to kill everyone before talking to them is his way of defending the country from external threats. I am just positing that the Neo-Nazis feel the same way. To him Communists threaten the future of this country and we should kill all Communists, or Islamists threaten this country and we should kill all Islamists because it isn't possible to neogtiate with anyone who isn't willing to submit fully to your will. Well neo-Nazis believe that they must purge this country of blacks and hispanics and jews in order to protect it because the goals of minorities is to kill and rob the master race. Just like the goal of all Muslims is to kill and rob anyone with freedom.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:41pm

    You're getting almost as bad as Mask at the Strawman argument.

    I don't believe in killing anyone before talking.

    I don't believe in killing communists unless they declare war on us and make the effort to kill us. That is self defense.

    As to Islamists, only those who again, declare themselves at war with us, certainly there is a large number of them that have. There are millions of Muslims around the world though that harbor no violence towards anyone and I have no issues with them.

    Nowhere have I ever said ALL Muslims want to kill us. And where did the bit about robbing come in? that's a new one.

    Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:54pm

100. Just like the goal of all Muslims is to kill and rob anyone with freedom. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:41pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     are you nuts? all muslims? you are out of your mind.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 7:01pm

101. cc, sorry, I misread the context of your remark. it did seem out of character for you.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/15/2009 @ 7:03pm

102. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 4:48pm

     And China's central planning seems to be working well when it comes to increasing electricity generation. Especially for windpower...I think China's windpower capacity is growing faster than anywhere else in the world. And of course they are creating them there.

     Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 7:08pm

103. I guess liberals will have to rethink the Obama economic revival.

     <Obama Says U.S. Long-Term Debt Load ‘Unsustainable'

     By Roger Runningen and Hans Nichols

     May 14

     President Barack Obama, calling current deficit spending "unsustainable," warned of skyrocketing interest rates for consumers if the U.S. continues to finance government by borrowing from other countries.

     "We can't keep on just borrowing from China," Obama said at a town-hall meeting in Rio Rancho, New Mexico, outside Albuquerque. "We have to pay interest on that debt, and that means we are mortgaging our children's future with more and more debt."

     Holders of U.S. debt will eventually "get tired" of buying it, causing interest rates on everything from auto loans to home mortgages to increase, Obama said. "It will have a dampening effect on our economy."

     Earlier this week, the Obama administration revised its own budget estimates and raised the projected deficit for this year to a record $1.84 trillion, up 5 percent from the February estimate. The revision for the 2010 fiscal year estimated the deficit at $1.26 trillion, up 7.4 percent from the February figure. The White House Office of Management and Budget also projected next year's budget will end up at $3.59 trillion, compared with the $3.55 trillion it estimated previously.

     Health-care costs are driving up the nation's debt and burdening entitlement programs such as Medicare, the government- run insurance program for those 65 and older and the disabled.

     The programs' trustees reported May 13 that the Social Security trust fund will run out of assets in 2037, four years sooner than forecast, and Medicare's hospital fund will run dry by 2017, two years earlier than predicted a year ago.

     http://tinyurl.com/o9gwal

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 7:43pm

104. Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/15/2009 @ 2:45pm

     Basic points, if you like that, Darin-

     1. Reagan increased the size of government and raised taxes.

     2. Bush-41 did the same.

     3. Dubya didn't cut one thing. He ADDED a Medicare drug benefit. And when he tried Social Security privatization, it bombed.

     4. Republicans have the lowest party affiliation in years.

     You've had some victories, of course. But your idea that Obama and the Dems holding Congress is the aberration....just doesn't fly.

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 8:49pm

105. I don't believe in killing anyone before talking. ---Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:54pm

     Really? Haven't you already planned for a war with Iran?

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 8:50pm

106. Posted by snowball666 at 05/15/2009 @ 8:15pm

     I never said it was the LEFT-wing's 30 years either, snow.

     Again, the Hard Right and Hard Left have both been disappointed...and I think that's a good thing.

     The Left is atleast less mooney-eyed and myth-making about Clinton than the Right is about Reagan, who now approachs the level of a "political saint".

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 8:54pm

107. I don't believe in killing anyone before talking.

     I don't believe in killing communists unless they declare war on us and make the effort to kill us. That is self defense.

     As to Islamists, only those who again, declare themselves at war with us, certainly there is a large number of them that have. There are millions of Muslims around the world though that harbor no violence towards anyone and I have no issues with them.

     Nowhere have I ever said ALL Muslims want to kill us. And where did the bit about robbing come in? that's a new one.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:54pm

     Didn't you just say that even all the moderate Islamists around the world including the states that aren't at war with us are supporting jihad against America. So doesn't it then follow that you believe the majority of Muslims are at holy war with this country. That was like two days ago.

     This is no strawman this is simply an observation that there is little difference between nationalists of your brand and nationalists of the KKK.

     You walk a fine line LVL. One day you make a comment like all moderate Islamists want to commit jihad against the US and then the next you say you never say anything like that. One day you say that ideologically Communists yearn for the destruction of the and therefore we have to fight them and stop their ideology from growing around the world. Then you say you never said it.

     I don't think anyone here would buy it even without Mask always here to faithfully repost comments like those.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:11pm

108. I don't believe in killing anyone before talking. ---Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 6:54pm

     Really? Haven't you already planned for a war with Iran?

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 8:50pm

     A. I don't plan for any war. I have nothing to do with the govt.

     B. Though I said I'm sure a war with Iran is in our future, I never said that I'm against talking. I'm against talking without conditions. There has to be pressure on Iran or else they will continue unrestricted on their path towards war in the ME and with us.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:12pm

109. B. Though I said I'm sure a war with Iran is in our future, I never said that I'm against talking. I'm against talking without conditions.----Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:12pm

     In two sentences....three contradictions...a new record????

     A. "I'm sure a war is coming"...so talking is futile.

     B. "I'm not against talking"...despite the futility (See "A")

     C. "I'm against talking without conditions"....which means you ARE against talking, except under limited circumstances.

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:15pm

110. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:11pm

     CCC, you forget Larry's Theory on Muslims....they aren't Muslims.

     Yes...he really believes that 80-85% of Muslims are not "real" Muslims (like the "Islamists") but merely "devotees of Islam who know little of their own religion".

     It's how he resolves the contradiction of being a neo-con and thus believing in Bush's dream of a Iraq....AND being a vehement anti-anything-other-than-Judeo-Christianity type who believes Islam is evil.

     So....most "Muslims" aren't Muslim.

     (Again, he'll claim I'm "distorting"...and then a sentence or two later, agree with me)

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:18pm

111. So....most "Muslims" aren't Muslim.

     (Again, he'll claim I'm "distorting"...and then a sentence or two later, agree with me)

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:18pm

     Well if that's true, then he actually does believe that all REAL Muslims need to be killed because they are all committed to jihad.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:39pm

112. A. I don't plan for any war. I have nothing to do with the govt.

     B. Though I said I'm sure a war with Iran is in our future, I never said that I'm against talking. I'm against talking without conditions. There has to be pressure on Iran or else they will continue unrestricted on their path towards war in the ME and with us.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:12pm

     What if Iran promised they would talk to us only if the US promised to disarm as well?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:41pm

113. Yes...he really believes that 80-85% of Muslims are not "real" Muslims (like the "Islamists") but merely "devotees of Islam who know little of their own religion".

     It's how he resolves the contradiction of being a neo-con and thus believing in Bush's dream of a Iraq....AND being a vehement anti-anything-other-than-Judeo-Christianity type who believes Islam is evil.

     So....most "Muslims" aren't Muslim.

     (Again, he'll claim I'm "distorting"...and then a sentence or two later, agree with me)

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 9:18pm

     Interesting how you keep confusing who belongs to the term devotee. It probably is because of your aversion to religious faith.

     the devotees are those who actually follow their faith's doctrines

     Certainly in terms of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, the great majority of those named as members of those faiths are not devotees.

     From the dictionary; to be devoted is to be ardent, zealous, wholly devoted to a religion.

     Most people named within the counts of relgious faiths do not fall within that level of following.

     As to the evil of Islam; it was formed to lie about Judaism and Christianity by someone who lived 600 years after Christ. Tell me of another faith that calls those of another faith "pigs and monkeys" as Islam does of the Jews.

     Or that teaches a lie that Jesus did not die on the cross, but made another man look like Him and die in His place. That makes Jesus a murderer.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:48pm

114. As to the evil of Islam; it was formed to lie about Judaism and Christianity by someone who lived 600 years after Christ. Tell me of another faith that calls those of another faith "pigs and monkeys" as Islam does of the Jews.

     Or that teaches a lie that Jesus did not die on the cross, but made another man look like Him and die in His place. That makes Jesus a murderer.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/15/2009 @ 9:48pm

     So then you believe the 20% of Muslims need to be killed? Just a question.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:54pm

115. Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:41pm

     One reason why Obama is pursuing disarmament, or at least large reductions in nuclear stockpiles.

     Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 9:56pm

116. One reason why Obama is pursuing disarmament, or at least large reductions in nuclear stockpiles.

     Posted by zmann at 05/15/2009 @ 9:56pm

     Make sense to me. Iran was right when they posed the question of how can the US dictate disarmament to others when we have nukes ourselves. It's massively hypocritical for us to tell others who can have them who can't.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 10:28pm

117. Emile, you flopped the vernacular test. Went to town for christ's sake.

     Posted by Sorelish at 05/15/2009 @ 10:38pm

118. antisocialist-Christians condemn people to hell for eternity for being born into the wrong religion.I know that you guys pretend that they can choose to join your religion even though few humans change religion so you know that is a lie.You guys know that you were just born into the religion,like most everyone else, and just did what most everyone else does and stayed with that and that you are no different than most everyone else. Being called a pig or monkey is mild compared to eternity in hell so,yes,there is a religion that does worse things than call someone a pig or monkey and that is your religion..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/15/2009 @ 10:40pm

119. Hmm. You are condeming Islam because it calls you a pig or monkey, isn't some form of Christianity that spear headed the Crusades. How about the forced conversion of Native Americans and the torture and horros they received if they didn't convert? Salem Witch trials? Your religion has it's muddied past too. Which is why I don't trust it.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 12:27am

120. "But my basic point to Darin remains...where ARE his 'conservative victories'...

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 09:37am

     You've had some victories, of course...

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 8:49pm

     You sound like a big fat troll I know.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/16/2009 @ 07:32am

121. That's complete horseshit and you know it. You, the GOP didn't win the cold war. The cold war started directly after WWII and continued all the way into Ronnie's presidency.

     Posted by Wolfgang1 at 05/15/2009 @ 3:41pm

     I didn't say the GOP won. Mask asked me about Conservative victories (and specifically NOT Republcan victories) and I responded that "We [people who believe that free market capitalism is the best system for managing an economy] won the cold war."

     Then I wrote this, "We won the war of economic philosophy. There is no question that well-regulated free market capitalism is unquestionably the best economic model to organize around and centrally planned economies are not gaining ground anywhere."

     "We" wasn't Reagan and Darin_TBFT. "We" Included Margaret Thatcher and the UK. Again, Conservative victories, not GOP.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/16/2009 @ 07:42am

122. Posted by Sorelish at 05/15/2009 @ 10:38pm | ignore this person | warn this person

     vernacular differs by location.

     Posted by emile duBois at 05/16/2009 @ 08:15am

123. 1. Reagan increased the size of government and raised taxes.

     3. Dubya didn't cut one thing. He ADDED a Medicare drug benefit.

     Posted by Mask at 05/15/2009 @ 8:49pm

     Have you heard WFB's quote? "Standing athwart history shouting, "Stop"!"

     We're not stupid. We know the world will change. Progress requires change; however, not all change is progress. A Conservative victory is the absence of stupid change.

     We don't have the equal rights amendment. That's a conservative victory for equality (because it wasn't "equal" rights; it was special rights falsely labled as equal rights.)

     Minimum wage hasn't kept pace with inflation. That is a victory for reducing the government's ability to meddle in the free market.

     We don't have a government commission to dictate the salary of everyone. (See the ERA.)

     Until the last 4 months, there has been no serious challenge to property rights under the rule of law.

     And while this is something I personally am more ambivilent about, it is a conservative victory that all recreational drug use is still illegal.

     The death penalty is still in widespread use. Again, I am ambivilent here, but it is a conservative victory that the status quo persists.

     Unlike Canada, the US doesn't have a Human Rights Commission to undermine the first Amendment and dictate what speech is acceptable and what speech isn't. (Pastors have been "convicted" of preaching about homosexuality and Mark Stein was prosecuted for writing a book about Islam.)

     Conservative victories are like dark matter. Even though you can't see them, they're 90% of the universe.

     Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 05/16/2009 @ 08:17am

124. So then you believe the 20% of Muslims need to be killed? Just a question.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/15/2009 @ 9:54pm

     No; I don't believe anybody NEEDS to be killed. But if a group of people is committed to seeing either you killed or for themselves to die as martyrs in suicide attacks, there is a strong possibility that many will die.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 08:18am

125. Hmm. You are condeming Islam because it calls you a pig or monkey, isn't some form of Christianity that spear headed the Crusades. How about the forced conversion of Native Americans and the torture and horros they received if they didn't convert? Salem Witch trials? Your religion has it's muddied past too. Which is why I don't trust it.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 12:27am

     1. the crusades are falsely called an unprovoked attack on Islam. It was a response to Islam attacking first.

     2. the forced conversions and Salem witch trials were not based upon Christianity, as there is nothing in the NT to justify those actions.

     Whereas the monkeys and pigs is in the supposed holy Quran.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 08:21am

126. antisocialist-Sending people to hell for doing nothing,but being born into the wrong religion, is in your Holy Bible.It is more fun to point the finger at others,like you do,but that accomplishes nothing.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/16/2009 @ 08:51am

127. Seven days ago, there was a big bang.

     Quite a while later - about 18 billion years, Goodall's (1989) observed that penile erection in chimps occurs during not just sexual but also killing and feeding excitement.

     Huh?

     Posted by winyahn at 05/16/2009 @ 3:58pm

128. 2. the forced conversions and Salem witch trials were not based upon Christianity, as there is nothing in the NT to justify those actions.

     Whereas the monkeys and pigs is in the supposed holy Quran.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 08:21am

     Sure there is, whoever was carrying them out found something in the New Testament so there must be SOMETHING.

     "1. the crusades are falsely called an unprovoked attack on Islam. It was a response to Islam attacking first. "

     So Spanish Inquisition?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 5:25pm

129. Sure there is, whoever was carrying them out found something in the New Testament so there must be SOMETHING.

     "1. the crusades are falsely called an unprovoked attack on Islam. It was a response to Islam attacking first. "

     So Spanish Inquisition?

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 5:25pm

     That's a rebuttal?

     You cannot even find anything yourself because they were not following the NT

     The Spanish Inquisition had nothing to do with the Crusades. It was a politically led witch hunt by the Catholic Church that again has no basis in NT Scripture.

     Just because bad people do things they say in the name of Christianity does not mean they have any validity behind their actions.

     Christians are called only to declare the good news of Christ in word and deed, and live their lives in a manner that gives Glory to the Father and the Son.

     They are not called to build nations

     They are not called to execute anyone-that is the power of the state and not Churches. Nor is their any Scripture that calls for instance to do more than separate yourself or engage in spiritual warfare with those who practice witchcraft. There is no Scripture in the NT to engage in physical punishment of such people.

     They have no authority to test others by physical means to verify they are true to their faith (as in the Inquisitions).

     There is no Scripture to make anyone a slave. Only as a servant of G-d to accept whatever state you find yourself in and glorify G-d in that condition.

     I repeat that many terrible things have been done by people that have no basis in Scripture. They are carrying their own evils while trying to attach legitimacy in Christianity where none exists to support them.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 7:55pm

130. I repeat that many terrible things have been done by people that have no basis in Scripture. They are carrying their own evils while trying to attach legitimacy in Christianity where none exists to support them.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/16/2009 @ 7:55pm

     And all I am saying is, your Bible can be interpreted in order to justify terrible things and I emphasize INTERPRETED.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 8:41pm

131. And all I am saying is, your Bible can be interpreted in order to justify terrible things and I emphasize INTERPRETED.

     Posted by Cccomfo1 at 05/16/2009 @ 8:41pm

     Cite an example of how the NT can be interpreted to permit any of the terrible events you previously cited. Or cite any other passage you believe could be misinterpreted in the NT to allow the kind of mistreatment of others that was done by nonChristians who did so in the "name" of Christianity.

     Secondly cite any such passages that would be interpreted similar to what Islamists are doing now with suicide attacks and beheadings of innocents.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 07:34am

132. Medea Benjamin-always good for a laugh.

     <A leader of the antiwar group Code Pink said she now wonders at what point her organization should begin to refer to Mr. Obama as a "war criminal."

     "To see all of these turnarounds is very disappointing," said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink. "I think he's afraid of alienating a lot of these military and their families and the right-wing media that has just attacked him viciously.">

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 07:49am

133. antisocialist-The idea that belief only gets you into heaven led to the forced conversions because those people decided that it was okay to force a conversion in the hopes that it would become real and spread and,for the most part,they were correct.They believed that they were helping you get into heaven.Had belief been considered to only be a way into heaven then no justification for forced conversions.You do the generalized fight against evil thing in order to support wars of aggression.Like you,others in the past quoted the OT and they used what was in there to support slavery,witch burning,and other such things just as you used the OT to claim that Jesus was against gay people..Because slaves were told in the NT to accept their lot in life that was,also,used to support slavery when combined with the OT.I could go on.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 09:27am

134. antisocialist-As you pointed out,Christianity believes in the OT God and what is in the OT so it cannot be excluded when looking at the actions of Christians, as you tried to do.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 09:30am

135. antisocialist-As you pointed out,Christianity believes in the OT God and what is in the OT so it cannot be excluded when looking at the actions of Christians, as you tried to do.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 09:30am

     So wrong that I'm surprised you have the audacity to even post that.

     Luke 16:16 "The law and the prophets were until the time of John the Baptist; since then the kingdom of G-d is preached"

     Nothing in the OT will save you since the time of Jesus.

     As I posted previously, Christians are not called to bring people into obedience to the OT. We are called to declare and reveal the Good News of the Kingdom of G-d in Christ; in Word, Power, and by our testimony of overcoming Satan.

     Furthermore, to your other post. No one can come into the kingdom through force. You can only come of a willing heart that believes by faith in Jesus, His life, Death, and Resurrection. Nowhere is there any teaching or command in the NT to force anyone to believe. It's not possible to force faith.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 12:11pm

136. antisocialist-You mean that you do not believe in the OT God and never quote the OT?I'm surprised that you had the audacity to post that claim since we know that that is BS.No one said it was possible to force faith,but people did discover that forced conversions did lead to real conversions.No one said that you go by OT law,but said that you selectively go through the OT picking and choosing,like we have seen you do just as you selectively quoted Rabbis in order to claim that homosexuality is a sin,but ignore what those same Rabbis say when it comes to the subject of whether or not Jesus is the Messiah of Jewish prophecy.The point is that all of you selectively pick and choose what to go by and what to ignore and because of that you guys have done some bad things as well as some good things..

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 12:20pm

137. antisocialist-Remember that you were going by OT law when you tried to claim that Jesus would view homosexuality as a sin.Paul had not said anything about homosexuality while Jesus was alive which is why you had to go to OT law in order to back up your claim.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 12:45pm

138. antisocialist-We humans believe that the world revolves around us and if those Jewish Rabbis, or whomever,agrees with us then they have authority and intelligence,but when they do not agree with us then they no longer have authority and intelligence.People come on here posting only those facts that agree with their views and do like to ignore any that do not.We remember those things that back up our views much better than those things that do not.It's that ego that gets us in trouble and keeps us from seeing Truth.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 1:40pm

139. antisocialist-Remember that you were going by OT law when you tried to claim that Jesus would view homosexuality as a sin.Paul had not said anything about homosexuality while Jesus was alive which is why you had to go to OT law in order to back up your claim.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 12:45pm

     Actually, I didn't. I said that Jesus proclaimed that marriage was between a man and a woman and that all sex outside of that was sin. That includes adultery and homosexuality.

     Secondly, classifying sinful behavior is not the same as then stating that the NT calls for taking phsyical action against sinners. In other words, there is no commandment in the NT for stoning sinners;

     Your attempt at this linkage doesn't work.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 4:05pm

140. antisocialist-We humans believe that the world revolves around us and if those Jewish Rabbis, or whomever,agrees with us then they have authority and intelligence,but when they do not agree with us then they no longer have authority and intelligence.People come on here posting only those facts that agree with their views and do like to ignore any that do not.We remember those things that back up our views much better than those things that do not.It's that ego that gets us in trouble and keeps us from seeing Truth.

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/17/2009 @ 1:40pm

     No, the world revolves around G-d, not us.

     Posted by antisocialist at 05/17/2009 @ 4:06pm

141. antisocialist-Actually,you quoted OT law to back up your claim that Jesus viewed homosexuality as a sin and even quoted Jewish Rabbis.While it is true that the world revolves around God,we humans,including you,believe that the world revolves around us.You dismiss any views that disagree with yours and you are no different than any other human and you,like everyone else,views life through your own eyes and and you allow your ego to get in the way, just like everyone else. .

     Posted by i'm nobody at 05/18/2009 @ 11:13am