C'mon...

Bush's decision to invade Iraq was based on a political agenda, not any real threat to the United States from Iraq. Surely, you realize that by now. And look at the results. We would be far better off with Saddam still running Iraq than the mess we have put ourselves in.

Hey, I voted for Bush in 2000. I thought Al Gore was too idealistic to make a good president. I still think so. And Bush did a good job, responding to 9/11. The war in Afghanistan was completely justified, and was well-run. The results were excellent. However, it's been all downhill since then.

Being loyal to our country is not the same as being loyal to any one administration. This administration has shamed us repeatedly. The torturing of prisoners is absolutely unacceptable. If I had said 10 years ago that the U.S. would be secretly holding prisoners in concentration camps like Guantanamo Bay and systematically torturing them to extract information, you would have said I was crazy. But now, it's the "patriotic" thing to look the other way and pretend that this activity is somehow acceptable because it is done to "suspected terrorists". I'm sure most of them ARE terrorists, but that doesn't make it okay to torture them.

Blind loyalty is not a virtue. It threatens our democracy.

Al Gore was too idealistic to make a good president.

I would take a politician's idealism and level-headedness, over ignorance and blatant arrogance, any day.

I was an organizer for the "DraftGore" movement and am still in mourning LOL. Seriously, after reading "The Assault on Reason", I have a hard time understanding how we, as a nation, can deny this man the Presidency. His view of the world goes FAR beyond the issue of global warming that most people identify him with. Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

I'm trying to keep the faith, and it helps knowing there are some fellow Dem's lurking about in Fayette County. The spouse and I seriously think about moving to Decatur, just so we can be around some progressive minds....

2008 will be an interesting time, politically and socially, for our country. I am hoping that reason and intellect prevail, in this next election - I am keeping the faith.

I'm right there with ya.....

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

glad to know you all are around here! I must tell the spouse there really is a Santa Claus - he's brought us fellow Dem's, in Fayette!

Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays (whichever you choose) to you both

I am not fond of absolutes. If waterboarding extracts the tiniest iota of information that saves one American from ever falling prey to a terrorist, then by all means turn the water on. Would you elaborate on the political agenda you referred to? Please don't include me in the, "we would be far better off..."; opinion, not fact.

Repeated shaming? I do agree democratic mob rule is not a virtue.

Regards

I agree with you about not being fond of absolutes, but if we allow torture of enemy combatants, then we abandon the civilization that we are trying so hard to defend. Maybe I need to get Muddle in on this discussion, but if something is morally wrong, then it is morally wrong.

What our government has ordered is the secret holding and systematic torture of people we SUSPECT to be terrorists. Most of them are probably terrorists, and I'll even grant you the point that we have gotten some useful information from some of them. But that does not make it acceptable. What we are doing now is the same despicable treatment of prisoners that Senator McCain suffered at the hands of the North Vietnamese. Ask Sen. McCain if he thinks that is acceptable. I think you already know his answer. Truthfully, every war has seen some torture of prisoners to extract information. But the United States of America has never condoned it before, at least not to my knowledge. That phrase--United States of America--means something to me, an ideal for the rest of the world to look up to and try to emulate. I don't think they are looking up to us at the moment, certainly not in regards to waterboarding our prisoners. That's what I mean by this administration "shaming" us.

You're right that it is my opinion that we would be better off if we had just left Saddam alone for now. I'm pretty certain that's true, however it IS opinion, not a proven fact. What IS fact is that the Bush administration made the decision to invade Iraq by early 2002, while the war in Afghanistan was still in full swing. They cherry-picked the intelligence reports that bolstered their case for war and ignored the rest. Don't take my word for that--you can research it online, or talk to somebody you know who was on active duty at that time. The word on that decision filtered down to operational units sometime in January 2002.

I'm not sure what you mean by "democratic mob rule". What I said was that blind loyalty to a leader threatens our democracy. Our loyalty should be to our principles that this country was founded on. Holding prisoners in secret, without formal charges or a fair trial is against those principles, as is government-sponsored torture, yet that is exactly what is going on.

Having said all that, let me add "thanks" for your civility. Some of the discussions on this board get out of hand, and I'd rather not go that route.

Hi River,
I appreciate your civil demeanor as well. I wish Jimmy Carter hadn't pulled the rug out from under the Shah of Iran and this terrorist ideaology of kill Americans didn't exist as a result today. A pity...but it does. I just have way less of a problem killing or undermining our enemy on his turf than I do fighting him here, on our turf. I understand blind loyalty and recognize it's potential for badness as evidenced by German leadership in the 1930's. However, don't think for a second that dubya invented or was the first to allow, condone, promote torture to extract information. I'm fairly certain that 18th,19th and 20th century American applications can be found. The difference is we, as a nation of people with a way of life, have much more at risk now.
Peace out!!

Study your history. The Shah was a butcher who employed his secret police to harass and terrorize his people to the point that he lost control of the country. The US, Britain, France and Germany all finally disavowed him, the US being the last one to do so. You'd probably support propping up Mugabee.

The decision was irrelevant to the outcome of the region because the Shah was dead a year later from cancer anyway.

So let us know what you would have done. Invaded Iran to prop up the Shah in the middle of the Cold War? And even if the US had supported the shah, what would have happened a year later when he died? Get your history from somewhere besides Limbaugh’s show.

Your statement, “If waterboarding extracts the tiniest iota of information that saves one American from ever falling prey to a terrorist, then by all means turn the water on” is shocking and tells me that you are willing to follow the terrorists to the bottom. Does the stature of the United States mean nothing in your worldview? Whatever depraved torture any country or organization on earth comes up with is acceptable for us to do too?

You are correct that instances of Americans using waterboarding in history can be found. We used to prosecute them. We also prosecuted others when they did it to us.

Waterboarding Used to Be a Crime

Here is the inevitable conclusion of your attitude, the top legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice not willing to condemn the torture of US soldiers by foreign intelligence agencies:

Top US legal adviser refuses to rule out torture technique

And the craven head JAG at Guantanamo and Bush representative testifying before the Senate, not willing to say that torturing US citizens or soldiers is a crime:

Republican Senator Lindsey Graham versus General Hartman

So which is it for you? Do you support the United States putting its full array of resources into catching and prosecuting anyone who tortures US citizens and soldiers or do you support the administration on this one? And if you do support the prosecution of anyone who tortures US soldiers, how do you square that with your on personal support of torturing our enemies when they become our prisoners?

Hi Jeff,
That the Shah was a butcher is not the point of the issue, sir. The point is that after the Shah's deposition the path was clear for the Ayatollah Khomeini's return from exhile and ignite the jihad which exists to this day in that region, sir. Not that Rush Limbaugh provides me with many history lessons, but are you proposing all that he espouses is fraudulent based on some opinion of yours, sir? I rather believe it was Patton who said wars were won by making the other poor dumb B*****d die for his country. I ask, better to be tortured or dead? I stand by my waterboarding statement because if the United States looses this war with fundamental Islamic terrorists, there will be no worldwide stature to stand on period, sir. Your last question is complex. I favor killing any one who tortures a U.S. Soldier and I endorse torture as a means to extract the information needed to save an American life. I appologize for that rationale not fitting your either / or scenario, however I doubt it squares nicely with your view of what is sometimes neccessary to crush the life and the will to wage war out of an opponent. As for the rest of the world, I can't remember any war (or the need to torture) that the United States initiated, except our war for Independence, sir.

Regards

What should have been the US policy regarding the Shah and Iran?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

With 20/20 hindsight it's easy to develop the perfect response to any contingency. It's my opinion that had Iran been allowed a reasonable contract with the precursor to BP, one which would have contributed more to the financial stability of Iran, one not so greedy as was allowed to be enforced, than the Shah's installation may never have happened. Accordingly, greed is the instrument of demise. I believe the oil profit split was in the approximate range of 85% British, 15% for the rapee's. Not a bad deal unless you are an Iranian. Had the U.S. embraced the Ayatollah and the Iranian people for humanitarian reasons instead of increasing Soviet tension, then perhaps it's all moot. Regardless, that was then and this is now. And now is the time we live in, and now is when the jihadists want to kill Americans, and I'm an American. What say you cyclist?

I think Stephen Decatur said it best. Our Country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!

We have no choice but to defend our selves. Unfortunately, decisions that were made before yours and my birth are now impacting us and our nation. Many of these decisions were made without any idea of the long term effects. As for the Shah, I believe the die was cast and dynamics of events were unstoppable. I can only hope that current world leaders and ours will learn from this but, that has yet to happen.

One other thing, operation AJAX (TP AJAX) did not put the Shah into power. That was done earlier by the Brits and Russia as the Shah's father was deemed too close to the axis powers. AJAX was to rid Iran of its Prime Minister who advocated the nationalization of Iran’s oil fields.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Don’t let them terrorize you. There is no realistic possibility that Islamic fundamentalists are going to overthrow the United States. There is really no reason to cower in fear. In fact, we are so strong that we can stand up and say that no matter what barbarians do, the United States has morals and principles that we will not yield. We are actually better than them and do not need to match their barbarism action for action.

The issue is only complex for you because of the contradiction of your support for torture. The United States did not torture Japanese of Nazis to win those wars. Do you seriously think that we are in a conflict that even remotely approaches the threat we were under in World War II?

If you can’t remember any war that the United States initiated, except our war for Independence; I suggest you Google “Iraq.”

Hey man, I've got nothing but a song on my lips and love in my heart so I've always believed security to be a state of mind. No cowering in fear here. It's never been a question of who can be more barbaric, rather who's way of life will prevail. Time will tell. If I were japanese, I would think an atom bomb dropped on my neighborhood to be a bit tortuous, My memory is fine, and you sir, seem pompous.
Regards

As the resident liberal here, my job is to be pompous and aggravate people. I don't really agree with myself but about 85% of the time. Don't take me seriously, I'm just stirring the pot for the fun of it.

Let's blog about something non-controversial instead. Like politics.

Y'all have a Merry Christmas!

Peace

OK.

Merry Christmas to you and yours as well.

So what should the policy have been concerning Iran and the Shah? Should the US have never supported him or perhaps the infamous coup that put him in place?
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I would not have supported Operation Ajax nor would I have supported letting the CIA join with Israeli intelligence to found SAVAK.

Typically in conversations about Iran I ask about the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. If I get back a blank stare the conversation tends to be a short one.

These are the same people who lament the demise of Somoza and Pinochet and thought it was great when we helped the Baathists overthrow Qassim in Iraq in 1963, if they even know who they were.

It's interesting how oil figures into the equation. The Brits did not want Iran to nationalize its oil fields and with the Soviets just to the north the US wanted someone that could be trusted.

Returning back to the Shah, how much pressure was applied by the US to get him to change or was his ultimate demise unstoppable? I suspect the later due to the dynamics of the situation. Kind of like painting one's self in a corner.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

It is late but you have convinced me the discussion would be interesting. I promise to revisit this at another time for you.

Merry Christmas!

Thanks and the same to you and your family. I look forward to your views.
-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

Committed as I am to an essentially Kantian notion of respect-for-persons, I am driven to think that any form of torture is a violation of human dignity and, therefore, immoral.

But I am haunted by that important essay that Thomas Nagel wrote just after the Mai Lai massacre, "War and Massacre". Nagel discusses the notion of rules of warfare, and contrasts a utilitarian perspective with what is essentially a respect-for-persons perspective. It is a very helpful piece until he gets to the end.

What should we think about those cases in which some unthinkable evil can be prevented only by doing something that violates our absolutist conscience? (Shall we include here, say, Hiroshima and Nagasaki?). His "conclusions" are unsettling.

Here is a late passage in that essay:

"Having described the elements of the absolutist position, we must now return to the conflict between it and utilitarianism. Even if certain types of dirty tactics become acceptable when the stakes are high enough, the most serious of the prohibited acts, like murder and torture, are not just supposed to require unusually strong justification. They are supposed never to be done, because no quantity of resulting benefit is thought capable of justifying such treatment of a person.

"The fact remains that when an absolutist knows or believes that the utilitarian cost of refusing to adopt a prohibited course will be very high, he may hold to his refusal to adopt it, but he will find it difficult to feel that a moral dilemma has been satisfactorily resolved. The same may be true of someone who rejects an absolutist requirement and adopts instead the course yielding the most acceptable consequences. In either case, it is possible to feel that one has acted for reasons insufficient to justify violation of the opposing principle. In situations of deadly conflict, particularly where a weaker party is threatened with annihilation or enslavement by a stronger one, the argument for resorting to atrocities can be powerful, and the dilemma acute.

"There may exist principles, not yet codified, which would enable us to resolve such dilemmas. But then again there may not. We must face the pessimistic alternative that these two forms of moral intuition are not capable of being brought together into a single, coherent moral system, and that the world can present us with situations in which there is no honorable or moral course for a man to take, no course free of guilt and responsibility for evil."

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee

Now why does it take this fellow Kant to make you think you would have enough respect for any body so that you would not torture them?
I don't even know what he stood for and I won't torture knowingly.
It is simple common sense these days. Maybe the cave man had to be advised by a guru chimpanzee that he shouldn't, and gave him reasons why not, but it is common knowledge now.
All old philosophy does in such cases is appear to be finding a reason why it should, or was, done! No need for it (the "truth").

Some people think that "all is fair in love and war"--war in particular. In their view, when at war, anything is morally permissible so long as it is necessary to win.

A hoary tradition known as utilitarianism would yield the conclusion that the sorts of torture that we are discussing may well be justified as means to good ends.

In a context in which an influential theory would seem to imply that we ought to waterboard away, it may well take an Immanuel Kant to set things straight.

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee

Now why does it take this fellow Kant to make you think you would have enough respect for any body so that you would not torture them?
I don't even know what he stood for and I won't torture knowingly.
It is simple common sense these days. Maybe the cave man had to be advised by a guru chimpanzee that he shouldn't, and gave him reasons why not, but it is common knowledge now.
All old philosophy does in such cases is appear to be finding a reason why it should, or was, done! No need for it (the "truth").
You at first indicate that you must go with Kant, but instead of stopping there, you give the idiots reasons why they do it!

how anyone who truly considers themselves a Christian {ie. a follower of Christ} condone torture of another human being?

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Are Christians the only ones against torture?
What about the other 80% of the world?

since theological discussions are ofttimes better held in some other forum. But since you asked...does that fact that the rest of the religious world may view this differently absolve us of our duties as Christians? Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

He would not doubt in waterboarding American soldiers for the benefit of getting information.
Conclusion: We're not better than them terrorists. Shameful, but that's where Bush and Cheney have brought us.

-----------------------------------
Making you think twice......

Sure we are!!! We (this country, our people, leadership...fill in the blank..) did not invent the thumb screw. Torture systems and devices precede Bush and Cheney's arrival on the information extraction scene. Quit being so hard on us.

Have you read here where denise, mudle, etc., stand on torture and especially "water-boarding?
Would they personally do it?

When did I ever write anything about waterboarding?

I'll go on record here, though: I'm all for it, and plan to do it in Florida just after Christmas. I have a 9'6" "waterboard" stashed at the beach place, and am hoping for some good winter waves.

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee

I voted for President George W. Bush and I am proud of it, now I know alot on here are demo's so go ahead and start the bashing. I still know I made the right choice.

Would you rather have a President on 9-11 having fun with his girl pal, or one that is praying for the nation? Don't answer, I know your choice.

Compassionate- the best at it, bring it on- He is- I can say for my husband and myself we are PROUD PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH SUPPORTERS.

What are you going to keep the faith in someone fooling around with a girl in the oval office? What is you answer to keep the faith- keep the faith in what-

Honestly, alot of people sure did vote and he won- so somebody must believe in him. I say you must watch CNN/- the liberal channel.

I'm sorry but please explain to me what you liberals think morals are?

YES, BOTH MYSELF AND HUSBAND VOTED FOR PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH AND WOULD DO IT AGAIN IF WE COULD!

By the way we would vote for a Demo if we could find a decent one.

Time out there, bpr...I am sure that your vote was well thought out and genuine. I have been here (Citizen-land) long enough to know that you are very sincere in your political positions. I was referring to all those folks who "bought a pig in a poke" when supporting the "Compassionate Conservative" and ended up with something else. And as for those "people (who) sure did vote and he won", they equated to a loss by almost 200,000 votes to Al Gore in 2000 and who knows how many to Kerry in Ohio in 2004.

As for the news, I do not watch msm [mainstream media}, except to be entertained, certainly not to be informed about the world of politics/government.

I was quite pleased with having GWB as our President on 9/11...I think that he brought a degree of stability and confidence at that particular moment of crisis that the country so badly needed. Would that he had not squandered that moment by diverting our national focus from bringing the actual perpetrators to justice to righting all the ills of the world.

And my faith? {while I have a particular aversion to discussing that in this forum} My faith says that ultimately we will all be judged as to what we have done with our lives. How much we have done "for the least of us". How closely my life has come to the life I have been called to live (though I am sure that it is not as close as it should be). I have faith that good will ultimately triumph over evil. And one final note {actually a question}, I will not trivialize your faith and I would ask you to please not trivialize mine.

Keep the faith.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Hey, I did not mean to come across as being mean, maybe bold- there are some things I stand strong on because I have lived to know it to be true.

Honestly, I would not be rude to you- I must have read it incorrect or mistaken what you said. I have to say there are alot of liberals that post and I have to say I am a conservative.

I have a hard time with people who knock Our President George W. Bush, I really do respect him, if you knew me you have to earn my respect. Thanks for the kind words you said about him- I was proud and glad he was in office at that time.

I didn't mean to nasty about faith- sometimes people describe faith as something that it is not.

My faith is something I have HOPE in and my HOPE stands firm. I am glad that we live in a nation that we have freedom - if we didn't I could not have the faith I believe in. Again- I am sorry- If you knew me, it bothers me to think I offend anyone.

Sorry about the cnn- alot watch it, I don't favor it, (wonder why)ha.
Actually I usually watch Fox or get it on the internet. I guess people would label them more conservative- huh?

So, again- I am sorry for the offense- please forgive.

With that being said:I think the best of people ALWAYS- even if I disagree with you- you have value. Hope all is well with us- on my side it is.

Merry Christmas yardman5508

While I am sure that it comes as no surprise here, I am considered a liberal by many. Well, one of the basic tenants of liberalism (as I see it) is the understanding that there are other folks out there who have genuine views that may differ from mine. That is fine and quite normal. What I have a difficult time with are folks who merely look at the facade of liberalism and fail to grasp the reasoning behind the thinking. But I have a fairly thick skin and much of that rolls off me like water off a duck's back. However, I have lived long enough in life that I feel I can take umbrage when I think it is warranted.

I appreciate your words and I appreciate your willingness to tolerate open discussion without resorting to invective. Keep the faith...and happy holidays to you and yours.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

Thanks for your comments and understanding, I know we all may see different, I just want to be understood like you do.

I am just glad that we live in a country where we can do that.
You know what I don't have thick skin, wish I did, but that is the way God made me.

But then again, I can be bold about certain things- but I never want to be nasty- I just think it's so uncalled for. We can disagree without yelling, jumping down throat,etc. That's why some of the news channels get on my nerves and I don't watch them.

Glad you understand.

Merry Christmas yardman5508

very weird, indeed. It's also really interesting to watch two devout Christians, Huckabee and Romney, go after each other in the media. Huckabee's comment today, on one of the morning shows, reinforced the dilusional oppression evangelicals feel everyday: "Merry Christmas - and I hope I don't get in trouble for saying that!" Oh give me a break - what a martyr wannabe. It would be an embarassment to have someone like that running our country. America will really be in need of serious help if we elect another evangelical, who "listens to God" and rams another ridiculous war down our throats (Iran next?). Yup, all in the name of the Lord!

Isn't it "true for him" that God speaks to him? Who are we to say that he is wrong? I thought that all religious beliefs were true? No? Just some? Which ones?

And for those who think the war in Iraq is the result of the most well-laid plan in centuries, isn't it likely "true for them" that this is so? (You've not said whether you extend your relativity device to moral beliefs, but it is likely entailed by the fact that different religious beliefs carry with them different moral beliefs.)

It's like a philosophical counterpart to duck-duck-goose. Everything is true ("duck") until you encounter something that you do not particularly like, then that is treated as false ("goose"!).
Look closely and you are likely to find that it is preference rather than principle that separates the ducks from the geese, the sheep from the goats.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.

Yes, I'm sure that God speaks to Huckabee, that's what scares me. I don't really care what voices he hears, in his head, or what he believes in. It's when he imposes those beliefs on me, the country and the free world. Believe what you will, God/god/goddess/Allah/Vishnu, but don't impose your beliefs on others, especially when the result is harmful. There is a reason for the separation of Church and State and evangelical's continue to whittle away at it.

I am a Huckabee supporter, and I hope he wins the nomination and stomps Hillary in a year. Just curious, though, what do you mean by Mike "imposing" his beliefs on you? That is absurd. Either you agree with the guy or you don't, but it's factually inaccurate to say that he has or intends to impose his personal religious beliefs on anyone.

And you got me on Vishnu. Sounds like an expensive dog food or a Russian sneeze.

The Dem's will eat Huckabee alive for his support of the FairTax. In fact, if Huckabee (who I like but disagree with politically) wins the nomination, his first order of business would have to be disavowing the dumbest (politically) tax proposal ever made.

Giulanni is a dead man walking following a flawed strategy that will put him out of the race after he loses Florida. Mitt is peaking now. Thompson peaked before he entered the race. Switch to McCain while you can!

I keep telling y'all it is not going to be Hillary, as much as that is going to disappoint you.

You are a smarter man than that avatar. Please tell me that you realize that creationism and evolution can and do/did coexist. Besides, blue??? .... at Christmas? You're not even Jewish for crying out loud!

I have a question for you.... since gays cannot reproduce, isn't that a trait/behavior that is contrary to the concept of Natural Selection? Therefore, wouldn't the homosexual trait/behavior be a defect by definition and through natural selection decrease until it disappears?

Of course, if it is a chosen behavior that argument dies an agonizing and politically incorrect death.

So, what is it Jeff? Miss you man!

Merry Christmas!

My favorite website.

The avatar is left over from some fun muddle and I were having. I'm looking for a "V for Vendetta" icon small enough to fit and be recognizable.

Have you decided on which of the pitifully flawed candidates your party is offering to you this year you will be fixing the voting machines in Ohio for?

Or have the vast right wing conspirators not decided who you will be supporting yet?

Merry Christmas Mixer!

Jeff,

Why don't you answer Mixer's other question?

“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

The funny comments about gays? Mixer didn’t expect an answer; I suspect that his question was just a rhetorical poke at my gay friends, but I’m happy to answer it for you.

Even if you wish to define the behavior as an evolutionary defect, the defect must be in the people who reproduced and who were not gay. Therefore, gay persons themselves not reproducing (and of course some do) would not necessarily lead to the no more gays.

However, let us assume for argument that the behavior is chosen. I’d be really interested if you would relate the debate you must then have had with yourself at some point about your choice and the reasons you found persuasive so that you (I assume) chose not to be gay.

Jeff,

I don't recall their ever being a "debate" ever going on inside me as to my sexual preference.

Any type of sexual deviant behavior like homosexuality, pedophilia, incest is repulsive.

---------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

That same debate does not go on in gay people either.

The "debate" probably doesn't go on in the mind of pedophiles either - it's "natural" to them. Does that make it right?

---------------------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

I considered getting into avatar wars with you.

You've no doubt seen the bumper sticker featuring the "TRUTH" fish devouring the Darwin amphibian. (This is a viable option for those Bible believers (God love 'em) who haven't the time or the wherewithal to think through the issues, but feel compelled to make a statement.)

But then I once spotted a bumper sticker in a Barnes and Noble parking lot that had the Darwin amphibian mounting and having its way with the Fish of Truth.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.

is this the one you're referring to? Thought I would change my avatar for the day....

I like this game.....I'll switch mine for the day too! This is the only "fish" that matters anyway.

"once in a while you can get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right"
"listen to the thunder shouting, "I AM, I AM, I AM"

I was keeping this avatar in the closet.

Happy Holidays and may you all be Touched By His Noodly Appendage™.

Are they visible? President Carter was in his final month of office as I stood and saw this mosaic at the north end of Galilee. (And John Lennon's body was still warm.)

_______________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea of Galilee

from New Advent, The Catholic Encyclopedia

As the loaves and fishes were multiplied to feed many, so is the Eucharist.

THE MIRACLE OF THE MULTIPLICATION

On two occasions Christ fed with loaves and fishes, miraculously multiplied, a large concourse of people who had followed Him into the desert. On the first of these occasions, recorded by all four Evangelists, five loaves and two fishes supplied the needs of five thousand people, while on the second occasion, mentioned only by St. Matthew (xv, 32 sq.), seven loaves and a "few" fishes more than sufficed for four thousand persons. In accordance with the practice of depicting only those features which were necessary to convey the meaning of a symbol, the Christian artists of the catacombs represented the miraculous multiplication as a banquet, in which the guests are seen partaking of a repast of loaves and fishes. In frescoes of this category, the source of the artist's inspiration is clearly indicated by the baskets of fragments on the right and left of the banquet scene.

Now we only need one with the "Osprey of Jesus" to swoop down and grab the Darwin amphibian in its talons.

This thing could really escalate.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.

From Father Saunders:

The symbolism of the mother pelican feeding her little baby pelicans is rooted in an ancient legend which preceded Christianity. The legend was that in time of famine, the mother pelican wounded herself, striking her breast with the beak to feed her young with her blood to prevent starvation. Another version of the legend was that the mother fed her dying young with her blood to revive them from death, but in turn lost her own life.

and could only find this "regular" one! Where'd ya find that? now I'll be looking for that coexist bumper too! You'll be getting honks from me and grateful...

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"

here are some fish sites to look at. I'll be listening out for that honk!

Evolution Fish Pic

Evolve Fish Site

A quote from one of your links:

"As the picture above demonstrates [Main Stream's latest avatar of the Darwin "fish" copulating with a "fish" identified with the Greek letters "Iota Chi Theta Upsilon Sigma," or ICHTHYS, the Greek word for fish and an acronym forming the initial letters of the phrase Jesus Christ God's Son [is] Saviour], the evolutionists have no line that it too thick to cross. They have no regard to appropriateness and will do anything to get a laugh and throw a little shot at the Christians. They also know that the Christians cannot do anything crude and disgusting because they would run the risk of being called hypocrites."

Your "artistic" sense is right up there with P*** Christ, a crucifix submerged in a glass of the "artist"'s urine (sponsored with our tax dollars via the National Endowment for the Arts) and the painting The Holy Virgin Mary (part of the Sensation exhibition), a depiction of a “black African” Virgin Mary "decorated" with resin-covered lumps of elephant dung and surrounded by images from blaxploitation movies [(a blend of the words black and exploitation) a genre of 1970s American film featuring African-American actors in lead roles and often having anti-establishment plots, which were frequently criticized for stereotypical characterization and glorification of violence] and close-ups of female genitalia cut from pornographic magazines, which, when viewed from a distance, appear to be the traditional cherubim.

"Virgin Dung: Art as Religious Bigotry"

Is this the image that comes to your mind when you're singing "It Came Upon a Midnight Clear"?

It came upon the midnight clear,
That glorious song of old,
From angels bending near the earth,
To touch their harps of gold:
"Peace on the earth, goodwill to men
From heavens all gracious King!"
The world in solemn stillness lay
To hear the angels sing.

For lo!, the days are hastening on,
By prophet seen of old,
When with the ever-encircling years
Shall come the time foretold
When peace shall over all the earth
Its ancient splendors fling,
And the whole world send back the song
Which now the angels sing.

Main Stream has equal respect for all religions. Tomorrow she(?) will change to an avatar that insults Buddhism before turning to the Jews.

Homosexuals and witches are next.

You know, I kind of started this by describing that bumper sticker. But I find it interesting that the very person who has upbraided others for their "intolerance," etc. would opt for sporting this as an avatar with the likely intention of offending some of the Christians here.

Chesterton once quipped of people who think, "Buddhism and Christianity are just alike, especially Buddhism." This nicely captures the way that Christianity factors in to our pluralist friend's views on religion.

________________

Floor Mosaic, 3rd cent. church, North end Sea oif Galilee

I've been too busy to read all of your recent posts, but I'm looking forward to learning something new.

I like G. K. Chesterton, too.

Main Stream's tolerance is on par with Sniffy Basmati; hence, my musing.

I'm not sure it is rape, like you suggest. It looks like the two fish are actually enjoying themselves.

(by the way, if the fish gets pregnant, by rape or incest, may it have an abortion?)

This is one thing that you're "sure" about?

You need to study your biology: 2 men can't get pregnant.

No, I'm SURE that Jesus would not kill a child, no matter how small or dependent.

And Christ said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Then little children were brought to Jesus for him to place his hands on them and pray for them.

Jesus said, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these."

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

"But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea."

Does that mean we can put large millstone's around the necks of those child rapist Priest's, and drown them in the sea??

I'm all for that.

No, no you have it all wrong!
Priests and Ministers are a separate class.
Do it, be forgiven--do it, be forgiven, etc.
Obviously lower class, ignorant, uneducated people deserve no such treatment.
We fear them more!
Besides the punishment of someone finding out is adequate!

Missed you today at Starbucks. Maybe next time.

I yam what I yam....Popeye

Thank you. I'd love to meet you sometime, and that SWEET daughter of yours! One of these days I'd like to hear her play her flute (if I remember correctly -- not my best ability ).

Enjoy the driving lessons!

Clarinet

I yam what I yam....Popeye

My memory's never been too good, but lately .....

Thanks Main Stream.....I appreciate it. Happy Holidays!

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"

Had to add im my 2 sense.....hope ya like it

"everybody's dancin' in a ring around the sun"

I am economically challenged and so not really in a position to pronounce on the feasibility of the so-called "fair tax." On the face of it, I'm not sure I've seen how it could work.

Whatever the truth of the matter, though, I have to agree that, though I like Huckabee a lot and continue to follow his progress, this endorsement is likely to hurt him. Even if it is, in fact, brilliant, it is just a little too "out there" in the estimation of most people. (I wonder if he finds himself in the kind of situation I've been in when traveling. I had earlier chosen to take along some clumsy item, thinking it a good idea, but later, say, when running to make flight connections, find myself saying, "What possessed me to bring this?")

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.

If you don't mind, can you tell me who this cute little boy is?
Thanks!

Merry Christmas

You certainly aren't alone on knowing little about the fair tax.
Neither do the sponsors! All they know is that they would pay less. Anything else is someone else's problem.
And that is the rub!
This thing would begin to be amended almost daily until the law would be thicker than the current IRS code.
It is my opinion that we would simply end up paying both!
Maybe a much larger sales tax and two or three levels of income tax.
That thing of mailing a check to people every month who are poor to pay the 30% tax would mostly go to the lottery, whiskey, gambling, bling, funny clothes, etc.

You misunderstand part of the FairTax when you write: “That thing of mailing a check to people every month who are poor to pay the 30% tax would mostly go to the lottery, whiskey, gambling, bling, funny clothes, etc.”

They are going to mail EVERYONE a check, not just the poor people. Be on the lookout for yours.

You’re right about the rest though. I’m going to spend mine on Pinot Noir.

I suppose Bill Gates and Donald Trump will donate theirs?
Just how many of Trump's wives would also get one of those checks?

Surely the checks will be sent to households and not individuals!
If not, those with 10-12 kids and several foster kids could move to Country Club of the South!

I sure would like to see who is going to sort out what a "household" is.
If the man of the house lived elsewhere and the woman of the house had several kids by numerous fathers, and grandma also lived there with her boyfriend, would they get just one check?

Would it be just those who filed a tax form? Oops, no tax forms required!

Would everyone have to prove citizenship or just the illegals? If 23 Mexicans lived in one apartment, would that be one household? Lets assume half of them are legal.

Another hundred million checks a month to calculate and post and then print and mail. At least we will have to create many, many jobs to do that!

Bonkers, I’m sitting here waiting for 5 o’clock with very little to do and you question piqued my interest so believe it or not, I looked it up. A sad commentary on my work day I know, but there it is. In my defense, I let everybody else go home and volunteered to hold the fort alone.

Here's how a family s determined:

`(a) General Rule- For purposes of this chapter, the term `qualified family' shall mean 1 or more family members sharing a common residence. All family members sharing a common residence shall be considered as part of 1 qualified family.
`(b) Family Size Determination-
`(1) IN GENERAL- To determine the size of a qualified family for purposes of this chapter, family members shall mean--
`(A) an individual,
`(B) the individual's spouse,
`(C) all lineal ancestors and descendants of said individual (and such individual's spouse),
`(D) all legally adopted children of such individual (and such individual's spouse), and
`(E) all children under legal guardianship of such individual (or such individual's spouse).
`(2) IDENTIFICATION REQUIREMENTS- In order for a person to be counted as a member of the family for purposes of determining the size of the qualified family, such person must--
`(A) have a bona fide Social Security number; and
`(B) be a lawful resident of the United States.

You have to register again every year and provide, among other things:

`(4) a certification that all listed family members are lawful residents of the United States,
`(5) a certification that all family members sharing the common residence are listed,
`(6) a certification that no family members were incarcerated on the family determination date...

Of course, there are other sections covering custody of children of parents who are divorced and children living away from home but who cares?

However, I did run across another interesting tidbit. Guess who administers all of this?

Section 304, (a) General Rule- The Social Security Administration shall provide a monthly sales tax rebate….

The Social Security Administration???

Gotta be part of the vast right-wing conspiracy, I just have to figure out how.

Christmas spirit time by the time I get home!

Y’all have a nice night!

"Vishnu" is not a "Russian sneeze."

It is what polite Russians say to someone who has just sneezed.

________________

My Opie impression: circa 1963.

I agree that Rudy is losing it (just ask his kids) and that Fred is ill informed. McCain is older than dirt and can't win. I do like Mitt, and would have no problem if he wins the nomination, but Huckabee is the true conservative of the bunch and is unafraid to boldly profess his faith in Jesus Christ, which I like a lot. And the Fair Tax is one of the best concepts to come along and is gaining huge momentum, right along with the Huckster.

As for Hillary NOT getting the nomination? Impossible. Which I also like, because she can only carry the left. The Republican nominee will be the next president.

gaining huge momentum??? You really need to turn off your Bortz and take a view of the real world.

Democracy is not a spectator sport.

The FairTax imposes a tax on any interest on debt you carry over the prime interest rate. That means people are going to pay a tax on a lot of their mortgage and credit card debt! Plus, people’s paychecks are going to be reduced to their “take home pay” amount. Then they are going to have to pay the 23% (let’s not argue here about the correct percentage). Plus it will do away with charitable and property tax deductions. No amount of explaining the nuances is going to help. The Democrats are salivating at the prospect. Imagine the attack ads! George Washington running with Ben Franklin couldn’t win with that kind of baggage.

And apparently you missed your chance to support Tancredo. Alas, he’s out. I hope he runs for the Senate seat coming up next year so he can continue to alienate all the Hispanics.

We’ll have to wait and see about the Hillary thing.

What difference does it make if you/we/anyone loses the deduction for mortgage interest or charitable donations?

The deductions are from what? Income Tax.

The Fair Tax does away with Income Tax - completely.

So then, why do we need deductions from a tax that we no longer pay? Huh?

Read the book before you comment - you moron.