Kerry,

What's most important is how he compares to other presidents. He has the highest disapproval rating of any president in modern history. You can't water that down, given that Congress almost always has a low rating because all it takes for a person to be pissed off at Congress is if they disapprove of the actions of one of its many members.

The president on the other hand can blame nobody but himself.

BUt my point is that history will speak of George Bush's African initiative, terrorism, and the war. Some things will be accomplishments, and some will be drawbacks.

But Nancy Pelosi, if she is spoken of at all, will be known as the first woman Speaker who presided over the worst Congress ever.

Kerry,

Actually I suspect most will look at her as getting handed a mess, and then having to deal with a suddenly veto happy president who doesn't like to play unless his party controls both houses. The same president that helped to create a large part of the mess that she inherited.

The voting in 2006 and so far in 2008 tell us exactly who the American public is unhappy about...

There's been voting in 2008?????

Got something against the President using Executive veto powers? Or can only Democrat Presidents veto bills without you whining about it??

There's been voting in 2008?????

Yes Sarge, get with the program. There have been at least three special elections for seats that Democrats haven't held in decades, and they won them all.

Oooooo...."get with the program".....ummmm....YOUR program of selectively choosing evidence to fit your bullshi'ite conclusion? Pass.

Wow...3 whole special elections? I bet the turnout was high enough to make a valid statement about what the People as a whole are thinking....well....in your pathetic world of statistical lies it is.

Was this claim of yours REALLY the truth or was it like the bullshi'ite claim that Louisiana has been a Republican/conservative center for decades?

Let's see.....Republicans held the Jindal 1st district seat for a whole 30 years......but Democrats held it for a full 102 years before that.....and, get this.....THEY JUST ELECTED A REPUBLICAN IN MAY in a SPECIAL ELECTION.

That must say something about what the People as a whole are thinking, eh....that the People want more Republicans, eh?? Or do you only use bullshi'ite evidence that follows your preconceived bullshi'ite conclusions? Don't answer that, I know that one.

As in......when will you stop lying Mr. "There have been at least three special elections for seats that Democrats haven't held in decades, and they won them all."

In case you missed it, the Lousiana 1st District, a seat that hasn't been held by a Democrat in 30 years ("decades").....was just won by yet another Republican in a "special election"....that being Steve Scalise....REPUBLICAN.....not Democrat like you falsely claimed.

Guess them Democrats didn't win every seat they hadn't held in decades, eh?

Maybe you should have all the facts before you say stupid things.

Sarge,

Here you go...

Missippi Seat taken by Travis Childers. Originally Trent Lott's post.

Illinois Seat taken by Bill Foster. Original Denise Hastert's seat.

Louisiana Seat taken by Don Cazayoux.

I didn't lie about a thing. You just picked the wrong race, and assumed the others didn't happen.

Don Cazayoux is a pro-life, pro-gun Democrat. So is Childers. And Chicago has turned the entire state of Illinois into a People's Republic (with some significant help from the incompetence of the Illinois Republican Party, whom you can thank for Barack Obama.

Not the kind of "Democrats" to gladden the hearts of Nancy Pelosi and George Soros.

Not all democrats are the same, and in the past neither were the Republicans.

...and I quote:

There have been at least three special elections for seats that Democrats haven't held in decades, and they won them all.

After you get done making strawmen about what you think I think to hide your lie...

Louisiana, 1st district, seat held by Republicans for decades, special election in May 2008...REPUBLICAN victory.

You just wanted to posit that a few special elections actually mean something about the nation as a whole and tried to pass on a lie about Democrats winning 'em all to bolster your claim......and once again got caught in it.

Louisiana has been a conservative/Republican state forever, eh?

Time and again, this Congress bows to Republican will. For example, yesterday's headline: "Senate defers to Bush, passes wiretapping bill".

If the current Congress successfully stymied the Republicans (what they were elected to do in 2006), they'd be popular.

Sarge,

I have no illusions that the south has always been republican, but it has always been conservative. The rest of the country has had to drag it continuously kicking and screaming into modern society.

"I have no illusions that the south has always been republican, but it has always been conservative."

Only because you equate "conservative" with "racist."

If the South's been so "conservative," why were they all Democrats for 100 years? Weren't there any "conservatives" in the North?

When President Johnson, a southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Law it was seen as a betrayal by the southern christian racist Democrats, who, as the 60s became the 70s, bailed on the Democratic party and became the southern christian racist Republicans we know today. Trent Lott, for example. However, their overall philosophy - racism, nationalism, militarism, christianity - has remained the same, only the party affiliation has changed

"When President Johnson, a southern Democrat, signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 into Law it was seen as a betrayal by the southern christian racist Democrats, who, as the 60s became the 70s, bailed on the Democratic party and became the southern christian racist Republicans we know today. Trent Lott, for example. However, their overall philosophy - racism, nationalism, militarism, christianity - has remained the same, only the party affiliation has changed."

This is what is known as the Democrats' version of history. In point of fact, many Southern Democrats remained both Democrats and racists.

The vast majority of Dixiecrats remained Democrats--Stennis, Russel, Eastland, McClellan. Robert Byrd, who filibustered the Civil Rights Act for 14 hours in his desperate attempt to hang on to a segregated South, remained a Democrat (even to this day.) Clinton's mentor, J. William Fulbright. And, of course, y'all kept the Crown Prince of Segregation, George Wallace, who didn't stop being a racist until he became a Christian in the late 1970s.

So I'd be careful if I were you. Democrats fought a war to maintain slavery. Democrats ran the segregationist South and killed people to keep it that way. Democrats fought the Civil Rights Acts. Racism is endemic to the Democratic party. Republicans allow racist Democrats to become Republicans because they don't have any choice. But they don't run the party, and they never, ever will.

The CULTURE of the South shifted from the Democratic party to the Republican party. It's not like the South was dominated by liberals who stuck by the Ds when a tiny group of Southerners switched to the Rs. Liberalism has NEVER had a home in the South, not now, not in the 20th Century, not in the 19th Century, Never. The South is as it's always been - the seat of Right-wing philosophy/culture in America.

Racism is an exclusive, Right-wing philosophy. The Left is inclusive, saying skin color, sexual orientation, nationality etc are not as important as our shared humanity and our human rights. These very traits are often fodder for Right wing attacks, and that's the understatement of the year.

The Right has always attacked the very things that make the Left not-racist, and now, after 8 years of Bush-logic, it blames the Left for the racist history of the ever-conservative South.

Are you actually going to deny that the Democratic party did not fully participate in the "South's" racism for more than 100 years?

What did the "non-racist" Northern Democrats do about racism before 1964?

And, just for kicks, explain what part of "conservativism"--or, even more difficult, Republicanism--REQUIRES racism?

It's the left that's obsessed with race. Always has been. Republicans aren't voting against Obama (or for him) BECAUSE of his race--that's a Democrat problem. Just like it was when the Mississippi Freedom DEMOCRATIC party tried to seat blacks at the DNC convention in 1964 (not the SOUTHERN convention. The PARTY convention. In Atlantic City, where the Democrats should have felt free to not be so racist, but apparently couldn't bring themselves to do so, since they actually threw the Mississippi delegates OUT.)

If the left is not racist, it sure took them a long time to figure that out.

When the Roosevelts (Northern Liberals) had Marian Anderson sing at the Lincoln Memorial in 1939, right-wing Southern christian conservative groups like the Daughters of the American Revolution threw a fit.

In 1901 Northern Liberal Republican President Teddy Roosevelt had Booker T Washington over for dinner at the White House. Southern christian right-wingers had a fit then too.

When northern Liberals boarded busses to head south and help blacks register to vote, Southern right-wing christians, AT BEST called them "nigger-lovers", and at worst murdered them. Southern, Right-wing christian culture created such murderers. Liberal culture did not.

It's the left that's obsessed with race. Always has been.

Why do you say such silly things when you clearly should know better? "Always has been"? I suppose you are referring to the passage of civil rights in the '60s as a kind of obsession...I guess that's accurate, if a bit unnecessarily pejorative.

The whole freaking country is obsessed with race, humanity has always been concerned with race. If you think otherwise, you're just fucking stupid. As I said, you have access to the required data, so there is no excuse if you don't see this.

The least that a conservative with a conscience could do is concede that the right was wrong about civil rights in the 60s. But no, you're too far gone for that.

Republicans aren't voting against Obama (or for him) BECAUSE of his race--that's a Democrat problem.

Yah, the republicans haven't voted for or against Obama **YET**, unless you count Rush's cute little 'Operation Chaos'. If you're so deluded to think that the right, which has a WELL-ESTABLISHED history of RACISM in this country, are COMPLETELY REFORMED as a group, then you are a sick fuck.

This is not to say that plenty of individual conservatives have not seen the light. But only a fool would believe all of the lip service. Republicans have deployed the 'Southern strategy' for decades now, semi-quietly playing to racism within the party. Why did the Bush campaign, in 1999, spread the rumor that McCain had fathered an illegitimate black child? Why did Lee Atwater later apologize (on his deathbed: maximum drama!) for the subtext of racism in the 'Willie Horton' angle? Did all that racism just go away yesterday?

Republicans can play revisionist history all day, but it just aint true. You want to claim that liberals are actually more racist THESE DAYS? I think that claim is specious, but at least it is debatable compared to this utter bullshit.

What did the "non-racist" Northern Democrats do about racism before 1964?

Red herring and undiluted bullshit. First of all, the civil rights movement didn't just spring out of Zeus' head fully formed in 1964. The groundwork was being laid ON THE LEFT for decades. Second, while the country as a whole was more racist than today (by a long shot), and there certainly were (and are) racist democrats (especially in the south), this does not compare to a PROUD TRADITION OF RACISM. Remember Strom Thurmond? Remember Jesse Helms?

You can cry "Abraham Lincoln" all day, but I think we all know that those republicans were NOT conservatives, and the republican party took a bit of a detour in the 20th century. We're not going to engage in your games of revisionist history. Up is still up, and down is still down. Most importantly, bullshit is still bullshit.

Dance dance dance....."Yes Sarge, get with the program. There have been at least three special elections for seats that Democrats haven't held in decades, and they won them all."

False statements go nowhere.

Louisiana voting for a Republican to replace Jindal in a special election in May means the country wants more Republicans, eh?

Get with the program indeed...

Actually, SF, the problem is that I think YOU are deluded, if you believe that the Democratic party, which has an UNPARALLELED history of racism in this country, has reformed much.

And what, precisely, would make the 1860s Republicans not "conservative"?--aside from the fact that you think racism is a requirement of conservatism?

"The whole freaking country is obsessed with race, humanity has always been concerned with race."

That's something Democrats love to say. Fact is, racial obsession is a Democratic trait, not a Republican one. We don't care WHAT color you are; it's your IDEAS we want to know about.

For example, most (if not all) conservative Republicans love Condi Rice, JC Watts, Shelby Steele, Walter Williams, Michael Steele, and lots of other black conservatives--not because they're black, but because they are CONSERVATIVES. The Democrats' way of handling this is to close their eyes and say those people don't count as BLACK PEOPLE.

Which one is more racist?

The Right-wing is more racist, by definition. By definition, the Left, Secular-Humanism, Marxism, whathaveyou, is about racial equality as a matter of International Human Rights.

Anytime in 20th Century USA that any attempt was made toward integration, be it the Benny Goodman Sextet of 1939, or any of the above examples you ignore, anytime the attempt was made, the American Right-wing would go hysterical. "Communists!" "Race Traitors!" "Nigger Lovers!" These are all names used exclusively by the Right to describe the Left. Period.

I have heard more racist comments from "conservatives" rather than "liberals" but that's just in my personal experience and I'm all biased and shit.

Kerry,

your last paragraph refering to black conservative republicans, are you now being satirical?

I hate when conservatives bring up the black members of their party and display them like a great hand in a poker game. In poker, this is known as a "tell". No, you don't love them because they're black but you love them because they're conservatives- That's why they have to be used in defense; "seeeeeeeee! we like these black people, but not because they're black, nooooo because, they agree with me!!" Fold that hand, and put some sunglasses on or something.

SSE,

The differences is that conservatives like some people who happen to be black, and Democrats USE people BECAUSE they ARE black.

Taking race into account as an evaluative measure is racist in and of itself, and the Democratic party has made it an art. Their entire nominating systems is based on quotas (though they won't CALL them "quotas"--although what the requirement of a percentage corresponding to the population percentage could possibly be other than a quota is beyond comprehension.)

Conservatives deal with individuals; liberals see people as groups. Conservatives believe that everyone, black or white, can succeed in America. Liberals believe black people can't succeed without special help from them. Conservatives believe in treating people equally, holding them to the same standards, and punishing them the same when they transgress. Liberals blame group characteristics for bad behavior and single out certain groups for mercy unavailable to others, treat racial groups totally differently, and base their evaluation of every individual on what groups that person belongs to.

It took the Democratic party a fratricidal war for them to even admit that black people were human. It took them another 100 years for SOME of them to agree to treat them that way. For 70 years the Democratic Congress created a welfare structure that destroyed the black family, controlled black people and created multi-generational dependence on white liberals. And even today they ask THEMSELVES the ridiculous question "Is America ready for a black president?"

The Democrats don't even see Barack as the unqualified Chicago politician that he is. They can't read his resume, and they can't congratulate themselves enough for being "ready" to stop being such God-awful racists. They are ready to hand the country over to the least qualified individual ever to run for president at the top of a major party ticket. And they don't care, because it will please their racist little hearts to have a "black" president.

That's not just racism; that's a political psychosis.

"Anytime in 20th Century USA that any attempt was made toward integration, be it the Benny Goodman Sextet of 1939, or any of the above examples you ignore, anytime the attempt was made, the American Right-wing would go hysterical. "Communists!" "Race Traitors!" "Nigger Lovers!" These are all names used exclusively by the Right to describe the Left. Period."

Once again, you are confusing conservatives with Democrats. Those words did not come from Republicans. Republicans founded a party and fought a war to prove that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. Democrats fought back for....what? Spite. Spite and stupidity. I don't know who you heard talking, but in the 1950s and 60s and 70s, those words would be coming from Southern DEMOCRATIC politicians and sheriffs and justices of the peace.

Racism is a legacy of the Democratic party. They hide it, they deny it, they flat-out lie about it. But the fact is that the Republican party was founded to drive the Democratic party's endemic racism out of the country. And if Lincoln hadn't been shot--handing the nation over to an idiot Democrat who basically let the South off scot free--it might not have taken another 100 years to get the Civil Rights Act. (Johnson vetoed one, by the way. Also, Johnson granted amnesty to the Confederate soldiers on--gag me--Christmas Day, 1868.)

"I don't know who you heard talking, but in the 1950s and 60s and 70s, those words would be coming from Southern DEMOCRATIC politicians and sheriffs and justices of the peace".

Yes, indeed they were, because the Democratic party at that time, in the South, was the Right-wing Christian party.

Jesus fucking Christ... There is no way to talk to you about some matters.

You've just got it all figured out Kerry, don't you?

I disagree with your biased partisan opinion.

let me imitate your response to this post, because, you're THAT predictable:

"Jesus fucking Christ..."

Nice language SSE, I assume you forget Exodus 20:7

"You shall not take the name of the LORD you God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain."

We learn from Paul in 1Cor.15:10 that "His grace which was bestowed upon me was not in vain, but I labored more abundantly than they all."

You could learn a great deal from Paul and his righteousness.

Nothing has shown the mighty awesomeness of God to the world clearer than does an honest and holy life. Let us all strive never to take the name of our Lord and Savior in vain. In it's stead, let us "show forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvelous light" (1Pet. 2:9). There is no better way to live, in fact, there is no OTHER way to live.

"You've just got it all figured out Kerry, don't you?"

Why yes, yes I do. It's the honest truth.

"I disagree with your biased partisan opinion."

Why am I not surprised, you're a misinformed liberal.

"Conservatives deal with individuals; liberals see people as groups." Bullshit. The Right-wing sees people as religious groups Christians Muslims etc, whereas the Left sees Religion as a divisive force that we must work to overcome. The Right sees people as Nationalities, the Left sees an Earth that has no natural borders. When was the last time your church turned worship service over to an individual, an atheist, let's say. Didn't happen, won't happen, because the Group/Congregation/flock would be hysterical that this individual doesn't show any desire to join them.

The idea that religious people are individuals is hilarious, really.

""Conservatives deal with individuals; liberals see people as groups.""

Bullshit. The Right-wing sees people as religious groups Christians Muslims etc, whereas the Left sees Religion as a divisive force that we must work to overcome.

That has nothing to do with the point. Who you are in spirit is the most important thing in the world. Who you are by race, ethnicity, gender, etc., are not reasonable factors on which to evaluate the moral character of a human being.

"The Right sees people as Nationalities, the Left sees an Earth that has no natural borders."

Baloney.

"When was the last time your church turned worship service over to an individual, an atheist, let's say."

Why on earth would you take a time dedicated to learning about GOD and turn it over to someone who doesn't know anything about Him? That would be a gigantic waste of the congregation's time and an abuse of the pulpit.

"Didn't happen, won't happen, because the Group/Congregation/flock would be hysterical that this individual doesn't show any desire to join them."

Church is not an occasion to persuade people to leave it.

"The idea that religious people are individuals is hilarious, really."

Christianity is ENTIRELY about individuals. If you don't get that, you didn't get any of it.

"Why on earth would you take a time dedicated to learning about GOD and turn it over to someone who doesn't know anything about Him?"

In order to display an opinion/view that is NOT already held by the Group. In order to challenge the tenets of the Group. Individualistic concept, yes. No surprise you're unfamiliar with it.

Religious groups are attractive to people who need to feel part of a community, the idea of living outside the protection of the herd frightens them. They feel that individuals are just poor lost souls who haven't yet been invited to join their Group.

What is the goal of christians' efforts to proselytize, but to undermine individuality. If christians truly valued a diversity of people and opinions, they would have no interest in proselytizing.

""Why on earth would you take a time dedicated to learning about GOD and turn it over to someone who doesn't know anything about Him?""

"In order to display an opinion/view that is NOT already held by the Group."

No, that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about offering an opinion/view that is NOT Christianity. Many, many sermons are about presenting opinions and views from the Bible that may or may not already be held by the group.

The point of church is to worship, serve, celebrate, and learn about God (more specifically, in Christian churches, Jesus in particular--and in Pentecostal/Charismatic ones, also the Holy Spirit.) It is NOT to offer a platform for oppositional voices to offer opinions.

"In order to challenge the tenets of the Group."

Why would you want to do that, when the purpose of church is to focus on GOD? It's not about YOU--it's about HIM.

(Just as an aside, this is something our Pastor was talking about the other day. In some denominations there are what are being called "worship wars"--people want this kind of music, or that. But in those cases, it's all about what *I* like. The fact is that worship is NOT supposed to make YOU feel good. It's supposed to minister to GOD; as you do that, He ministers to you. I can't imagine how ridiculous we would seem to the people of the Old Testament. Back then, there was no question about the point of worship. You didn't sacrifice two doves and a bull because it felt good; you did it because God wanted it.)

"Individualistic concept, yes. No surprise you're unfamiliar with it."

No, it's not "individualistic." It's selfish and ridiculous.

"Religious groups are attractive to people who need to feel part of a community, the idea of living outside the protection of the herd frightens them."

Wow. Do you even KNOW any religious people?

"They feel that individuals are just poor lost souls who haven't yet been invited to join their Group."

Um, no. EVERYBODY is an individual human being for whom Christ died. Being in relationship with Him makes it more attractive and easier to be in relationship with His people, but you don't lose your individuality when you get saved, any more than you lose your own limbs when you get married. You don't lose your individuality by joining a group. And in becoming a Christian, you become able to find your true identity, in a way impossible without God.

"What is the goal of christians' efforts to proselytize, but to undermine individuality."

The goal of evangelism is INDIVIDUAL salvation, and eventual discipleship.

"If christians truly valued a diversity of people and opinions, they would have no interest in proselytizing."

No, they would only have no interest in evangelism if and only if they had no love for their fellow human beings who are destined for Hell without salvation. And if that is the case, they need to re-think whether or not they have taken on the Lordship of Christ at all. If you have not made Him your Lord, you are functionally no different than an unbeliever.

In review class, once upon a time Kerry caught the Christianity meme. *Cough* *Sneeze*

In-group thinking; nationalism, militarism and religion all strip away one part or another of individualism. It's not always a bad thing, sometimes it helps with survival, unless of course you say things like this:

EVERYBODY is an individual human being for whom Christ died. Being in relationship with Him makes it more attractive and easier to be in relationship with His people... And in becoming a Christian, you become able to find your true identity, in a way impossible without God.

Which is of course dangerous and crazy talk. Christianity is nothing more than a Jesus gang bang, get it while it's hot: "In-group" thinking.

Kerry, you should visit:

A Dialogue Between a Christian and an Atheist

It's a fair, calm and rational discussion.

It's a fair, calm and rational discussion.

Then what the hell are you doing reposting it here?

EVERYBODY is an individual human being for whom Christ died. Being in relationship with Him makes it more attractive and easier to be in relationship with His people... And in becoming a Christian, you become able to find your true identity, in a way impossible without God.

or as another contemporary of Jesus put it

You don't NEED to follow ANYBODY! You've got to think for your selves! You're ALL individuals!

You're all different!

All hail Brian!

I have his Gourd! Oh the Holy Gourd!

Shine Shine oh Gourd of Brian!

"Then what the hell are you doing reposting it here?"

Some Fella, I guess I'm hoping for a "miracle." I know it's like ad nauseam nauseam nauseam infinitum here on PME.

Seriously though, I thought it was interesting and I was sharing it so lay off me man!

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Hi Kerry,

Blessed are the cheesemakers.

Ah here I believe I'm in a position to help you interpret this - the Rosseta chip if you will. Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Benny Hill - cheeky sod ;-)

Holy

Holy

Holy