Back to the 30 percenters...

[Tele-Cat]

WASHINGTON (CNN) - More than seven in 10 Americans think Sarah Palin is not qualified to be president, according to a new national poll.

Seventy-one percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Wednesday morning believe the former Alaska governor and 2008 GOP vice presidential nominee is not qualified to be president, with 29 percent saying she does have the credentials to serve in the White House. Republicans appear split, with 52 percent saying she's qualified and 47 percent disagreeing with that view.

The poll indicates that about half of the country, 51 percent, has an unfavorable view of Palin, with 42 percent seeing her in a positive light. Nearly two-thirds of those questioned say Palin's not a typical politician, and feel she's a good role model for women. Fifty-six percent add that Palin cares about people, and a similar amount think she's honest and trustworthy. But the survey indicates Americans are split over whether Palin shares their values, agrees with them on the issues, or if she's a strong leader.

"Sarah Palin has one advantage that many past Republican candidates have not shared - Americans think she cares about people like them," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "But her biggest Achilles heel is the number who think she is not qualified to be President. Those numbers are similar to what Dan Quayle got in 1993, when only 23 percent thought he was ready for the White House."


In a very early look at the next race for the White House, the survey indicates that nearly one in three Republican voters, 32 percent, say they would be most likely to support former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee in a hypothetical battle for the 2012 GOP presidential nomination, with Palin seven points back at 25 percent, and former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 21 percent. Five percent said they would back Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty, with one in ten suggesting they would support some one else.

"Huckabee appears to have more support among Republicans than Palin and her unfavorable rating among all Americans is twice as high as Huckabee's," Holland says. "Palin may attract a lot of attention but the GOP may be looking elsewhere for their frontrunner."

It's the pre-season for the next White House contest, as possible GOP contenders form political action committees, campaign for fellow Republicans, write books and address conservative conferences and party dinners. The poll's release comes the same day that Romney, a 2008 Republican presidential candidate, campaigns in Virginia with Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, and less than three weeks before the release of Palin's book, "Going Rogue, an American Life."

The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll was conducted October 16-18, with 1,038 adult Americans questioned by telephone. The survey's sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points for all respondents and plus or minus 4.5 percentage points for questions asked only of Republicans.

[hasserl]

Goes to show you the power of the media and how a campaign of personal destruction is so effective in politics.

Palin is probably too damaged to be a contender for the Rep's, but they really don't have a good candidate that I've seen in the wings. It's a strange time in politics where the leading party that controls both houses of Congress (with a fillibuster proof lead no less) and the Whitehouse still can't enact their agenda, because their agenda is being driven by the far left. And it is an opportune time for their opponents to really make a run, but they don't have any candidates (because they've left their base and their reason for existence?). Now's the time for a Reagan, but I don't see one on the horizon.

Are we doomed to be led by the fringe left of Pelosi, Reid and Obama for the duration? I would love to see them stymied in the mid terms.

Strange days indeed.

[Bill Moore]

I'm pretty sure we'll get at least one true conservative congressman back from southern New Mexico. The fellow that left the seat to run for senate, says he'll run again. He caught hell for some of his votes, but he voted what was right, even if it did not bring money back to our state. He is a true businessman, and if shutting down an obsolete base is in the public good, that's the way he voted. If we had a majority of like minded types in DC, I know our unemployment would be a lot lower.

[gbono]

The issue in American politics is that the fringe elements of both parties "appear" to be the representation that is the most vocal, active, etc. (Though the democratic party couldn't organize a Sunday picnic IMHO.)

There is no stability in this model and we are headed towards chaos unless BOTH parties remove these destructive elements from doing any more damage.

[Tele-Cat]

Originally Posted by hasserl

Goes to show you the power of the media and how a campaign of personal destruction is so effective in politics.

I didn't need "the media" or any "campaign..." to know she's a moron, all I had to do was listen to the Katie Couric or Charles Gibson interviews during the '08 campaign or that incomprehensible "I'm quitting" speech she gave in her back yard.

The original version in the Economist (hardly a bastion of "liberalism") is no longer available free at their site, but this is the article that stated the republican party is becoming the party of "White Trash Pride."

Worth a read for anyone who wonders why the republicans lost in '08.

[Mark Hammer]

People who work in public administration and organizational sciences note that there is a distinction to be made between trust and confidence, when it comes to leadership. You can trust in someone to have your needs in mind, and the best of intentions, and behave with integrity, yet still have doubts about their competence. You can place confidence in the capabilities of someone to do a particular job well and professionally, yet still have doubts as to whether they keep your needs in mind, or behave in an ethical manner. And of course, you can have folks whom you trust to try and be ethical, yet have doubts about whether they are listening to you; i.e., they're behaving ethically, but running off in the wrong direction.

In Palin's case, I think there are those who have trust in her judgment and integrity, and confidence in her capability, but when you add up the folks who may have doubts about her competence, or who who aren't sure whether they can trust her to listen to all voices, that sum is simply too large for her to proceed forward.

On a more yielding note, I will simply add that it IS possible to restore or enhance trust, depending on what impeded it in the first place, and it is possible to foster confidence. Neither of those happens quickly, though, not nearly as quickly as losing the trust or confidence of people.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Tele-Cat

I didn't need "the media" or any "campaign..." to know she's a moron, all I had to do was listen to the Katie Couric or Charles Gibson interviews during the '08 campaign or that incomprehensible "I'm quitting" speech she gave in her back yard.

The original version in the Economist (hardly a bastion of "liberalism") is no longer available free at their site, but this is the article that stated the republican party is becoming the party of "White Trash Pride."

Worth a read for anyone who wonders why the republicans lost in '08.

But you were predisposed to not like her to begin with, from before the day she was named. And both of the interviews you mention were hatchet jobs intended to harm her politically. Of both of those things you cannot argue, or you're being intellectually dishonest.

Besides, I'd like to see you put in the same place and see how you fare! That ought to be good for a laugh. No, you weren't/aren't running for office, but you're statements aren't just that she isn't fit for office, but that she's a moron, and I'd wager she's got a better head on her shoulders than you. She has accomplished a fair bit for being a moron now, hasn't she? And what have you accomplished?

Re: anti-intellectualism, let's look at the party of Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Barbary Boxer, Maxine Waters, I could go on & on here; is that the party you think of as intellectual? Give me a break, talk about morons. Palin looks like a freakin genius in that company.

Isn't Charles Krauthammer a Republican? George Will? Thomas Sowell? Walter Williams? Hardly "White Trash". Your position is without merit.

[Enzo]

When Palin was first named as VP candidate, I thought it was a brilliant move on their part. Not that I wanted them to succeed, I was an Obama supporter. But I thought she was an amazing pick... until she opened her mouth. I got no presupposed hatred or anything else. As soon as her nonsense rhetoric started spilling out, I saw her for the dimwit she is.

I think it is telling that when Saturday Night Live chose to lampoon her, as they do to many public figures, they did so by having Tina Fey (who already had the look) quote Palin's recent speech VERBATIM. The SNL delivery sounded like made up gibberish, until you heard it played back beside a tape of the real Palin speech. Word for word. You can call that a hatchet job, but the hatchet then is Palin herself.

Besides, I'd like to see you put in the same place and see how you fare! That ought to be good for a laugh. No, you weren't/aren't running for office, but you're statements aren't just that she isn't fit for office, but that she's a moron, and I'd wager she's got a better head on her shoulders than you. She has accomplished a fair bit for being a moron now, hasn't she? And what have you accomplished?

And how much legislation have YOU gotten passed, hasserl? This is beneath you. I don;t often agree with you on anything down in this section, but at least I expect you to be civil. The ad hominem attack doesn;t make a case for Palin.

I often use George Will as an example of a conservative who doesn't turn it into a cartoon. (As opposed to the Limbaugh/Hannity nonsense.) In my opinion, including Thomas Sowell in your list of positive examples is soiling the nest. Sowell has demonstrated repeatedly in his daily newspaper columns that he is severely challenged in the logic area.

We all scratched our heads when Palin quit, with her rambling explanation of "for the good of the state." Now we find out the real deal. She quit the job so she could accept the million dollar book advance, an advance she couldn;t have accepted as a sitting governor.

[hasserl]

And how much legislation have YOU gotten passed, hasserl?

Did I call someone a moron? My post was meant to be more along the lines of, before you accuse someone else of something, take a look at yourself. Put yourself in their position. That is not an ad hominem attack as far as I understand the term. Sorry if what I posted didn't come out that way, but reading again what I posted I think it does.

[Enzo]

Yes, it is always good to take a good look at one's self. But you don;t have to be a chef to know the meatloaf tastes bad.

[Tele-Cat]

Sarah Palin doesn't even demonstrate common curiosity.

A political Shania Twain. The proverbial empty vessel.

Hasserl, how many amps have YOU built? You went after me for only building three yet having an opinion, and now you're going after me in pretty much the same way for pretty much the same reason. You haven't passed any legislation, neither have I. However, I still haven't gotten an answer to the question how many amps have you built?

So come across. you've been after me since I got here because you don't like my opinions, and you seem to believe you have a right to deny me my opinion, without ANY qualification of your own.

So until you have proven any record of accomplishing anything, I suggest you back the hell off. I've had it with you. You're all mouth, no action.

[hasserl]

I think what's bothering you is you're looking to get into a back and forth emotional arguments based on partisan politics, and you don't know how to respond to reason and logic.

"You're all mouth, no action" That's most definitely an ad hominem attack. And in fact, you attacked me from the very first post of your's that I read, something about remembering why you put me on your ignore list on another forum. That was a personal attack intended to insult me and marginalize my position. Like I posted then, you're incapable of forming a rational argument in support of whatever position you have, so you make ad hominem attacks against the other party or you ignore them. I predict you'll do the same here. You attacked me to start with, now you're complaining that I'm after you since you got here. What a pussy.

How about that party of Reid, Pelosi, Boxer & Waters, is that you're idea of intellectualism? Do you really think you could've done better than Palin did in the interviews you mentioned? Consider being put in front of a camera to be interviewed on national television, being interviewed by a profesional interviewer with years of experience who has the goal of making you look incompetent. Now, in that situation you really think you'd fare any better than she did? Get a grip.

[Tele-Cat]

Originally Posted by hasserl

"You're all mouth, no action" That's most definitely an ad hominem attack. And in fact, you attacked me from the very first post of your's that I read, something about remembering why you put me on your ignore list on another forum. That was a personal attack intended to insult me and marginalize my position. Like I posted then, you're incapable of forming a rational argument in support of whatever position you have, so you make ad hominem attacks against the other party or you ignore them. I predict you'll do the same here. You attacked me to start with, now you're complaining that I'm after you since you got here. What a pussy.

How many amps have you built? How many jobs have you created? How much legislation have you gotten passed?

Until you answer these questions, this is going to be my response to everything you say to me. As for being a pussy, at least I've built amps. You haven't.

[Enzo]

Oh for the love of mike...

This is going nowhere. CAn't we leave the grade school posturing to the kids? What the fuck does building an amp or not have to do with Sarah Palin?

[Tele-Cat]

The point is this - Hasserl has challenged me in this thread about things I haven't done. In my 5E3 thread, he challenged me about how many amps I've built because I don't worship at the altar of his hero, Ted Weber.

He mocked me that I've built only three amps, without ever revealing how many amps he's built. I'm just consolidating the challenges into one place.

He has challenged me on these issues, the implication being that because I have not passed legislation, created jobs or built a LOT of amps, my opinion is not qualified.

And yet, even though HE has not done ANY of these things, he puts forth his opinion as qualified. I'm just trying to get the jerk to 'fess up that he hasn't done any of these things. If he's going to tell me my opinion is not qualified because I have not done things, the same things he has not done, (and at least I've built amplifiers), I'm going to throw it right back in his face.

He's got a big mouth on him, but he doesn't do ANYTHING. I'm not going to lay down for him, or you. If that doesn't suit you, oh well.

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by Enzo

When Palin was first named as VP candidate, I thought it was a brilliant move on their part. Not that I wanted them to succeed, I was an Obama supporter. But I thought she was an amazing pick... until she opened her mouth. I got no presupposed hatred or anything else. As soon as her nonsense rhetoric started spilling out, I saw her for the dimwit she is.

As an outside observer, I had the same reaction. I like John McCain, and as much as I like Obama more, I respected McCain for what I thought was a brilliant campaign move. And then, as the package got more unwrapped, I realized that it wasn't a new bicycle or a PS3, but a dozen pair of socks.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Tele-Cat

How many amps have you built? How many jobs have you created? How much legislation have you gotten passed?

Until you answer these questions, this is going to be my response to everything you say to me. As for being a pussy, at least I've built amps. You haven't.

Dude, you are wacked. As Enzo pointed out, how many amps I have built or I haven't built has no bearing on this topic. But at the risk of competing in some sort of online amp builder dick size challenge, to ease your suspicions about me and put an end to your questioning I'll answer the best I can. I really don't know how many I've built. I've built quite a few over the years, they are out there keeping their owners happy as far as I know, or they're in my shop in a pile of amps and get used on a semi-regular basis. BTW, how do you count amps you've built, then stripped and rebuilt with a different circuit reusing the chassis/transformers, then did it again? Is that 1 or 3 amps? Regardless, I'd put the number of amps in the dozens, not a huge amount. But then I never claimed I was an avid builder, and to be honest most of my amp work is on servicing, repairs and modifications of amps, with modifications being the most common. That is my main thing, and I've done pretty well with it. If I haven't modified a hundred amps the number is in the high double digits. I also sell parts kits for mods, combine the mod kits I've sold with the amps I've modified and the total I'm sure is over a hundred. I get inquiries for my services averaging about 1 a day, but I am not taking in any amp jobs right now due to a heavy travel schedule. Well, that's not exactly true, I do have a friends Hot Rod Deluxe here he's asked me to help him with. And I've got a long term build project going on of a standard Marshall style front end into a pair of EL84's for another friend. And another friend has a Pignose G40V I told him I'd do a cap job for him, but that's it. I'm not taking any more on thru the end of the year.

I've also designed and built a couple of Attenuators, and if I had the time I'd be producing them for sale. There is definitely a market for them, and I can build one to fit in an unfilled price range in the market. But I simply don't have the time right now to pursue that project.

There, is that sufficient for the purposes of discussing Sarah Palin?

About jobs I've created, or legislation I've passed, I haven't. But first of all, I never said anything abut legislation being passed. That was Enzo. Here's what I posted: "She has accomplished a fair bit for being a moron now, hasn't she? And what have you accomplished?" The point being, You are calling her a moron, yet what have you accomplished compared to her? Didn't your momma ever tell you that when you point a finger at someone you have four more pointing right back at you?

And second, I know this may be difficult to you, but if you really try I think you can get it. I haven't called anyone a moron, did I? Why ask me what I've accomplished? I'm not the one calling someone a moron. There's no reason to ask me what I've accomplished, because I'm not being critical of anyone (other than you). But you are, therefore you are fair game.

When I posted about your amp count, it wasn't to diss you, it was simply a matter of saying I was surprised you didn't have more experience for all the opinions you were offering. I read posts about types of capacitors, some were better for hifi, some were the best for tweed amps, yadda, yadda, yadda. And opinions about Weber and how they sucked and anyone using their stuff must suck too. Then we find out you're on your 3rd amp. It just struck me as odd, that's all. Personally I think it would show a little more class to hold off on dissing someone else's business that has actually done something for the community until after you've actually had some real experience. But hey, that's just me. Flame away if it makes you feel bigger. Take your cheap shots just like so many other little guys around the net do. All those fearsome keyboard warriors out there.

Like I said, you came here insulting me, now you complain that I'm after you. I'm not after you, we could get along here just fine. Don't be so thin skinned. Just because I don't kiss your ass doesn't mean I don't like you. And when you post a thread like this one, don't be surprised or indignant when someone posts an opposing POV.

Now, can we get back to discussing the thread topic? Or are you out of ammo?

[casey73]

Originally Posted by Enzo

Oh for the love of mike...

This is going nowhere. CAn't we leave the grade school posturing to the kids? What the fuck does building an amp or not have to do with Sarah Palin?

That was well stated. It is roughly equivalent to the "my dad can beat up your dad" argument that some resort to when, as Hasserl aptly pointed out, one's logic is faulty or just absent.

[Bill Moore]

This harkens back to the other thread, how can anyone, who is evidentally percieved as so stupid by the liberals, be so feared, and revilled; and the discussion continues.
I realize we have elected a president with no credentials,(other than his genetic makeup, and to be sure, he's not George Bush), but I know the American people see their mistake, and will correct it during the next few election cycles. The same thing happened when Clinton, and Carter were elected, and started ignoring the constitution, and attempting to take over the country, the liberals were voted out.
I had a favorite uncle who once told me that the political pendulum swings to both extremes, and never stops in the middle. By moving to both sides of the spectrum, all people are served at one time or another. With a few more years on me, I realize he's right.
In my circle of friends, I do have one who voted for Mr Obama,(he's not George Bush after all), he shoots with our club, and is a reserve deputy. A couple of weeks ago we drove down to another club to shoot their match,and I got a lot of joy asking him how he's enjoying the hope and change.

[Mark Hammer]

In Canada, partisan politics results in the PM taking part in the backstabbing of the opposition, since the PM is only the PM by virtue of their party holding the largest number of parliamentary seats. In the U.S.A., partisan politics takes a somewhat different twist by virtue of the dissociable presidential, Senate and Congressional votes. So us Canucks watch your federal politics on TV, and scratch our heads wondering how it is you can get a decent president in office and then people on his own side (presumably) undermine him at every turn. What is intended to provide a balance of power through checks and balances starts to turn into a coil-cancellation of power.

There was so much that was wrong with the previous admnistration that it is no wonder the current one finds itself in the position of attempting to try and reverse/fix/mod so many things all at once, partly because they need fixing, but partly because voter hopes were set so high there was justifiable apprehension about not living up to the expectations. While one understands the motivation, that doesn't make it an optimal strategy.

[Bill Moore]

Mark, what was really wrong with the previous administration, is being extrapolated in spades with the rookie president we have, he knows he has a limited time to institute the socialist policies he believes in, but people are waking up. Our country is not a democracy, but a representative republic. The congress we elect is supposed to represent us, not the ideology of their party.
The unfortunate problem is that the republicans thought moving to the left was the proper move, and as you know they have been in the minority for a few years now. The left was able to run conservative sounding candidates, and defeat some of the left leaning Republicans. The Democratics have actually been in control since 2006, but lacked the numbers to force things down our throat, like they are doing now.
People who thought we need to get rid of all things George Bush are now realizing that we are losing control of our own county, and the recent polling reflects that. 40% say they are conservative to 20%, who identify themselves as liberal.
I have confidence we will overcome this anomoly, but like my uncle said, the pendulum will again shift. and we may be discussing this again, in another 10 years!

[Tele-Cat]

More like 50 years, if the right-wing theocrats (the Sarah Palin wing) of the party continues to hold sway. This is NOT a christian nation.

[Mark Hammer]

Originally Posted by Bill Moore

Mark, what was really wrong with the previous administration, is being extrapolated in spades with the rookie president we have, he knows he has a limited time to institute the socialist policies he believes in,

"Socialist policies"? Where? What? I have yet to see anything that lives within a NASA flight of that.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Mark Hammer

In Canada, partisan politics results in the PM taking part in the backstabbing of the opposition, since the PM is only the PM by virtue of their party holding the largest number of parliamentary seats. In the U.S.A., partisan politics takes a somewhat different twist by virtue of the dissociable presidential, Senate and Congressional votes. So us Canucks watch your federal politics on TV, and scratch our heads wondering how it is you can get a decent president in office and then people on his own side (presumably) undermine him at every turn. What is intended to provide a balance of power through checks and balances starts to turn into a coil-cancellation of power.

There was so much that was wrong with the previous admnistration that it is no wonder the current one finds itself in the position of attempting to try and reverse/fix/mod so many things all at once, partly because they need fixing, but partly because voter hopes were set so high there was justifiable apprehension about not living up to the expectations. While one understands the motivation, that doesn't make it an optimal strategy.

Hmmm, you say that as if we have a decent President, what we have is a rookie politician community organizer who's so over his head it isn't funny. People on his side undermining him? That's a strange way to see it. He's encouraged the wacko's of the Pelosi/Reid Congress to move far left on every issue, he's as guilty as they are in what has happened here since his inauguration.

There may have been some things wrong with the former administration, on that we can agree, but I'd bet we'd disagree on what those things were that were wrong. In any case, this administration makes the former one look pretty damn good. At the rate things are going I wouldn't give him much chance for a 2nd term. I think by the end of 4 years the American people are going to be so tired of him, so tired of a depressed economy and so ready for Hope and Change they're gonna kick his butt outta office. 1 term is all I expect from this big mistake. OBAMA = One Big Ass Mistake America.

Originally Posted by Mark Hammer

"Socialist policies"? Where? What? I have yet to see anything that lives within a NASA flight of that.

Government control of auto companies, Oblama admin firing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Govment ownership of banks and financial companies. Govment setting limits to executive pay. Govment caps on CO2 emissions and setting up of a body for the commercial sale and trading of emissions credits. Govment running of health care industry.

Either you haven't been paying attention or you don't understand the meaning of socialistic and NASA flight. Or your political philosophy causes you to ignore inconvenient facts.

[Bill Moore]

You're right tele-, last year the Pew research showed only 78% of US citizens are claiming to be christian. I don't know if that value changes when one is closer to their end, I suspect then it might go higher.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Tele-Cat

More like 50 years, if the right-wing theocrats (the Sarah Palin wing) of the party continues to hold sway. This is NOT a christian nation.

I would fight a theocracy as much as anyone.

I agree this is not a Christian nation, however, the roots of this country and it's laws are firmly planted in the Judeo-Christian faith. From early settlers of the land (european settlers, obviously there were peoples here previous to the Europeans, but the roots of this country are European) to the founding fathers, most if not all were believers in the Christian faith, and their beliefs are evident in their writings.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

That said, these men were wise enough to know that all kinds of mischief can come from the alignment of religion and politics. While you may fear the effects of religion on politics, I fear the effects of politics over my rights to practice my faith according to my beliefs and understanding of that faith. IMO there is far more to fear of government intruding over religion than vice versa. Just the same, I think Jefferson's idea of a "wall of seperation" is wise and we should all strive to preserve it. Anyone who doubts this can just look at history and the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire in medieval times; or to the middle east and Islamic countries now, to see the danger of such close relationships.

Which reminds me of a strange alliance, that of the political left and Islamic fundamentalists in Israel and other western nations. Why no outcry against Islamic Fascist and Islamic theocracies from the leftists? In fact, forget about an outcry against, they outright embrace the Islamist extremists, who are the worst offendrs against everything that leftists embrace. What a strange world.

[Tele-Cat]

Originally Posted by hasserl

I would fight a theocracy as much as anyone.

I agree this is not a Christian nation, however, the roots of this country and it's laws are firmly planted in the Judeo-Christian faith. From early settlers of the land (european settlers, obviously there were peoples here previous to the Europeans, but the roots of this country are European) to the founding fathers, most if not all were believers in the Christian faith, and their beliefs are evident in their writings.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

That said, these men were wise enough to know that all kinds of mischief can come from the alignment of religion and politics. While you may fear the effects of religion on politics, I fear the effects of politics over my rights to practice my faith according to my beliefs and understanding of that faith. IMO there is far more to fear of government intruding over religion than vice versa. Just the same, I think Jefferson's idea of a "wall of seperation" is wise and we should all strive to preserve it. Anyone who doubts this can just look at history and the Roman Catholic Church and the Holy Roman Empire in medieval times; or to the middle east and Islamic countries now, to see the danger of such close relationships.

Which reminds me of a strange alliance, that of the political left and Islamic fundamentalists in Israel and other western nations. Why no outcry against Islamic Fascist and Islamic theocracies from the leftists? In fact, forget about an outcry against, they outright embrace the Islamist extremists, who are the worst offendrs against everything that leftists embrace. What a strange world.

I have no use for ANY theocracy, and I certainly do not embrace any form of radical islam. As a non-religious person, I'm a lot more concerned about freedom FROM religion than freedom of religion, but at the same time, I don't have any issue with the practice of individual faith. But the practice of that faith must stop at a line that creates influence on public policy (or knocking on my door). If the eight years of the Bush-Cheeney (sic) dictatorship have taught us anything, it's religion has no place in a rational government, and the use of religious doctrine as a guiding principle for public policy is foolhardy at best and indeed, totalitarian at worst.

However, it should be noted the US is directly responsible for the rise in radical islam, not only because of our ill-conceived, ill-advised and ill-executed excursions in to Iraq and Afghanistan, but in our manipulation of Middle-East politics over the last 60 years and our manipulation of resources in the Middle East going back almost twice as far.

Read "Sleeping With the Devil" by former CIA agent Robert Baer. The responsibility is on both sides of the US political aisle, but the Bush family in particular, has committed egregious acts in the Middle East.

Read the book. You might even learn something.

[hasserl]

Originally Posted by Tele-Cat

I have no use for ANY theocracy, and I certainly do not embrace any form of radical islam. As a non-religious person, I'm a lot more concerned about freedom FROM religion than freedom of religion, but at the same time, I don't have any issue with the practice of individual faith. But the practice of that faith must stop at a line that creates influence on public policy (or knocking on my door). If the eight years of the Bush-Cheeney (sic) dictatorship have taught us anything, it's religion has no place in a rational government, and the use of religious doctrine as a guiding principle for public policy is foolhardy at best and indeed, totalitarian at worst.

However, it should be noted the US is directly responsible for the rise in radical islam, not only because of our ill-conceived, ill-advised and ill-executed excursions in to Iraq and Afghanistan, but in our manipulation of Middle-East politics over the last 60 years and our manipulation of resources in the Middle East going back almost twice as far.

Read "Sleeping With the Devil" by former CIA agent Robert Baer. The responsibility is on both sides of the US political aisle, but the Bush family in particular, has committed egregious acts in the Middle East.

Read the book. You might even learn something.

When you make statements about a Bush-Cheney dictatorship it undercuts any validity your arguments may have. Like in a court of law, when a witness is shown to be unreliable in ANY part of their testimony, ALL parts of their testimony can and should be discarded as unreliable. When you make silly statements like that it really devalues any other points you may want to make. If you want to have intelligent discussion about issues than you should refrain from statements like that.

Re religious influence over matters of public policy, our government is one OF the people and BY the people. So when some of those people that are in positions of making public policy have a particular religious faith, that is a part of who and what they are, and it WILL and SHOULD be a part of their decision making process. But at the same time, that does not mean public officials should use their position of power to force the practice of their faith on others. It is a delicate balancing act for sure. But just as dangerous to our freedom and liberty as the religious zealot is the atheist zealot, after all atheism is just another form of religion. And I would say atheistic zealotry is more advanced into pubic policy than Christian zealotry these days. Christian totalitarianism has nothing on atheistic totalitarianism. Compare the regimes of the Holy Roman Empire to Nazism, Fascism, Leninism, Stalinism & Maoism. Which would you rather live under? None of them are appealing to me, but I'd take Rome without a second thought. At this point in time are we moving more in the direction of a Christian theocracy or atheistic totalitarian society? I would say we are in more danger of the later, which will eventually fall victim to an Islamic totalitarianism. They (Islamo Fascists) are more fierce and ruthless than Communists.

And to blame the US for the rise in Islamic Fascism, that is ridiculous. That is like blaming a black man that was beaten or lynched for being in the wrong place, or blaming the cops for gang violence. I'm sure the book you mention has facts I'm not aware of, but if it shares the conclusion you shared than I already know the logic in it is flawed.