Now the Democrats Have No Excuse

Well, my friends, I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen. Today Barack Obama showed that the Republicans are not interested in increasing ACCESS to health care. They talk a great line about tort reform and cost cutting (with penny ante foolishness like eliminating paperwork) but when it comes to making insurance coverage available to MORE people, they come up completely empty. This is now clear to the American people. The GOP has got nuthin’.

Now the House will pass the Senate bill and then any adjustments that need to be made will be done through reconciliation. Then come November, the Democrats will run on having gotten something DONE and they will show how the Republicans tried to get nothing done.

With that said …. Obama has given the Democrats the green light to get this thing finished. If the Dem’s fail now, they are toast and utterly, completely incompetent.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

Advertisements

197 thoughts on “Now the Democrats Have No Excuse

  1. When Eric Cantor put the bill on the table, Obama called it a prop. – Gorilla (from the previous thread)

    You guys have all the nuance of a brick.

    Obama called the huge stack of paper a prop and he was right. Cantor put it on the table to make some dumbass visual point. If you LISTENED to what Obama SAID, any legislation that Cantor wanted (if he was capable of writing legislation which is subject to doubt) would take up lots of paper. So the size of the bill doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. Cantor’s point was merely theatrical and not substantive.

    Obama did this again and again today … he showed the Republicans to be drama queens with nothing real to contribute. A beautiful thing to behold!

  2. I guarantee Obama doesn’t have the balls to impose the taxes this thing will need.

    Don’t you love it?

    The tax and pay for it part will be when he is long gone.

    What a coinky dink.

    No matters. Between blogs on Trig and Palin, Rutherford will tell us how courageous Obama is.

  3. Well, my friends, I’ll tell you what’s gonna happen. Today Barack Obama showed that the Republicans are not interested in increasing ACCESS to health care. They talk a great line about tort reform and cost cutting (with penny ante foolishness like eliminating paperwork) but when it comes to making insurance coverage available to MORE people, they come up completely empty. This is now clear to the American people. The GOP has got nuthin’.

    MAKE WAY FOR AN INCONVENIENT FACT! MAKE WAY FOR AN INCONVENIENT FACT!

    In that regard, Republicans have been prolific. Since the beginning of the year, they have introduced more than 35 health care reform bills. Many deal with small slices of the health care debate. For example, one, by Rep. Sam Johnson of Texas, would allow small businesses to band together to negotiate health care plans with providers. Another, by Rep. Darrell Issa of California, would allow nonfederal employees to enroll in the same health care plan that is currently enjoyed by members of Congress and federal employees.

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/sep/28/steny-hoyer/hoyer-claims-republicans-have-no-health-care-alter/

    And wouldn’t you know it, many of these bills don’t look to make government bigger. Huh.

  4. 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈 😈

    DID I CALL IT? DID I CALL IT? I’M A PROPHET!

    Rutherford blasts a cut and paste after being unable to dream up an excuse for the dog shit performance, where Bongo looked part peacock, part cock – an erect, tiny one.

    For once, the Republicans finally put on the jock strap, girded the loins, and spoke up like educated men. They grabbed the false prophet by the balls and squeezed like a vise. Chris Matthews didn’t feel the tingle up the leg today baby. Chrissie felt the trickle down the shoe after recognizing how stupid he now looked to all the world.

  5. I heard the false prophet say again today he’d rather be a “great” one term President than a mediocre two term President.

    Is Bongo planning on quitting (oh, please God) two years from now? This is what passes for genius in “r” circles.

  6. Been awhile since I actually tried to explain something to Rutherford in a civilized manner, because soon after Bongo starting dropping in the polls, the correlation of Rutherford shrillness rose.

    But if he is curious as to why his man and his party is starting to appear so poorly to the American public, I would think this CNN Poll would be an eye opener:

    http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/02/26/cnn-poll-majority-says-government-a-threat-to-citizens-rights/?fbid=TW4b0UDktv-

  7. If the Dem’s fail now, they are toast and utterly, completely incompetent.
    Well one can only hope your prediction comes true. I find it sad and funny at the same time that anybody puts stock in the belief that the Dems are all loving this.
    I think you have about 5-8 (D) senators and 30-35 (D)D House members who are praying every night that this thing dies. Those same numbers exist in the column of “How the f$%# do I explain reconciliation to my district/voters”?
    Bottomline the democrats have all ready lost all that’s left is the spin.

  8. Ooops forgot to say your post sucked. Now that is far harsher than I have ever been methinks and for that I apologize since I hardly hate you. I actually like you as much as one can expect to like an “e” person outside of the really creepy shit you read about,prisons,pedos etc.
    To say the GOP has nuthin’ is ignorant at best. A number of proposals have been put forth recently let alone over the past 20 years.In fact a number of proposals were put forth by Newt Gingrich and were lifted by Obama himself. I don’t pretend to champion those ideas as perfection but the thought that it’s a bunch of nothing is just wrong.
    Let me pause and assume you were utilizing literary license. Thats a tough one but I suppose if I give it a shot it could float.Of course under the same floatation rules one has to propose that you are spinning mindlessly out of fear and pain and loss.
    Well like one of your sides faves said once upon a time….“I feel your pain”

  9. Alfie, I am relieved to hear you don’t like me in the manner of a prison-pen-pal buddy. 😆

    Alfie I’ll ask you one of Chris Matthews’ favorite questions and one that really works for me.

    If the Republicans are so gung ho for health care reform, why is it that every time in the past 50 years that they’ve controlled the Oval office and Congress, they did nada, zilch, squat? They’ve had a chance many times. Where’s the reform?

  10. These wingnuts can’t even see through their own bullshit.

    The GOPhers got fucked on national TV. Republicans may not have even noticed how well they were being fucked until the end. After having offered them every opportunity to say they agree with him on something, all they offered was “Start over with a clean sheet of paper”.

    You guys tell us next time if you want some lube… mkay?

  11. Anal lube may be your thing, but I’m curious how you came to this delusional position.

    Lamar Alexander crushed you on the greedy insurance company bit.

    Paul Ryan dry fucked you on the gov even being able to meet its current obligations, let alone future ones. He then pulled a dirty Sanchez on your ass by exposing the faulty math you guys have been pulling.

    Your stomp on McCain may have been entertaining for you fringe twits, but EVERYONE I’ve been speaking to today- to include liberals- said that that exchange came across very poorly for Obama he looked petulant and exceedingly arrogant. And oh by the way, McCain was right about exposing the unfairness of the back room, bribery you have been employing.

    Reid was exposed, again, as the bald face liar that he is. Who’s brought up reconciliation? That asswhole did just this last weekend…

    So no, you got schooled, you looked like thugs, and you showed a complete lack of bipartisan willingness, which we all knew you weren’t interested in in the first place…

  12. Curator, of course you are right.

    My God was this summit a Rorschach test or what? The right wing sees their total public humiliation as some kind of triumph.

    It’s funny … talking about this summit with Tex, BiW, G and Rabbit is like going to see “Revenge of the Nerds” with them and they come out of the theater thinking the jocks emerged victorious. When clearly, if they’d been paying attention they’d realize that the dumb jocks got slaughtered and the nerds got laid. 😉

  13. And make no mistake, a lot of the reaction to the McCain “incident” is pure pity because the guy looked soooooo pathetic. Let’s understand this. They were not gathered there yesterday to discuss process. They were there to discuss policy. The fact that McCain went off the reservation is clear from his opening words, “I understand the four categories but …” In other words, I’m gonna say screw the agenda and whine about what I want to whine about. You were a lying candidate and I deserved to be President …. waaa waaaa waaaa. And Obama said, shut your mouth bitch, the election is over, I won and you’re in my meeting now muthafuc*a. Stay on the f*ckin’ agenda!

    It was a thing of beauty!

    BTW G, 70% of Republicans think big bad government is trampling on them. Among indies and dems the numbers aren’t nearly as bad.

  14. You’re right, 63% among indies is sooooo much better. Come on R, even 37% of Dems are scarred shitless of you guys, I’d stop kidding yourself…

  15. From G in the previous thread (and my response):

    This is what came out of the summit:
    #1- Obama is an arrogant ass
    Obama is an adult managing a bunch of children.
    #2- The GOP knew more about what was in his 2400 page bill than he did
    The GOP wanted a clean slate and repeated so again and again, demonstrating no willingness to find any goodness in the bill. The fact that they didn’t know their stuff was revealed in the very first battle between Alexander and Obama. Post-fact-checking proved Obama right, Alexander wrong.
    #3- The argument of greedy insurance companies was completely destroyed
    Nonsense. Destroyed in what way?
    #4- The GOP brought alternatives and Obama and the Dems showed that they are not interested in other ideas
    The GOP brought “clean slate, step by step, start over”. That’s not “other ideas”.
    #5- The Dems, to include Obama, are bald face liars
    The only “lie” was the double talk of Harry Reid regarding reconciliation..

  16. This is every health care poll this year. All but two (one a tie) are against Obama and the Dems health care plan. How can you delude yourself in thinking that the people are behind you?

    RCP Average 2/2 – 2/23 — 40.3 51.3 Against/Oppose +11.0
    USA Today/Gallup 2/23 – 2/23 1009 A 42 49 Against/Oppose +7
    Rasmussen Reports 2/21 – 2/22 1000 LV 41 56 Against/Oppose +15
    POS (R) 2/17 – 2/18 900 RV 40 52 Against/Oppose +12
    Newsweek 2/17 – 2/18 1009 A 40 49 Against/Oppose +9
    Rasmussen Reports 2/9 – 2/10 1000 LV 39 58 Against/Oppose +19
    Pew Research 2/3 – 2/9 1383 A 38 50 Against/Oppose +12
    ABC News/Wash Post 2/4 – 2/8 1004 A 46 49 Against/Oppose +3
    Quinnipiac 2/2 – 2/8 2617 RV 35 54 Against/Oppose +19
    Ipsos/McClatchy 1/28 – 1/31 1127 A 37 51 Against/Oppose +14
    NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/23 – 1/25 800 A 31 46 Against/Oppose +15
    CNN/Opinion Research 1/22 – 1/24 1009 A 38 58 Against/Oppose +20
    NPR – POS/GQR 1/20 – 1/23 800 LV 39 55 Against/Oppose +16
    USA Today/Gallup 1/20 – 1/20 1010 A 39 55 Against/Oppose +16
    Rasmussen Reports 1/20 – 1/21 1000 LV 40 58 Against/Oppose +18
    Rasmussen Reports 1/16 – 1/17 1000 LV 38 56 Against/Oppose +18
    Associated Press-GfK 1/12 – 1/17 1008 A 42 42 Tie
    ABC News/Wash Post 1/12 – 1/15 1083 A 44 51 Against/Oppose +7
    NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 1/10 – 1/14 1002 A 33 46 Against/Oppose +13
    FOX News 1/12 – 1/13 900 RV 39 51 Against/Oppose +12
    Quinnipiac 1/5 – 1/11 1767 RV 34 54 Against/Oppose +20
    CNN/Opinion Research 1/8 – 1/10 1021 A 40 57 Against/Oppose +17
    Gallup 1/8 – 1/10 1023 A 49 46 For/Favor +3
    Pew Research 1/6 – 1/10 1504 A 39 48 Against/Oppose +9
    Rasmussen Reports 1/8 – 1/9 1000 LV 40 55 Against/Oppose +15
    National Journal/FD 1/3 – 1/7 1200 A 44 46 Against/Oppose +2
    Rasmussen Reports 1/3 – 1/3 1000 LV 42 52 Against/Oppose +10

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html#polls

  17. I wonder…

    Do the GOPhers have any idea at all of how idiotic they sound when Frank Luntz gives them phrases to use in their speeches and every one of them uses those same three or four phrases in the same meeting?

    When they all mindlessly parrot them in the same meeting, one talking point, one audience, a dozen or more speakers, they sound like total idiots.

    “A clean sheet of paper, start over, step by step…”

    And just to make themselves sound even dumber, most GOPhers are reading from a sheet of paper, and half are stumbling over the rehearsed and written words. You had it prepared for you, you have it on a piece of paper in front of you, presumably you’ve had a chance to look at it before the meeting, and you can’t even read the damned thing without tripping over your tongue.

  18. Curator,

    Want to place a bet right now about a November landslide, where your insipid opinions don’t count for much?

    Plus or minus on how bad you clowns get your asses kicked? Rutherford is too much of a pussy.

  19. What freaking planet are you on that the repubs got punked?
    Refresh my memory other than a brief time under W,when they were trying to privatize SS and getting blocked by the Dems,and then dealing with a war, when did the republicans hold BOTH the Congress and Oval?

  20. Tell me something boys, and tell the truth now, how many of you actually watched the summit and how much did you watch? Now I realize most of you have job demands that my underemployment does not match, hence you have a good excuse to not be able to watch it.

    For the record, I watched all 7 hours. I missed about 10 minutes when MSNBC broke in with commentary and I combined a switch to CSPAN and a bathroom break. So I saw every lame ass move as it happened. I’m not repeating the spin I heard on cable after the fact or relying on a couple of YouTube vids.

    So take my word for it, your boys were pathetic. The Dems will get their house in order. The bill will pass. The country will find out that the world did not come to an end. And the GOP will look like the losers they are come November.

    P.S. Tex, believe me, if i did not have such an aversion to gambling I’d give a very healthy wager on November’s results. Again, contingent on this bill passing. If HCR dies, then as I said, the Dems are toast.

  21. Alfie I misspoke and overstated my case. Controlling congress and the Oval is irrelevant because a Dem President would be for health care reform, I should have limited my comment to Congress.

    So let me restate my question.

    Republicans controlled both houses from 1995 to 2007 with the exception of the Senate in 2001 [ 1 ]

    What did they do for HCR in those 12 years? Nada, zero, zilch.

  22. Oh Tex …. I hear that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are doing a joint appearance in Tulsa OK in March. You wanna be my man in the field? Attend the event, write an article about it, and I’ll publish it here on the blog. 😀

  23. So take my word for it, your boys were pathetic. The Dems will get their house in order. The bill will pass. The country will find out that the world did not come to an end. And the GOP will look like the losers they are come November.

    P.S. Tex, believe me, if i did not have such an aversion to gambling I’d give a very healthy wager on November’s results. Again, contingent on this bill passing. If HCR dies, then as I said, the Dems are toast.

    Spin Rutherford, spin. Deepthroat that Bongo dick. All of your buddies got their asses to him. Bongo came across as a clueless megalomaniac. Jig is up with approval ratings now at 44%. Even your buddy Gergen of MSNBC fame said as much. Pass all you want. The more you do, the blacker the toast gets come November and we’ll revoke everything Bongo passes and impeach his ass for crimes against humanity. Frog march that worthless asshole out of the Whitehouse.

    Aversion to bets my ass. You got no balls Rutherford. Read this MOFO and weep. A nice summarization of the pending ass kickings.

    http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/gop-on-track-to-win-the-senate/

  24. Oh Tex …. I hear that Sarah Palin and Glenn Beck are doing a joint appearance in Tulsa OK in March. You wanna be my man in the field? Attend the event, write an article about it, and I’ll publish it here on the blog.

    Sold out…the overwhelming popularity of Palin wins out again over the Rutherford obsession. You got to remember, Bongo is as popular as the bubonic plague here. I may get an autograph for Rutherford Lawson with a big “KISS MY BEAUTIFUL WHITE ASS” on a napkin and send it to you after the election. 😈

  25. Even with a loaded deck, 70% of the speaking time, and Blammo moderating like a cheating official, even the Dim shills are admitting defeat. Rutherford’s down to playing Baghdad Bob now. This is the same bunch of folks that help get FrogMarch elected:

    http://centristnetblog.com/daily-news/cnn-dems-got-116-minutes-gop-55-minutes-cnns-gergen-on-gop-best-day-theyve-had-in-years/

    Damn Rutherford, and I though you an honest man at one time. You’re worse than Chen. He had the sense to bail once asked to perform. He’s hiding someplace at the used car dealership.

    Maybe you need a break.

  26. All I can say is Chen has indeed proved himself to be a traitor and a punk. Never did I think I would outlast him. I don’t think any of it mattered to him in the first place …. just sport … election as fantasy football. 😦

  27. One blog wasn’t enough, so now we spar on the three at the same time. I kind of like this…

    “r”,

    We aren’t ever going to see eye to eye on anything of importance. You do realize that, don’t you?

    Now I don’t blame you for hating my guts, as I enjoy it that way, but Hippie going on about his “concerns” with the war of words is so pretentious in nature to be hateful. 😆

    Pravda, racist, redneck, and treason. And that is only this morning. Can you imagine what I can do in three years? I’ll have you guys searching for anthrax to mail to old Tex. 🙂

  28. LOL well you know full well I don’t hate you. Back in the Chamber I never thought I’d like you as I don’t typically like mindless bullies but when you lowered yourself to visit here you exceeded my expectations of both intellect and compassion. So now I sorta like you, even with your narrow politics. 😉

    As for Hippie, he is a much kinder gentler version of me. I’ve paid way too many dues not to come up the bastard now and then. Maybe life has been kinder to him or he turns the other cheek better. He is Catholic after all. 😉

  29. R, my response to yout post…

    A fellow blogger, who I frequent regularly, had this to say about the recent Health Care summit between the One and the half’s and the Republicans. This was initial reaction to the summit:

    Today Barack Obama showed that the Republicans are not interested in increasing ACCESS to health care. They talk a great line about tort reform and cost cutting (with penny ante foolishness like eliminating paperwork) but when it comes to making insurance coverage available to MORE people, they come up completely empty. This is now clear to the American people. The GOP has got nuthin’.

    Now, Rutherford is the epitome of liberal and I am by now use to his hyperbole, but I couldn’t help at wonder how he could have possibly come to this conclusion…

    http://an800lbgorilla.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/time-to-pay-the-reaper/

  30. Oh yes G, I’m subscribed to your blog and just saw the post come in. I’m flattered. LOL

    I’ll be commenting there sometime this weekend. Right now I’m preparing for the “radio” show.

  31. “All I can say is Chen has indeed proved himself to be a traitor and a punk. OK … traitor may be going a bit far. I stand by punk.”-R

    Strange….I winced at the “punk” remark. Traitor I can take. The word “punk” and “chump” are fightin’ words.

  32. Rutherford, Rutherford, Rutherford….

    4 months ago you told us all

    Finally I am not sure that if reconciliation cannot get us option 1 (the only real option for availability and affordability) that it is worth it to go that route. To run an endgame around the system to get a sad compromise just increases the polarization in our government for no good reason, not to mention the fact that all these options don’t kick in for years to come.

    4 months ago you were against using “an endgame around the system” just to reach a “sad compromise” for a bill that wasn’t going to potentially yield anything positive for years.

    In fact, you were for a stripped-down version of a bill.

    I say if we don’t have the votes for option 1, then let’s strip out all of the affordability/availability legislation and draft a bill that simply regulates the insurance industry to stop abuses.

    I don’t see anything about ACCESS in that statement.

    Of course, “abuses” is a nice blanket term that really says nothing, but that you can say includes…well…anything. (And you say Republicans have no ideas)

    Yet, this is your potion today…

    Now the House will pass the Senate bill and then any adjustments that need to be made will be done through reconciliation. Then come November, the Democrats will run on having gotten something DONE and they will show how the Republicans tried to get nothing done.

    Isn’t doing whatever you can just to get something done the same thing as a “sad compromise”?

    The only thing that is different between now and 4 months ago is that now it is obvious that democrats are going to ram this through with reconciliation, regardless of what a majority of the American people seem to want.

    And now that it is obvious, here you are enthusiastically jumping on board with both feet.

  33. LOL Rabbit, you may have a point although I chose punk to suggest Chen’s relative youth. I’m not sure how old he is but I don’t think he’s that far out of college. I could be wrong.

    Depending on the neighborhood, there’s no telling what word might get you seriously jacked up. Thanks for the warning. I will never call anyone punk or chump next time I’m in Detroit. 🙂

  34. Depending on the neighborhood, there’s no telling what word might get you seriously jacked up. Thanks for the warning. I will never call anyone punk or chump next time I’m in Detroit.

    Rutherford in Detroit.
    *pauses to consider this image, smiles slightly*

    R, Detroit would chew you up and spit you out in little pieces.

  35. lol..Detroit would chew and spit out the Rabbit too.

    At least Detroit would be painless for Rutherford and his vernacular. The bullet simply ending it.

    Now the Rabbit’s old “hood”, a different story. “Punk” is a fist-a-cuffs word at the corner of Middllebelt and Cherryhill.

  36. There is a deep moral divide between the left & right. Shows blatantly & painfully in #HCR debate.

    Saw this on RL’s twit feed on the right sidebar.

    There is such irony in R, who rejects the source that informs morals complaining about a divide.

    Any chance you’d like to actually debate this, or do you prefer to prattle on with uninformed opinions that feed your house-sized sense of superiority?

  37. I think I might be banned from the radio-show. I called up with a rather unfocused comment on health-care and ended up talking about Rutherford’s nutsack and Sandi’s cold hearted treatment of the hermaphrodite population in America. I was promptly cut off.

  38. Actually Rabbit … I thought you were cut off in the most polite manner imaginable. I even said “see ya next week” inviting further abuse. 🙂

    LOL the testicles didn’t bother me but the hermaphrodite smack was entirely unnecessary. As you may have noticed, you were a major hit in the chat room.

  39. There is such irony in R, who rejects the source that informs morals complaining about a divide.

    Ah yes, the old “can’t have morals without religion” argument.

    BiW I have to pinch myself on almost a daily basis to remind myself you’re an attorney. Someone who has received one of the most disciplined educations imaginable believing that there is an unbreakable link between morality and belief in a higher power. Boggles the friggin’ mind!

  40. I didn’t call Sandi a hermaphrodite. I was referencing the time she made the statement that they don’t exist.

  41. Someone who has received one of the most disciplined educations imaginable believing that there is an unbreakable link between morality and belief in a higher power. Boggles the friggin’ mind!

    What really boggles the friggin’ is somebody such as yourself, who obviously has made some horrifically dumb personal decisions on something as simple as “how much does it cost”, would think themselves qualified to determine what is moral. To me, your statement is a sign of incredible stupidity, where you actually condemn yourself as guilty as charged.

  42. Have no fear Rutherford. You keep good company. From your defense of the indefensible, to your position of Obama’s overwhelming victories, if I would now use one word to describe you and Obama, Hippie, and Curator, Densi, and all the rest of the progressive socialists, it would be “DENIAL”.

    Here’s my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country: the same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office.

    People are angry and they are frustrated. Not just because of what’s happened in the last year or two years, but what’s happened over the last eight years.

    Like several people have pointed out, “Obama would have us to believe that the voters in Massachusetts elected someone running as a Republican because they were angry at the “last eight years” of Republican rule.”

    Uh huh.

  43. Ah yes, the old “can’t have morals without religion” argument.

    BiW I have to pinch myself on almost a daily basis to remind myself you’re an attorney. Someone who has received one of the most disciplined educations imaginable believing that there is an unbreakable link between morality and belief in a higher power. Boggles the friggin’ mind

    Actually, it was that “most disciplined education imaginable” that brought me to the conclusion that you scoff at. I wonder if you can recognize the philosophical quicksand that you’re struggling in.

    This will be fun.

  44. Rabbit, yes I knew why you brought up hermaphrodites but I’m quite sure my audience didn’t and I’m not even sure Sandi remembered her comment to which you were referring.

    Tex let me see if I understand this. A financial mistake, i.e. buying too much house makes me immoral? Please elaborate. (By the way by most peoples reckoning I did nothing wrong as I had a job that allowed me to comfortably pay my mortgage. In light of losing that job I personally feel I overextended but there are folks who have told me I am too hard on myself.)

    BiW to say that the religious have a monopoly on morality is the height of arrogance.

  45. BiW to say that the religious have a monopoly on morality is the height of arrogance.

    I might be swayed by that argument if our law and history didn’t invalidate it.

    R, I’ve challenged you on this. I hear you protesting too much, but I don’t hear you stepping to the podium to make your case. If you’re going to throw an insult, you should be prepared to back it. I am. Are you? Because, otherwise, your moral authority, and the moral authority HP claims with regard to the Health Care Takeover of 2010™ is nothing but hollow words.

    Let me make this easy for you. From the Webster’s Encyclopeadic Dictionary of the English Language:

    Moral:
    –adjective
    1.of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
    2.expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work; moralizing: a moral novel.
    3.founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
    4.capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.
    5.conforming to the rules of right conduct (opposed to immoral): a moral man.
    6.virtuous in sexual matters; chaste.
    7.of, pertaining to, or acting on the mind, feelings, will, or character: moral support.
    8.resting upon convincing grounds of probability; virtual: a moral certainty.
    –noun
    9.the moral teaching or practical lesson contained in a fable, tale, experience, etc.
    10.the embodiment or type of something.
    11.morals, principles or habits with respect to right or wrong conduct.

    This being the case, your assertion of a “moral divide” on this issue necessarily implies three fundamental questions:

    1) What is the source of what you deem to be “right”, R?

    2) What makes it so obvious and recognizable that there is something wrong with “the right” in this country demonstrated by their inability to recognize the superiority of the left’s “moral” stance on this issue?

    3) Is your morality fluid or static?

    Really, none of these questions should be difficult for someone with moral convictions deep enough to make the statement to argue in favor of with some degree of pursuasion and support.

  46. 1) What is the source of what you deem to be “right”, R?
    A set of values taught to me by my parents who were not religious. The concept of “do unto others as you would have done unto you” is a logical concept of empathy with no necessary religious underpinning.

    2) What makes it so obvious and recognizable that there is something wrong with “the right” in this country demonstrated by their inability to recognize the superiority of the left’s “moral” stance on this issue?
    The right does have moral ground to stand on. For example, if it is true that HCR dumps a load of debt on our children and grandchildren a moral case can be made not to do that. The CBO says such a debt will not result. So we are left with another moral argument of why the richest country on the Earth ranks 37th in health care outcomes and countries who rank better also provide some form of universal or near universal health care.

    3) Is your morality fluid or static?
    My positions are fluid based on changing facts and influences but they are always guided by static moral imperatives.

  47. Tex let me see if I understand this. A financial mistake, i.e. buying too much house makes me immoral?

    No, that makes you dumb. 😆

    To think you can establish a sense of morality by your own conclusions and principles makes you not only incredibly haughy but immoral. You are not qualified to determine good and bad

    I like how one of my heroes put it:

    “As an atheist my argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. The atheist must make his painful choice: Either he loses the basis for his argument against God from evil, or he must admit there is an objective moral law which leads to a Moral Law Giver.”

    – C.S. Lewis

    And for some reason Rutherford, you fail to understand this concept.

  48. Strictly speaking the CBO HAS NOT analyzed Obamas plan. Its director in fact has cautioned the thinking that one can simply lateral any stats from previous plans.
    Also of note that has always been lost in the budget friendliness of the CBO pro HCR reports. When you look closer you see they confess to the damages of the raping of Medicare and the higher costs of Medicare debt compared to any possible savings of HCR. It works out to something like 360 Billion bad to 130-180 on the plus side.
    That plus side is highly unlikely since it cannot forecast the effects that may or may not occur on the greater economy. The 360 though is pretty clear cut and quite possibly so regardless of any HCR measures (and Medicare rape) getting off the ground.

  49. 1) What is the source of what you deem to be “right”, R?

    A set of values taught to me by my parents who were not religious. The concept of “do unto others as you would have done unto you” is a logical concept of empathy with no necessary religious underpinning.

    While the Golden Rule can be great for helping Bobby to figure out that he shouldn’t be pulling on Susie’s hair, or helping Jimmy to understand why he shouldn’t push Billy and Fred on the playground, it doesn’t always translate well into other things. If I took your stance on Health Care and used your support, I am essentially saying that because I want someone else to bear at least part of the costs of my care and I want government to decide for me what care I can have, the government can and should take over health care.

    Putting this inconvenient characterization aside, you maintain that your parents taught you a set of values. How did they decide what is right and wrong? Who taught them?

    2) What makes it so obvious and recognizable that there is something wrong with “the right” in this country demonstrated by their inability to recognize the superiority of the left’s “moral” stance on this issue?

    The right does have moral ground to stand on.

    How nice of you to acknowledge this fact
    .
    For example, if it is true that HCR dumps a load of debt on our children and grandchildren a moral case can be made not to do that. The CBO says such a debt will not result. So we are left with another moral argument of why the richest country on the Earth ranks 37th in health care outcomes and countries who rank better also provide some form of universal or near universal health care.
    I see. So other nations, whom we do not share a common history, or common goals and ideals as reflected in law are now to determine what is right for us? Really? The Soviets, who were rivals for 50 or so years imprisoned and enslaved citizens who disagreed with the government, while providing universal health care. Should we let such decisions inform our morality also? Some other nations do not believe in private property, and do not allow their citizens the freedom of association with others who share their personal beliefs. Should we look to these examples to inform our morality as well?

    3) Is your morality fluid or static?

    My positions are fluid based on changing facts and influences but they are always guided by static moral imperatives.

    Morality, ultimately is based on truth. This truth is the basis for right and wrong. You propose that right and wrong depend not on the truth, but ultimately upon the circumstances.

  50. You are not qualified to determine good and bad … And for some reason Rutherford, you fail to understand this concept.

    The concept is nonsense which is why I don’t need to understand it. I am not qualified to define good and bad for you, I am eminently qualified to define good and bad for me.

    Yes, I define a line crooked because I know what a straight line looks like. I know that straight lines and crooked lines exist and I don’t need to believe in a “line-maker” to understand these two different kinds of lines,

    Similarly, of course in the absence of evil how can we have a concept of good? I agree. Goodness exists on a continuum where evil is at the other end. But unlike the case of straight lines, whoever said this definition of good and evil was objective? It clearly is not. Therefore there need be no “moral law giver” based on some objective definition of good and evil.

    By the way, even though I have thought this on my more immature days, to deny God because evil exists is really kind of silly. So Lewis misses the point at least where I am concerned. I don’t deny God because evil exists. I doubt the existence of God because it makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever and the evidence for His existence is unconvincing.

    Getting back to morality for a moment, let me tell you why I find your frame of reference so disturbing. You base your morality not on what you know to be right and wrong but based on what some invisible entity in the sky has told you through His human messengers. What happens when the human messengers decide they got the signal wrong and tell you to start killing Jews tomorrow? They speak the word of God. Do you obey?

    The only thing that separates you from a typical cult member is that your cult is centuries old with a track record for relative sanity. Jim Jones’ followers thought he had a handle on The Word. Didn’t work out too well for them.

    Here’s the latest thing to roll down the pike. Who are you to say these true believers are nutty?

    http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/32307195/the_yoga_cult

  51. Rutherford,

    I don’t deny God because evil exists. I doubt the existence of God because it makes absolutely no scientific sense whatsoever and the evidence for His existence is unconvincing.

    Of all the fools I have met on the internet and shared stories, without doubt the biggest ones are those that mock the existence of God.

    I’m afraid your time might be drawing short to take that last breath. You might want to give consideration to taking time off from the blog and getting your head squared away.

    What you are about to face will be infinitely more important that what you write about on your blog, health care, or even who wins the next election. 😉

  52. You know all you good Christians who have eaten shrimp or lobster are going to hell.

    You know… cause it’s the word of God an all.

    Just saying…

    The Bible is very black and white about it, so you know, sorry about that. In Leviticus it says, “all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.”

    I recommend SPF 100.

  53. Wally,

    I’d hate to have my son in Afghanistan without hope. You provide none. I find it ironic that the two people that frequent this blog who risk the most, one in poor health, the other with a loved on whose life on the line (assuming you were telling the truth which is a big if), are the ones most willing to let their poor choice in politics dictate what is most important.

    That makes you Curator the biggest of fools….sure hope your son is smarter than you.

    And as far as your old, tired rhetoric of Leviticus, you really ought to direct that to the Jews, most of them Liberal and like you cheating for Obama – the ones you run with, being that they still are living under the law like you.

    SPF 100 won’t cut it…

  54. Curator you may want to familiarize yourself with the concept of Christianity and New Covenant. You can pretty much show up at the pearly gates with a shrimp cocktail in one hand and a lobster roll hanging from your chops.

    I’m actually gonna throw Rutherford a bone here. Even an atheist can have a quality take on right and wrong. I find it annoying when so called humanists wrap up good deeds etc. in Hallmark concepts forgetting where they really came from but it doesn’t mean they are not committed to doing,or at least trying to do the right thing.

  55. Alfie thank you for considering that a non-believer might be able to tell right from wrong. That’s a start in the right direction.

    Tex, in comments you just made to me and Curator a consistent theme arises that you’ve brought up before. Now, I have to say that this theme probably represents you at your most compassionate and sincere so I will criticize it as gently as possible.

    I get the feeling that a large component of your faith involves fear of death. You’ve made frequent references to my impending deadline (pardon the pun) and how I must prepare, I assume, my soul for that eventuality.

    So I ask you in all seriousness, what is more important about religion for you, how to live in the here and now or preparation for the hereafter?

    Oh, and to both Alfie and Tex, this Old Testament/New Testament thing kind of reminds me of the Mecca/Medina Koran argument. When talking about Muslims, we conveniently throw out the more peaceful Mecca portions of the Koran in favor of the more violent and radical Medina portions. In your Christian arguments you like to conveniently toss aside the God-as-Mofo Old Testament in favor of the New despite the fact that one would not exist without the other.

  56. “…old, tired rhetoric of Leviticus”

    Let me know when you guys say in public that Tiger Woods should be put to death.

    Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

    Or is Deuteronomy too “old school” and irrelevant for you?

  57. Curator you’re just insane this morning. Again see my previous tip to you.

    Rutherford. First Islam makes it a point that there is supposedly the concept of abrogation (?) or something that basically says updates supercede previous edicts. I’m not a Muslim and don’t play one on the web so I don’t know for them. I do know that I personally do not support the concept that any given verse of the Quran is the end all kind of ting. I am also universally ambivalent to locality regards the Quran. Islamic Ages mean nothing to me. I think the Five Pillars are the better way to engage and interact with Muslims.
    Although Christians are not without regard for the Old Testament it has to be said that the Gospels and the NT offers the clearest teachings for CHRISTIANS. This is where I’ll possibly defer from others here but hang on here goes.
    Although I believe in the Trinity the fact of the matter is that I am personally first and foremost a follower of Jesus Christ. I believe he serves as the bridge between the chasm of mortal life and damnation. He is the way (the light etc.) Can’t get there without Him.
    I do not fast (Lent) or bow to idols (Mary etc.) and although circumcised (had no say in the matter) don’t follow the Law.
    Now you may ask, does that mean you don’t follow the Big Ten?
    Well yes and no. As a NC/NT kind of guy I believe Jesus gave me commandments for dummies and said:

    36″Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37Jesus replied: ” ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’38This is the first and greatest commandment. 39And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’40All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” M 22:36-40

    As for your assertion that OT God is a MoFo. Ummm I’m not feeling you there chief. Sure it would’ve sucked to be Job,or to live in S or G and that enemies of Israel didn’t fare well. I think you take these stories and the other fire and brimstone ones of OT fame out of context. I don’t think a person without faith can truly ponder these honestly. Sorry I don’t see why or where I’d engage you on this.

  58. So I ask you in all seriousness, what is more important about religion for you, how to live in the here and now or preparation for the hereafter? I know you didn’t address this to me but I just gotta.
    The two are not exclusive of one another.

  59. Rutherford,

    I get the feeling that a large component of your faith involves fear of death. You’ve made frequent references to my impending deadline (pardon the pun) and how I must prepare, I assume, my soul for that eventuality.

    Do you know what and where the BIble says wisdom starts Rutherford? I’ll let you figure it out.

    Do I fear death? Sure…the physical aspects of it. We all do, otherwise we wouldn’t have a built in survival mechanism. The fact you deny this makes you a liar or clinically insane. You’re not that brave. I grant your struggle may have provided a measure that prepares you for death that I have not, but when you take that last breath, your bravado will vanish like mine.

    But a larger aspect of of fear is facing the fact I am completely convinced this is not all there is. To face a Creator of heaven and earth, and have no fear, if for no other reason awe and majesty? It’s a combination of fear, respect and the realization I have absolutely no concept of eternity.

    Believe as you must Rutherford. I won’t try and convince you.

  60. Wally,

    Let me know when you guys say in public that Tiger Woods should be put to death.

    Kill anyone with a different religion. (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

    Or is Deuteronomy too “old school” and irrelevant for you?

    I didn’t recognize Tiger had claimed Judaism, was living amongst Jews, or had been removed from 400 years of bondage and captivity recently. However, I will admit it is harsh. Makes me real glad for Jesus to fulfill the law.

    Of course, you cherry pick verse to support your passages, so maybe you can explain the following to me. From the 2nd Law again:

    Deuteronomy 30:19-20

    This day I call heaven and earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the LORD is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    Actually, when I talk to you Wally, I like to refer back to the New Testament and see what is in store. I believe that this paints a beautiful picture of you Wally:

    2nd Peter 2:1-3

    But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them, bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

  61. In your Christian arguments you like to conveniently toss aside the God-as-Mofo Old Testament in favor of the New despite the fact that one would not exist without the other.

    Nope, I never toss aside the Old Testament, because without it, the New Testament would be meaningless. Though you couldn’t be more wrong about an unmerciful God from the Old Testament as the pages littered with mercy, no doubt the God of the Old Testament is terrifying.

    But without intending to do so Rutherford, you have spoken truth. You are correct that without the Old Testament and its Laws, the New Testament would have been incomplete, being the New Testament is a fulfillment of the testament from the Old.

    Sorry, I’m still laughing at Wally’s insinuation that Tiger Jewish. Wally actually is worse than you Rutherford. You are simply a scoffer and garden variety unbeliever – Wally the mocker of it. And if I thought Jesus needed my help, I might get angry at the mockery. But when your opponent is spiting himself, there is no need for intervention of any human sort other than my own admission of washing my hands of it.

  62. Oh Tex, you misunderstand me greatly. I’m scared to death of dying (LOL). But the way I look at it, believing or not believing, doubting or not doubting does not change the facts. If there is an awe inspiring creator for me to meet at the end, it will happen and I assure you I’ll be in awe. And I’ll be the first to say, “you know, I didn’t see how You could exist but hey, I was only human.”

    As for a concept of eternity …. I’m glad to hear you can’t conceive of it. Neither can I.

    Lest you think me completely unimaginative, I do sometimes think there must be something beyond this. Life, even with an understanding of biology is truly awe inspiring. If a mind can imagine an organism as complex as ours then why can’t a mind imagine a heaven of some type? I just don’t choose to build a life around that imagining. If it happens, it happens.

  63. Tex, I think you misunderstood “Wally”. Tiger is a Buddhist hence the quote from Deuteronomy that Curator cited would apply to Tiger. He must die because he is of another religion.

  64. Rutherford,

    If I didn’t have some concern for you, if I really found you completely grotesque in your nature, I wouldn’t bother even correcting you. I told you my story of the associate Mike. It bothered me that I never took the time to reason with him.

    I’m just wondering if you ever think for one moment the answer that you will receive when you say, “I was just human.” I am pretty sure of the answer you will receive in return because though Jesus was more than human, he was still fully man, What if you hear something like this?

    For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.

    Though I can not speak for God, I can certainly read from God. And this is the answer Paul provided to those of your nature. I must therefore believe you will be provided with an answer similar in nature. And if I am right, that should terrify you.

    Understand my purpose is not to scare you. Really, it is not because I have not found that an effective witness. However, you are bright enough that I would think you would want to hear the truth too.

    So all that I am asking as a friend, is for you to make the attempt to understand where I come to my results. And only you can do that for yourself. It certainly would make you a more effective debater. I am challenging you to get informed. And then, if you can honestly come to the same conclusions you do now, I am willing to leave it at that.

    I”m not willing to let you die in ignorance without at least making the attempt to have you reconsider your positions in something more important that politics. That has no lasting personal consequence. This does.

  65. ah yes, I can name a few people who ignored 2nd Peter:

    Jerry Falwell
    Jim Baker
    Oral Roberts
    Pat Robertson

    At times, I am sure you are right. I could add another to the list:

    Tex Taylor

    But I don’t want to die that way either.

  66. In your Christian arguments you like to conveniently toss aside the God-as-Mofo Old Testament in favor of the New despite the fact that one would not exist without the other.

    I’m trying very hard to understand if this signifies an inablility to read, or a failure to comprend what you do read.

  67. “r”,

    Tex, I think you misunderstood “Wally”. Tiger is a Buddhist hence the quote from Deuteronomy that Curator cited would apply to Tiger. He must die because he is of another religion.

    I could see where you and Wally would come to this conclusion if that were all you read and all you knew – or if you were conveniently cherry picking verse to pervert the intent like Wally is so famous for doing. But this is where your lack of historical context is your undoing.

    You do understand that during this time, the Jews were living and wondering in the Sinai Desert, with Jews indoctrinated in 400 years of pagan worship? Does it not occur to you that the Jews at that moment were actually in the physical presence of God in the form of the Shekina Glory? This was before even the formations of the Holy Temple.

    For example:

    Exod 40:34-35 Then the cloud covered the tabernacle of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tabernacle of meeting, because the cloud rested above it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.

    To throw further fuel on the fire, if that sleighs you consider God had wiped many Jews from the surface of the earth too for their own egregious sins in His Own physical presence. Terrifying stuff in the fact that God did rule with a rod of iron, no doubt. Time and space don’t permit me to fully explain but I think you need to understand the historical context here to fully appreciate the lessons that God was instructing to His chosen people. This is actually the start of what we know today as Judeo-Christian worship; the very foundations of Christianity and Judaism.

    Moses himself had been condemned to never experience the promise land because of his own disobedience. Now I find that unfair because of Moses own sacrifice. But Moses eventually didn’t and I wasn’t there either. I fully admit that without further understanding, all of it seems brutal.

    But if you read the entire story from last few chapter of Genesis thru Deuteronomy, with Joshua and Judges thrown in you would have a much clearer understanding of why it necessary, though none of us can fully appreciate the methods. God, as seems to be His nature, never seems to make it easy because I think that is part of our instruction. While he provides the means, we are required to do our part. I can not answer why, and if I didn’t have the completion of the story, might find it completely unfair and unfounded like you do – in fact, inhumane.

    But you and Wally also aren’t taking into account the miracle of the entire episode; of what had transpired over a 40 year period clearly prophesied in Genesis – including the exact number of years the Jews would be in bondage. I think to fully appreciate what seems at first to be inhumane, that brokenness just like today, is the only thing answer.

  68. OK, just so we’re on the same page, you’re saying that the Deuteronomy quote that Curator admittedly cherry-picked was a reference to errant Jews in particular and not to people of other religions?

  69. Woods is Hindu and the old testament said “Kill anyone with a different religion”. Should Tiger Woods be put to death for practicing a different religion? Where in the world do I infer that he is Jewish?

  70. I’m saying you Wally, are inferring that Tiger is living amongst the Jews wandering the Sinai wilderness, calling themselves a Jew and practicing whatever form of pagan religion you must practice currently.

    If this is applicable Jewish law as you believe Wally, why don’t you ask the Conservative and Orthodox Jews, most who are lib like you, that still practice their faith why aren’t they out snuffing anybody not calling themselves Jewish? Why ask me?

    P.S. – You can’t even get Woods practice correct. Try the tenets of Buddhism. I heard no mention at his mea culpa of anything Hindu.

  71. Its Buddhist.
    It is also misinterpreted at best. The passage is a warning to JEWS about turning to idolatry hence the amongst you. YOU being important.

  72. prophesied in Genesis???

    …mmmmkay let’s have some fun.

    Please teach me your creation science so I can feel enlightened.

    On the first day, God created light.  No problem there, right?  I wonder why God didn’t create any sources of light (Sun) until the forth day.  So did he only invent the concept of  light on the first day, but no light was around until the forth day?  We know the sun was created on the forth day… but plants were created on the third day.  We know plants require sunlight to live, so why did God make these things in this backwards order if he is so intelligent?  Now if we take the literal time frame, and a day in creation as being a 24 hour period, the plant thing isn’t a real problem… plants can survive 24 hours.  But then the whole creation story loses credibility… who really believes the universe was created in less than a week?  Not even most creationist believe this one.  That is why many people say that a day in the creation was 1,000 to 7,000 years (depending on who you ask).  Name a plant that can live 7,000 years with no sunlight.

  73. OK, just so we’re on the same page, you’re saying that the Deuteronomy quote that Curator admittedly cherry-picked was a reference to errant Jews in particular and not to people of other religions?

    Talk about a strict Biblical interpretation. LOL.

  74. I wonder since evidently the Deuteronomy quote only applies to Jews wandering the Sinai wilderness, what else from the Bible can we conveniently ignore?

  75. Curator, curious why you bring up strict Biblical interpretation. One of the things about the Bible is that the stories have real historical truth behind them. The people that the OT is aimed at were in fact Jews and not in the one dimensional religion way but also the state / nationality way.
    All three of the Abrahamic religions have real historical context that supports their teachings.

  76. Curator, you are falling into a trap from which there is no escape. The trump card in any religion is:

    FAITH

    You cannot make a scientific argument about the Bible because believers (or at least hard core creationists) do not abide by the laws of science. You’re talking apples and oranges.

    Now to hard-core (and often rude) atheists like Bill Maher and Christopher Hitchens this reliance on faith to explain alternatives to science makes these folks plain old lunatics. Folks who should be fitted for a nice white vest and placed in a rubber room. While such assessments make me chuckle I try not to go there because I know faith resides in the heart, not in the head. So if I dismiss these folks as loony tunes, I am striking at their heart which on my better days seems too cruel,

    Now, with that said, how dare creationists laugh at Scientologists or any other sect and claim that they are nutty? When that happens, then I do go off the deep end because the arrogance really pisses me off.

  77. Rutherford,

    What I’m saying is our Powerpoint programmer of ill repute has no idea of the context the laws were written. If he can’t get Tiger’s practice of faith right from last week, how would I expect him to know the historical context of the Torah from 3,400 years past? I guarantee you Wally has not read the entire script, as much of it difficult read and Jewish custom.

    I’m saying the law is indeed harsh and I’m trying to explain why. I’m also trying, futility I might add, for dingbat to understand that amongst the Jews roaming the Sinai desert for 40 years, there were a large contingent of Abraham’s descendants still indulging in the pagan idols of Egypt – hence the creation of the golden calf for example. Though the law may seem unduly harsh, it was apparent that God meant business about separating the wheat from the chaff before Jews were allowed into present day Israel, by death if necessary and then by the hand of man. And you’ll note that though He was physically present during the ordeal, unlike in Egypt, God expected the Jews to be obedient as the lesson for them to learn. The choice was still the individual’s.

    I believe that verse, and including the instructions that trouble you from Leviticus, were written in the historical context of Jews punishing those who called themselves descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob that refused the basic tenets of the patriarchs and the 613 established laws of God. While many may seem archaic, and frankly I don’t understand all of them, some may have been symbolic in nature – i.e., forbidden to stew a lamb in its mother’s milk. Got me, but I bet a Jewish Rabbi could explain – or it may have significance as symbolic to the “Lamb of God.” I truthfully don’t know.

    From Joshua on, you and Wally should note that unless hostile to the Jews, all pagan worshipers were not killed. The Israelites had allies that were not yet introduced to Jehovah, yet assisted the Jews in battle, and certainly were not stoned. If the law were exclusive and absolute in nature, they too would have been slain.

    Interestingly, the kosher diet that Wally likes to mock has indeed been proven scientifically to be the most healthy of diets. And sustaining health would have been an issue during the formations of Israel. God provided the stage, but He still made the Jews play the roles. I think again, you and Wally sell God short in His ways never giving consideration that the lesson is for us, not God. You want Him to magically wave his hand, but that is not generally how He acted unless necessary; the slaying of the 1st born of Egypt was His doing. The walk out of Egypt was carried out by the Jews themselves. He didn’t beam them over into the Sinai – they walked every step of the way. And in doing so, God did allow Pharaoh’s arrogance to destroy the Egyptian army.

    One thing that always tickles me is the two of you will seek out that to which you can not understand, yet never make mention that Egypt, at the height of its power, quickly faded as a footnote to history. Do you ever consider the coincidence in its historical context?

  78. I’m trying very hard to understand if this signifies an inablility to read, or a failure to comprend what you do read.

    Ah BiW I do love it when you’re snarky. And this coming from a Sarah Palin fan.

    My remark was not an attempt at any deep Biblical analysis. I readily confess I have more to learn about actual scripture from you folks than I could ever possibly teach. However I stand by two points:

    1. I have the general impression that the OT God is a force to be reckoned with … a real badass. In the NT, not so much.

    2. I notice that whenever anyone quotes some of the harsher scripture from the OT they get met with a counter quote from the NT.

    That’s all I was saying.

  79. My main concern, and the thing that bothers me the most with religion, is that the Bible was written, rewritten, and rewritten yet again by men for a thousand years. First there are the Gospels… books written by his followers John and Matthew, and later Mark and Luke who (I think) were associates of Peter and Paul and had no first hand account, but instead wrote nearly 70 years after his death. One things that bugged me is how can the Gospel’s of Luke and Mark state that they provide first hand accounts of the events of Christ’s life, when in fact they had no first hand knowledge and were not even present? Then there is the fact that there were many more (40 or so Gospels) that were ignored because they didn’t jive with what the compilers of the Bible (Council of Nicea) wanted the thing to say.

    There has been many interpretations and altering of the Bible. They voted at the First Council of Nicea to remove the account of the raising of Lazarus from the Gospel of Mark, and voted to strike the teaching of reincarnation in the Second Council of Constantinople.

    I bet there were hundreds of scriptures and gospels that, at the time, claimed to be the inspired word of God or Jesus. There was no way to know which ones were legitimately divine so the council voted on which ones they wanted to be divine or thought to be divine. What Christians worship and believe in today was decided by a bunch of bishops voting with no holy intervention from God whatsoever. Since Constantine treated religion from a political point of view he assured that his decisions were unanimous by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith.

    With that in mind, there is no way to separate fact from fiction
    surrounding the events like the virgin birth of Jesus, his crucifixion, resurrection, and ascension to heaven. These books existed in the oral tradition for hundreds of years. They finally wrote them down in aramaic, later translated into Greek, & then Latin, and finally English, hundreds and hundreds of revisions: and this is supposed to be the absolute direct word of God?

  80. @ Curator…thank you

    @ Rutherfod I disagree with you in #95. There are many reasons but for the sake of a personal you:me thing I’d say that a)faith is important to the faithful and b) a discussion need not be adversarial from either parties position. Go that route and I think you’d be pleasantly surprised at the fruitful discussions you could have.

  81. Wally,

    I wonder since evidently the Deuteronomy quote only applies to Jews wandering the Sinai wilderness, what else from the Bible can we conveniently ignore?

    Again, you ignore the obvious. I in no way said the law was not applicable to everyone. I said consider the context, which you appear to shallow to consider. Once introduced to God’s Laws by the One True God, then I am sure the law held.

    However, for God to demand Jews slay people of another race, creed, faith, nationality without first God giving the opportunity to present, that would reduce God to some cosmic rapist, would it not?

    Even the Egyptians nine times were forewarned to obey, or else, as will you be. 😉

  82. 1. I have the general impression that the OT God is a force to be reckoned with … a real badass. In the NT, not so much.

    2. I notice that whenever anyone quotes some of the harsher scripture from the OT they get met with a counter quote from the NT.

    A careful reading of the NT would actually clarify this for you, and answer Curator’s apparent concern about our diet as well.

    However, one such passage for your consiideration is in Colossians 2:

    16 So let no one judge you in food or in drink, or regarding a festival or a new moon or sabbaths, 17 which are a shadow of things to come, but the substance is of Christ.

  83. Curator, everything you said here is factually incorrect. It’s complete baloney and all you are doing is showing your own historical ignorance. I’m too lazy to debunk each one of these, so I will make this simple.

    My main concern, and the thing that bothers me the most with religion, is that the Bible was written, rewritten, and rewritten yet again by men for a thousand years. First there are the Gospels… books written by his followers John and Matthew, and later Mark and Luke who (I think) were associates of Peter and Paul and had no first hand account, but instead wrote nearly 70 years after his death.

    All of this is sheer bunk. Seventy years after Christ death? Matthew was martyred not too many years after Christ’s death. I can easily prove that the book of Matthew had to be written no more than forty years by the historical context in reference to the documented fact of the Temple being destroyed in 70 AD. Easily. Care to make a wager? And I would wager it was a lot closer than 40 years. Corinthians is no more than 15 years after Christ’s death. 1st and 2nd Peter about the same.

    Written, rewritten, then written again? Where do you get this garbage? I did part of this at Hippie Professor’s so I’m not going to repeat myself, but 95% of the New Testament could be reconstructed by the 1st Century church father’s writings alone. You don’t even need the manuscripts. In addition, we’ve got 6,000 manuscripts or parts of manuscripts dating back to 125 A.D. in three different languages all saying the same thing. There was no mistranslation, just as there is no mistranslation today. You make it sound if different versions are written from different versions, ad infinitum when nothing could be further from the truth. When you translate something, you don’t go back to the something that was translated but the original Greek.

    Finally, here’s the biggest popular lie cavorting around the leftist circles:

    Then there is the fact that there were many more (40 or so Gospels) that were ignored because they didn’t jive with what the compilers of the Bible (Council of Nicea) wanted the thing to say.

    What 40 gospels? Name even one? So you don’t show your ass and repeat this, let me set the record straight for you. The Council of Nicea changed nothing. They simply lent their apostolic authority to the present day Bible. Nothing was changed, nothing was discarded and the only issues were of even concern were to include or not to include Jude and The Book of the Revelation. What do you morons think the 1st and 2nd Century Church was using for a Bible when you parrot these lies?

    In debating with you today, if this is what this is Wally, I had forgotten this verse from Peter – an eyewitness; one of hundreds of eye witnesses to the Resurrection. You would do well to try and set it to memory. You would do even better to get the record straight if you’re going to mock:

    2nd Peter 1:16-18

    We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.” We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him on the sacred mountain.

    One things that bugged me is how can the Gospel’s of Luke and Mark state that they provide first hand accounts of the events of Christ’s life, when in fact they had no first hand knowledge and were not even present? Then there is the fact that there were many more (40 or so Gospels) that were ignored because they didn’t jive with what the compilers of the Bible (Council of Nicea) wanted the thing to say.

  84. Curator, I fully understand your issue with God’s word as interpreted by man.

    If we wanna get even more absurd we look to Joseph Smith Jr.who by more than a handful of accounts was an outright charlatan and a criminal and yet founded (invented) the Mormon church. Here is a man who in 1830 said the book of Mormon was revealed to him. 1830! Talk about years removed from Christ. Makes the 70 year issue you have look like a minor accounting error.

  85. Alfie, clearly making the discussion adversarial diminishes its potential productivity. However, you must agree that science and faith exist in two different spheres and its awfully hard to reconcile them. What logical compromise can be made between a Curator who cites the scientific implausibility of the creation with a Creationist who believes this with all his heart?

    Tex, I ask you and I am not mocking you at all when I ask this, why is it not possible that Peter and others had a mass hallucination or were under the influence of some substance? If you read in any book other than the Bible that people heard the word of God or saw someone rise from the dead, you’d declare them insane. Why do you suspend disbelief for the Bible?

    No need to answer …. because you believe the Bible is the only book of God.

  86. Rutherford,

    You are aware that is applicable to Mormon, right?

    I prefer these verses from Revelation 22:18-19

    I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

    I think that about says all that needs to be said of “the end.”

  87. @R

    So then why should I live my life in worship a book interpreted by man?

    Examples of writings not in the Bible: Gospel of the Hebrews, Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Mary, The Letter of Clement I

  88. Rutherford, 😆

    Tex, I ask you and I am not mocking you at all when I ask this, why is it not possible that Peter and others had a mass hallucination or were under the influence of some substance?

    I’m sorry, I really should be more patient. Okay, let’s assume that we had this mass hallucinatory trip consisting of eleven disciples, with the peyote courtesy of Christ.

    Of course, that mass peyote trip wouldn’t explain how you had three hundred witnesses to the resurrection, from all walks of life, some of them women, etc…And that mass peyote trip would must have been some trip if a man named Lazarus awoke from his “four day” trip smelling of death and witnessed by more mass trips, etc…

    Now if you wanted to sell a lie, you wouldn’t be including women’s testimony because in that day, a woman’s testimony could not be used in a court of law. And since the first two people who met Christ upon His resurrection were women, it would seem if you wanted to lie, you would have picked somebody with a set of balls.

    If you read in any book other than the Bible that people heard the word of God or saw someone rise from the dead, you’d declare them insane. Why do you suspend disbelief for the Bible?

    “R”, my friend, there is no religion that can make these sort of claims because none of them dare make such claims. I suspend belief because I know there is a creator – whether by science or logic. Then the question becomes, okay, who is this creator? Then I measure, then I ask what is my purpose?

    I suspend disbelief because it was all foretold from the book of Genesis and beyond, predating Christ by at least 1,500 years, forth told again by Jewish prophets at least 800 years before Christ’s resurrection, is clearly mentioned in both Psalms 22 and Isaiah 53 though Jews are forced to deny this, witnessed by hundreds of people, a body was never produced though it would have meant death for the Roman guards who accompanied the body, sealed because of the men who had Christ crucified named the Phraisees, absolutely no person could refute the resurrect with proof during the short time, etc…Rutherford, I know this sounds too incredible to believe and at one time, I was a doubter like you. But not anymore.

    However, I do understand your skepticism. I really do. This must all sound like voodoo to you. A man of academic accomplishment and rational skepticism. But let me ask you a fair question. For all of our battles, have you ever thought me once a complete nut? Now as much crap as I’ve given you, I will be the first to admit, though I believe you to be the political loon, you are completely lucid and a worthy foe. Can’t you admit the same of me? I hopefully have convinced you I’m not some Pat Robertson, or some sleazy pandering hand out.

  89. Wally, 😆

    I knew it. The Gnostic Gospels. Written well over 200+ years after the books you rejected found in a desert in Egypt I believe. Sorry pal, not even a concern at Nicea. Some of these are as recent a find as the late 1800s. You’ve been reading too many Dan Brown books Wally.

    Wally, have you ever read any of the gnostic gospels? If so, do they even sound the same in message, style or content?

    ——–

    How’s this one grab you? The Gospel of Thomas Saying 114:

    (114) Simon Peter said to them: Let Mariham go out from among us, for women are not worthy of the life. Jesus said: Look, I will lead her that I may make her male, in order that she too may become a living spirit resembling you males. For every woman who makes herself male will enter into the kingdom of heaven.

    So Jesus will make all the girls male so they can go to heaven? It would be like me writing the Audacity of Hope again and putting the Tex Taylor spin on Obama’s own biography. Or maybe Playboy reconstructing the Bible. What a joke…

    Come on Wally – you can do better than this with your challenges.

  90. Well Tex, now you have really hit upon the ultimate puzzle for me. I know that perfectly sane intelligent people are religious. I would add that the fact that you have at times doubted, makes your belief all the more sincere from my perspective.

    So I’m between a rock and a hard place. Something has convinced you of the truth of the word that has not yet and may never reach me. What it comes down to is your life has made the existence of God obvious to you and mine has not. At least not so far.

  91. So then why should I live my life in worship a book interpreted by man?

    Curator you’re asking the wrong dude. I can’t get past man’s involvement with religion which from where I sit, immediately corrupts it and makes it suspect.

    It would be nice if God could intervene on an individual basis so we wouldn’t have to rely on ministers, rabbi’s, priests and imams, all of whom by nature of being human are flawed.

  92. Gospel of Hebrews is dated 80-150 C.E.

    Gospel of Mary is dated 120-180 C.E.

    Gospel of Thomas is dated no later than 140 C.E.

    So if the last standard Biblical canon (John) is dated 85 years after Christ died how do you figure 200+ years?

  93. Tell me something Curator,

    Why is that you haven’t answered my charges of your falsehoods in post #98. Is the game to see if you can make something stick? Because so far, each post as either been rebuked or after answered you go off on some other tangent. I know you the religious bigot, but if we’re going to have to debate, you need to at least answer my charges against your charges. So far, you haven’t been able to do so.

    So, we’ll do this one more time and I’ll show you the most clueless of buffoons one more time, no more than the cut & paste garden variety Christian bigot.

    You say the book of Hebrews was written 80-150 A.D.? Being that the destruction of the Temple is not even mentioned, and that happened in 70 A.D., nor the Jewish resurrection in 68 A.D., both well documented historical facts, either the book was written before the destruction of the Temple and the insurrection, or well after. So I believe we can rule out the period of say 80 – 90 A.D. But a knowledge of the Book of Hebrews shown in the epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians (A.D. 95) does have a bearing on the date.

    So now that we’ve established that the book of Hebrews was certainly written before 95 A.D., and assuming it would certainly make mention of Masada or the destruction of the Temple being Jesus prophesied as much, that would lead me to believe the Book of Hebrews was actually written before the insurrection and destruction of the Temple.

    Now if you can refute this facts, please do so. If you can provide better logic, do so.

    On a final note, I couldn’t help notice as an additional slam, you preferring to use the progressive dating scheme of “Common Era”, not bothering to use the traditional nomenclature of Anno Domini, that which is used in the Constitution you so often invoke here on the board.

    But one question. Exactly what event precipitated the Common Era? Is it that fabricated man called Jesus?

  94. Rutherford,

    So I’m between a rock and a hard place. Something has convinced you of the truth of the word that has not yet and may never reach me. What it comes down to is your life has made the existence of God obvious to you and mine has not. At least not so far.

    Maybe it is not so complicated. Maybe it’s just that I made the effort to explore and discover with an open mind and let the evidence lead me to my conviction?

    I don’t think you need to be a Christian to admit that no book has come remotely close to changing the world. as the Bible. I would think as an intellectual curious about truth and history, that might interest you to at least explore.

    If I could make a suggestion, I would tell you to remove all bias, pro and con, before starting.

  95. Rutherford, 😆

    I’m finishing up the many baseless Wally accusations, as I ignored his “creation” story. Do you honestly find his “science” stimulating in comment #90?

    I am a Creationist – I believe God did indeed make the heavens and the earth.

    I will take the word of scientists that our best guess of the physical universe 13.5-15.0 billion years old. I understand some astrophysics and certainly understand the measurement of EM spectrum. I have a degree in chemistry and biology. I understand cellular structure, mitosis and meiosis. I have taken evolution, even got an ‘A’ in it, as I did all the science classes except one. I got accepted to medical school.

    I take the geophysics explanation of the formation of our planet to heart. I do not believe the concept of life springing forth by a slug of amino acids; complete nonsense. I believe in the big bang or something like the big bang. I accept all known laws of chemistry. I have taken all the basic biochemistry and understand cellular respiration backwards and forwards.

    Now if you the secularist were to read that and didn’t know me, and I hadn’t told you I was a “Creationist”, you most certainly would think of me as secular – or at the very least a skeptic of the first few chapters of Genesis.

    Yet, I have absolutely no trouble with Genesis and how it reads for two reasons. First, I realize some of the Bible is allegory but that is not the same as a “myth.” The Bible is not intended to be a science book; but it is a very accurate portrayal of history. Second, I recognize that the purpose of the first few chapters of Genesis is the narrative start of the story. Time is meaningless to God as it is He who created the concept of time. So whether one wants to attribute six days, six thousand years, six ages, six periods, to creation is completely irrelevant to me.

    I can argue the science, but the real purpose of the Bible is the redemption of man. If you were to read closely, you would find that the Bible both starts and ends with the story of man walking with his God – the story comes full circle, and the restoration is completed.

    So if I am not troubled by Genesis, why should you be?

  96. Ah yes LOL, comment #43. I actually addressed it on the radio show this past Saturday night but in fairness to you I’ll hit it fast here.

    First, even Howard Dean has moved from opposing the bill as it was when I first wrote about it, to supporting it. Some positive changes have occurred and there is even a slim chance we may see the public option.

    Second, at the time I wrote that first assessment it was not so obvious to me that the GOP would refuse to play ball in any way shape or form and so I felt reconciliation was an extreme approach for a bill that, again, at the time didn’t seem worth it.

    Now, it is clear to me that the GOP has no interest in any real reform so we (liberals) have to do what we have to do. For that matter, in the past four months, legislation has passed in both the House and Senate. So now all that is needed is to get the bills identical in both chambers, and then fix some financial issues via reconciliation.

    By the way, that is another great red herring thrown out by the GOP … that we have never done sweeping change through reconciliation. The fact is, we won’t this time either. The sweeping change will be in the form of whatever bill gets passed (probably the House voting in the Senate bill as is) and then only budget related tweaks will get done via reconciliation. I might remind you (although if you’ve listened to the news you already know this) all of W’s tax cuts for the wealthy got done via reconciliation. Again, the hypocrisy of the GOP is mind numbing!

  97. So if I am not troubled by Genesis, why should you be?

    Almost sounds like we need to start with the creation allegory in order to give God His street cred. Think of how underwhelming the Bible would be if it started:

    After a series of astrophysical phenomena, the Earth and heavens were created, and then this dude named God came along and said “Hey, what can I do with all this stuff?”

    Doesn’t quite create the image of an omnipotent, omniscient presence, does it? 😉

  98. Doesn’t quite create the image of an omnipotent, omniscient presence, does it?

    Except you ought to consider that nothing existed and He “spoke” the physical universe into existence. And when you consider that they now estimate there may be as many as one trillion galaxies, each with billions and trillions of planets, I think that “astrophysical phenomena” still would boggle the mind. If you weren’t so short sighted, that is exactly what does boggle my mind. Why bother with insignificant us? That is exactly the question you should seek to answer.

    ——————-

    By the way, I can’t believe you are for passing this health care thing by reconciliation. Do you not recognize that you are in the process of committing political suicide? I suppose with Obama’s reputation already in tatters and the writing on the wall of possibly an unprecedented butt kicking, what is there to lose?

    I’ll have to ask BIC if there is precedent for simply booting a President for incompetence? Now that would be sweet come November – to frog march Obama down the WhiteHouse steps by the nape of the neck, preferably handcuffed. That actually gives me a tingle up my leg “r”. 😮

  99. No need to wait for BiW to pipe in. I used to be quite the Presidential buff back in the day although I admit I’m a bit rusty.

    The short answer is no. A President can only be removed from office via impeachment and impeachment is a legal procedure of sorts in reaction to the President having committed a crime. You can’t just boot him for “incompetence”. If it were a crime to be incompetent, W would have been booted. 😉

    Now you can trump up charges of course to get at an incompetent President. There was an effort for example to force John Tyler to be an “acting President” after William Henry Harrison died. Fortunately for our nation, Tyler stood by the Constitution and demanded to be recognized as a fully legitimate President. It set the precedent for all future transitions from VP to Pres upon death or resignation.

    Andrew Johnson of course was impeached (remember impeached means tried, not removed) for trying to replace the Secretary of Defense. But truth was Johnson was wildly unpopular so one might argue that the charges were just an excuse to kick him out. He was not convicted.

    Richard Nixon famously avoided an impeachment trial by resigning. On the one hand, not a much loved President but the dude did commit crimes.

    Last but not least Slick Willy who in my opinion got impeached over a blow job … sheer foolishness and a political vendetta. He was acquitted.

    So Tex, you’re gonna have to hope that Obama does something “criminal” within the next three years. Otherwise you’re stuck with him.

    BiW feel free to challenge or support any of my assertions.

  100. To address two of your other points Tex. First, you raise an interesting question. Is God responsible for Mars? Is He responsible for the Andromeda galaxy? If there is life on some other planet did He create that also?

    Second on health care. The bill will not be passed via reconciliation. It will be adjusted via reconciliation. Reconciliation can only be used for budget related items. Hence, the likely scenario is that the bill which already passed in the Senate by a super majority will be passed in the House and then reconciliation will remove the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase and some other sticky wickets.

  101. But one question. Exactly what event precipitated the Common Era? Is it that fabricated man called Jesus?

    Whoever said Jesus was fabricated? Wow… quite a leap there. I question the validity of parts of the Bible and all of a sudden Jesus is a complete fabrication?

    I’ve always thought that parts of the story of Jesus were true, but not all parts. For those who have the gift of faith, Jesus is much more than a historical figure, but to me I’m afraid that’s all he will be. I don’t believe in faith. I refuse to believe that the Bible can only be correctly understood by the Christian faithful. I find it absurd that believers who are insistent that not only is the bible perfect, but also that the reader requires some sort of imbuing by the Holy Spirit in order to recognize it as the True Word of God. Of course, in order to trigger that imbuing, one must first read and believe what the bible says and take it on faith that it’s true, and then one will be enlightened to see that it is, in fact, true. Sorry… not gonna happen.

    Arguing with a christian is just as frustrating.

    When any rational person gets into a debate about the Christian Right’s hatred of gays or judging people unlike themselves, it is quite easy to point out some verse in the Bible that directly contradicts their argument. They thus becomes flustered and can’t come up with some winning verse and retreat to clutching their Bible and muttering, “you just can’t read it right because you’re not a christian.”

    I find it all so absurd.

  102. Last but not least Slick Willy who in my opinion got impeached over a blow job … sheer foolishness and a political vendetta. He was acquitted.

    I see. This might surprise you, R., but Billy Jeff did commit a crime. Its called Perjury, and you get in trouble for it when you lie under oath and get caught. That was why he was disbarred by Arkansas.
    Do I care that he got a hummer in the Oval Office? Not really. Everyone knew he liked the ladies, and I generally expect Democrats to be of low moral character. But the minute he lied about it while under oath? Uh oh.

    When any rational person gets into a debate about the Christian Right’s hatred of gays or judging people unlike themselves, it is quite easy to point out some verse in the Bible that directly contradicts their argument. They thus becomes flustered and can’t come up with some winning verse and retreat to clutching their Bible and muttering, “you just can’t read it right because you’re not a christian.”

    Oh, do tell me more Reverend Curator. Just what in the Bible contradicts christians judging people unlike themselves? Or what makes their hatred of the sin of homosexuality contradictory to the Bible?

    It isn’t that I don’t think your reading it right. Its that I don’t believe you’ve read the whole thing…your silly assertion about “Hating gays” is fairly revealing on this point.

  103. Curator,

    There have been millions of important historical figures. Only one that redefined time – quite an accomplishment for a poor carpenter in a city and a land that for all practical purposes should be insignificant and irrelevant.

    My question to you is if Jesus a liar as you claim and the story so absurd, why is it you can’t leave well enough alone? Does it bother you that Christianity has changed millions of lives for the better? That it carries so much importance for so many and leads by conviction? That the message diametrically opposed to your own humanistic beliefs?

    I think Islam is absurd – I recognize a cheap imitation. I can say the same of Hindu, Buddha, Confucius, even atheism. But I don’t go seeking out Muslims to offend about their faith or debate the Koran because I don’t need to. I don’t seek out Sikhs to mock. I tell atheists to believe as they must, because I don’t believe in them either.

    I do this only to challenge your fabricated fallacies, because too many Christians are too ignorant to answer those lies of yours and I find that frustrating. The ignorance of the word of God and of Jewish history is startling in the Christian community. And an adversary like you feeds off that, seeking to deceive.

    I do this on account so that somebody who has many doubts and little background like Rutherford doesn’t bear witness to you spreading those lies and getting away with it. You are neither clever nor original, but I am betting that you’ve been clever enough to browbeat people calling themselves Christians into submission over the years. It is far easier to make accusation than to defend. However, you won’t beat me at this debate because I know it better than you do Curator.

    When any rational person gets into a debate about the Christian Right’s hatred of gays or judging people unlike themselves, it is quite easy to point out some verse in the Bible that directly contradicts their argument.

    You haven’t been able to stump me, because I know nothing contradictory in the Word of God. And you’re the mirror image of those you accuse, guilty of the same crimes if they are a crime, which makes you a hypocrite Curator.

    They thus becomes flustered and can’t come up with some winning verse and retreat to clutching their Bible and muttering, “you just can’t read it right because you’re not a christian.”

    Curator, I don’t need to defend the Bible. Like I said here before, defending God’s Word is like defending a lion. It is the most historically accurate book ever written. The Bible is quite apt at defending itself as not a word of it has had to be changed for 2,000 years. And there have been many far more clever than you that have attempted to discredit it. All the Bible requires is that it be read.

  104. It is far easier to make accusation than to defend.

    Ah yes … one reason why conservatives are having such a field day with Obama. Far easier to accuse than defend. Thank you Tex. 🙂

    It is the most historically accurate book ever written.

    Now I’m sorry Tex but this is hyperbole. I would suggest that just the sheer number of authors cuts down on the book’s accuracy. Your claim is awfully hard to prove empirically. I won’t deny the Bible is instructive but accurate is a word I would avoid. (You yourself said it relies on allegory … thereby disqualifying it in the accuracy category.)

    but Billy Jeff did commit a crime. Its called Perjury

    OK, BiW I’ll concede that to you. The blow job got more attention than the perjury. 🙂

  105. BIC,

    Thank you for answering Rutherford’s question. I knew you could answer it far better than I could. Rutherford gave me some history most which I knew, but I didn’t know if a sitting President could be impeached for sheer incompetence.

    “r”,

    The bill will not be passed via reconciliation. It will be adjusted via reconciliation. Reconciliation can only be used for budget related items. Hence, the likely scenario is that the bill which already passed in the Senate by a super majority will be passed in the House and then reconciliation will remove the Cornhusker Kickback and the Louisiana Purchase and some other sticky wickets.

    It doesn’t address the most glaring “sticky” wicket. That a great majority of the voting public, those who actually would have an informed opinion, are adamantly opposed to the expansion of government into health care, legalese or budgetary items notwithstanding. It’s a suicide pact and a perfect example of why more people are literally starting to hate the federal government. You better be careful what you wish for, as I predict this one is really going to blow up in your face long term, and this time the damage irreversible.

  106. “r”, old pal – your thinking is so two dimensional.

    I would suggest that just the sheer number of authors cuts down on the book’s accuracy.

    So what you’re telling me is that if you were to compare books of antiquity, those which have many authors vis-a-vis those that have one, and assuming for the moment the many authors carried the same message, one author would carry more validity? How’s that?

    One of the best claims of the validity of the Bible is that it has 40 authors, written over 1,500 years, in three languages, that even you admit is beautifully written in both flow and prose,
    that still has yet to have been modified or found flawed in its historical accuracy. In fact, many of the authors like Luke were historians.

    Your claim is awfully hard to prove empirically. I won’t deny the Bible is instructive but accurate is a word I would avoid.

    Rutherford, you are really misconstruing what I said about allegory with me referring only to the supernatural. I’ve stated this before about the historical validity of the Bible. And my information is dated, as I am sure there are more.

    There have been at least 23,000 archeological digs conducted using only the Bible as reference and not a one of them have proved invalid. The Bible gets an A+++ for historical accuracy. If there had been a discovered error, you know as well as I do, it would have made world news, as there are millions like you and Curator waiting with bated breath for that which can be proven to be proven untrue.

    (You yourself said it relies on allegory … thereby disqualifying it in the accuracy category.)

    Allegory does nothing of the sort. My statement of allegory referred to events written in picturesque form. Let me clear this up because it is important, and I will do it by example:

    Matthew 13:31-32
    “The kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which a man took and planted in his field. Though it is the smallest of all your seeds, yet when it grows, it is the largest of garden plants and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and perch in its branches.”

    Revelation 12:4

    And his tail swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child.

    Don’t mistake my claiming the some of the Bible is written in the allegorical style to invalidate its content. That was certainly not my intention.

  107. Thank you for answering Rutherford’s question.

    I don’t mean to be persnickety but what question did BiW answer other than that Bill Clinton committed a crime? If I do say so myself, Tex, you got your answer from me …. you can’t impeach a President for incompetence.

    Next, the great majority of people support every component of the bill but have been scared by it all residing in one big piece of legislation. This fear has been stoked by the Republicans. Sorry, the “Americans don’t want this bill” is smoke and mirrors.

    Finally you can’t compare the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which is clearly the use of simile to God created the heavens and the Earth which is a literal statement.

  108. “First, even Howard Dean has moved from opposing the bill as it was when I first wrote about it, to supporting it.”

    Ummm…so what? Is an endorsement from Screamin’ Dean supposed to impress anyone?

    From your post above:

    “They talk a great line about tort reform and cost cutting (with penny ante foolishness like eliminating paperwork) but when it comes to making insurance coverage available to MORE people, they come up completely empty.”

    Then you are really going to be pissed off over Obama’s latest proposal. It is chock full of the empty, penny ante foolishness you hate so much.

    And it didn’t take a backroom deal to get those compromises in there. Nope, it simply took Obama and his cronies to fulfill his campaign promises from over a year ago. To debate the issue in public.

    You know what else is in there?

    Removal of the Florida kickback brought up the other day by that senile prick John McCain.

    Obama insults him in public, and then privately goes to his office and does exactly what McCain recommended.

    “There are provisions that were added to the legislation that shouldn’t have been. That’s why my proposal does not include the Medicare Advantage provision, mentioned by Senator John McCain at the meeting, which provided transitional extra benefits for Florida and other states. My proposal eliminates those payments….”

    Gee, someone had better inform Barry that the election is over.

    Do you suppose they are loading the public apolgy to Senator McCain into the TOTUS?

  109. “r”,

    Next, the great majority of people support every component of the bill but have been scared by it all residing in one big piece of legislation. This fear has been stoked by the Republicans. Sorry, the “Americans don’t want this bill” is smoke and mirrors.

    ** GUFFAW **

    No wonder you can’t believe the Bible. Your entire opinions are formed by lies and not fact, what you wish to be so. I say pass it and celebrate it loudly and as boastful as humanly possible. You will find out in many ways just how wrong you were, probably this year.

    I was thanking BIC for reminding you Clinton perjured himself in front of a grand jury instead of seduction as you suggested above. If he had been a Republican, he would have resigned in disgrace. Since most Democrats have no sense of shame, Clinton’s tainted legacy will have to do and so far, it has done quite nicely. And I assure Clinton’s imminent obituary will include “Monica Lewinsky.”

    Finally you can’t compare the kingdom of heaven is like a mustard seed, which is clearly the use of simile to God created the heavens and the Earth which is a literal statement.

    I’m not. The statement God created the Heavens and the Earth is literal fact with no interjection of metaphor. I said the word “day” is allegory and used as representation of how humans view time – it’s entire representation a clear indicator of the concept of Sabbath.

    I’m surprised you can’t pick up on these quite profound concepts provided not just for us, but all of human history. Your thinking is so elementary.

  110. I know that Rutherford thinks that now Dimocrats have no excuse, but before they ram home another monstrosity of economic ruin, can they also excuse this first?

  111. Back on topic:

    I will go on record by announcing the Rutherford Lawson/Hippie Professor crowd has created the problem of skyrocketing health care costs in the first place.

    Utilizing the Cloward-Piven strategy, the Left has manufactured the crisis by neutralizing downward pressure on health care prices. They have accomplished this incrementally as indicated by the graph below.

    Now they are moving to “solve” the crisis they created by exploiting a symptoms of the crisis – the uninsured. Socialized medicine will be the end result.

  112. Tex, nice graph.

    “LOL” the Florida kickback and other “backroom” shenanigans were on their way out before McCain whined at the summit. In fact, that made McCain’s gripe all the more a waste of time. Kinda like when he suspended his campaign in order to contribute absolutely nothing to solving the financial crisis of 2008.

    As for tort reform, etc. I didn’t say I was against it. I said it doesn’t amount to much and if that’s all the GOP has, then they need to think a little harder. All your HuffPo article demonstrates is that GOP ideas are being included and they’re not being shut out.

  113. Oh “LOL” I didn’t cite Howard Dean to make my position more credible per se. I cited him simply to say that I’m not the only one who has changed position on HCR since last September.

  114. Here Rutherford, this post has become so convoluted, I figured you needed to hear a joke. I thought this one was pretty good – an it is even clean

    A man feared his wife wasn’t hearing as well as she used to began to think she might need a hearing aid. Not quite sure how to approach her, he called the family doctor to discuss the problem.

    The Doctor told him there is a simple informal test the husband could perform to give the doctor a better idea about her hearing loss.

    Here’s what you do,” said the Doctor, “stand about 40 feet away from her, and in a normal conversational speaking tone see if she hears you. If not, go to 30 feet, then 20 feet, and so on until you get a response..”

    That evening, the wife is in the kitchen cooking dinner, and he was in the den. He thinks to himself, “I’m about 40 feet away, let’s see what happens.”

    Then in a normal tone he asks, ‘Honey, what’s for dinner?”

    No response..

    So the husband moves closer to the kitchen, about 30 feet from his wife and repeats, “Honey, what’s for dinner?”

    Still no response.

    Next he moves into the dining room where he is about 20 feet from his wife and asks, “Honey, what’s for dinner?”

    Again he gets no response.

    So, he walks up to the kitchen door, about 10 feet away. “Honey, what’s for dinner?”

    Again there is no response.

    So he walks right up behind her. “Honey, what’s for dinner?”


    The wife answers, “JOHN, for the FIFTH time, I said CHICKEN!”

    😆 😆 😆 😆 😆

  115. Kinda like when he suspended his campaign in order to contribute absolutely nothing to solving the financial crisis of 2008.

    Which was sooooo much better than Barack Hussein Obama’s “Call me if you need me” B.S.

    I mean, if you are going to go through the trouble of asking the American People to give you the job (and the responsibility), then you WANT to be in the room and participating in the conversation.

  116. neutralizing downward pressure on health care prices.

    Once again, nice graph. Except this time WTF? Where was this downward pressure on health care costs? And what was done to neutralize it? Poppycock.

    Good what’s for dinner joke. My wife will love that one cos we argue all the time about who has the better hearing. 🙂

    BiW as I recall, Obama did go to the meeting in 2008 and contributed way more than old Johnny did. John’s suspending the campaign was a stunt and you know it.

  117. Rutherford, you economic dolt..Did you not take even simple micro economics?

    Except this time WTF? Where was this downward pressure on health care costs? And what was done to neutralize it? Poppycock.

    This problem was manufactured by incrementally destroying the economic relationship between the health care provider and consumer. It’s a market problem, not a governance problem. Incremental government interference creating a dependency as consumers have no vested interest to minimize their own costs concerning health care.

    And your “stupid” statement about tort reform shows you are completely clueless about the real cost of litigation. Do we need to rehash defensive medicine for the millionth time?

    Wake TFU!

  118. So let me get this straight….

    Removal of the kickbacks were not mentioned in Obama’s Plan A or Plan B proposals…. but they were going to be removed anyway, according to….you.

    (Would it be too much to ask for a shed of proof to support that claim?)

    So it is just mere coincidence that John McCain whined about them last Thursday, and suddenly, less than a week later, their removal appears in Obama’s Plan C proposal, including a mention from Obama about McCain bringing them up in the very meeting in which he insulted McCain for bringing them up.

    And your defense of this is that these things were mysteriously going to disappear anyway?

    So is Obama just humoring the old man by mentioning him specifically in the same section in which he calls for the removal of the kickbacks that he has never before called for the removal of?

    You don’t seriously believe that nonsense, do you? (Of course, that is a rhetorical question. You are still a True Believer in Hopenchange)

    “Kinda like when he suspended his campaign in order to contribute absolutely nothing to solving the financial crisis of 2008.”

    Kinda like when Obama put his Hawaian vacation on hold to address a failed terrorist attack?

    Oh wait, he didn’t put his vacation on hold, did he? Except for when there was a minor accident at his brat’s little party. Now that demanded immediate presidential attention.

    “I cited him simply to say that I’m not the only one who has changed position on HCR since last September.”

    You know who else has changed positions since last Sept?

    The American people. Yeah, we know. Who gives a fuck what they want. That’s what elections are for, right?

  119. Hey Rutherford,

    I have a few general questions as follow up. What problems do you see with limiting government? Do you recognize that a theology is an abomination to God? Do you find personal taxes too high or too low?

  120. I haven’t had a chance to ask you guys, are you proud of Jim Bunning? He won’t spend money if he doesn’t know where it comes from. He finally cut a deal tonight. (He opposed paygo btw, LOL)

    I assume he’s your guy.

  121. Rutherford,

    Jim Bunning? Hooray for Jim Bunning, #3 most conservative Senator. Wish we had about 85 more like him. I can’t tell you how proud I am of my adopted state. We ranked #1 and #4 on most Conservative Senators (Inhofe and Coburn). Now you can tell why we hate on Obama so! 😆

    “r”, I saw Louis Farrakhan tonight accusing “white right” America of planning to assassinate Obama. Are you proud of Louis Farrakhan?

  122. Regarding #145 Tex are you simply saying if health care were left to the free market costs would stay under control?

    As for tort reform, I’ve heard it would bring down health care costs at most 10%.

    Now quickly to your other questions:

    What problems do you see with limiting government?
    Government should be limited only to the degree that it does not oppress the people. Oppression and protection are two different things although I will admit too much protection can become oppressive. It’s a fine line.

    Do you recognize that a theology is an abomination to God?
    Do you mean a theocracy? If so, i believe a good number of religious people would love to see a theocracy and would not find it an abomination to God. Your question is clearly a loaded one and I’m sure you have scripture to prove me wrong.

    Do you find personal taxes too high or too low?
    Everyone wants their taxes to be lower. However I am not overly uncomfortable with my tax rate. I lean toward supporting the current progressive tax but I would not scream too loudly at a flat tax. I do believe tax laws need to be seriously simplified. I think it’s one of Ron Paul’s issues where I agree. Off topic: I also love Ron Paul’s foreign policy.

  123. “LOL”, I have to retract an earlier comment. If I am not mistaken, only the Cornhusker Kickback was already on its way out of the bill prior to McCain whining. The others (Florida, perhaps Louisiana) are coming out as a result of the Summit.

  124. “r”,

    Do you recognize that a theology is an abomination to God? Do you mean a theocracy?

    😳 How embarrassing. Speaking of retractions, that was a major screw up. I was enthralled with Fox News when I wrote that and went brain dead. 😆 Yes, theocracy.

    If so, i believe a good number of religious people would love to see a theocracy and would not find it an abomination to God.

    No, I am not going to beat you up with scripture. No need. My point is that what the people think, and I am sure the number smaller than you believe, it is scriptural that a THEOCRACY would be an abomination in the Lord’s eyes. It’s a fact, and a THEOCRACY is a large part of the reason there is a United States.

    I just wanted to make sure that I understood your paranoia for a frame of reference.

  125. I’m watching to Kill a Mockingbird. Great movie – if this rambles or I screw up like my use of theology from above, I didn’t want you to think I was suddenly stuck on stupid.

    As for tort reform, I’ve heard it would bring down health care costs at most 10%

    Not to point out the obvious but 10% is $150-200 billion dollars. Do you now consider that chump change?

    I think you are way low but even if you’re right, that is a substantial savings. How many people do you think that would insure?

    What I was saying is a government dependency has created a sense of entitlement. And with that entitlement, it has also removed a required barrier for cost control – personal responsibility of both health and expenditure..

  126. Are you proud of Louis Farrakhan?

    Not particularly.

    Okay. So do you admit that Louis Farrakhan is a racist and anti-Semite?

  127. “r”,

    Look what I just found – the very subject we referenced from above. Pretty good stuff – you ought to read it, but I found the following very interesting. Hope you agree:

    Let’s get back to the true cost and what a victim of malpractice can expect. Approximately 12.1 billion dollars is awarded to plaintiffs each year. Approximately 40% goes to the plaintiffs’ attorneys or court costs, leaving 7.2 billion dollars to the victims. If we then look at actual health care expenditures each year and use the 9% figure of defensive medicine and documentation, then $26 is being spent for every single dollar that actually reaches the malpractice victim. If we use the 25% figure, then $72 is thrown away for a single dollar to go to the victim. The truth is somewhere in between. I’ll leave you to make your own conclusions about the motives for the trial lawyers fighting against any true tort reform.

  128. Let’s just say Louis has said things that would lead me to believe he is a racist and anti-semite. Unfortunately, Louis has also done good work in ghetto communities. It’s one of those unfortunate situations where some good has been done by someone of relatively ill repute.

  129. Regarding 158 on a personal note, I really do feel for you. My wife has traveled on business at most three times in our 10 years of marriage and I was reduced to a blob of useless protoplasm each time. Well I exaggerate … but it was not fun. None of my business, but you’re not tied down to a particular job right now. Move your ass to Houston!

    I’m going to bed …. I’ll start my Wednesday off with your tort reform citations. 🙂

  130. BTW Rabbit’s weird post went into my SPAM filter. So now that I’ve approved it, all references to comment numbers after that have been thrown off. Sorry for any confusion caused …. blame Rabbit.

  131. “r”,

    Thanks for the nice words. That was originally my intent to move, because to be absolutely honest, I have lost all motivation since we decided not to move our children five years ago. When I got the wild hair to be a doctor, and then two weeks after leaving my job, my wife’s job of 30 years gets transferred unexpectedly, it has been anything but routine. Now that my kids are in college, there is absolutely no reason other than elderly parents for me to be here.

    I’ve been struggling with this since I left med school in November. Hell, I haven’t even typed a resume. Completely worthless bum. My wife calls Oklahoma home and wants me to keep the house since it’s paid for and our youngest daughter near. My wife is near my oldest daughter and seems more than happy to let me sit on my ass until the kids graduate.

    Why this wonderful, beautiful, talented woman didn’t run me off about twenty years ago is a wonder. 🙂

  132. Damn Rabbit – that film is so awful, after about 15 minutes, I stopped it. I am not sure I’ve ever seen a more terrible place. I’ll finish it tomorrow.

  133. This is simply an outstanding editorial and explains why what Rutherford is asking for in this post is such a blatant misuse of power, it is incredible that a majority of Obama’s own party is even on board.

    If I were Rutherford, I wouldn’t be worried with the 55-60% of the people that are dead set against Obamacare. I’d be worried that after November, if these Caesars are dumb enough to ram this through, that Obama’s own party turns on him, and Big O is left with Louis Farrakhan elect, Nancy Pelosi, pointy headed professors, and 95% of the remainder of the black community as supporters.

    Because what Obama is proposing won’t just damage America. It will damage the entire Democratic establishment. Obama the narcissist and megalomaniac will ask people to fall on the sword, and they might comply. But you can only fall on the sword once.

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704625004575089362731862750.html

  134. Misuse of power?

    I’ll let the President speak for himself.

    “Reform has already passed the House with a majority,” Obama said. ” It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority.”

    Reaching out to the other side of the aisle is over with. The President tried and failed. Republicans used this tactic for huge tax cuts for the rich under Bush. I see a much more urgent need to use it with health care. Go for it. I see no reason that the excellent health care coverage I get through TRICARE could not be made affordable to anyone. My family premiums, excluding dental, are less than $500 FOR THE YEAR!!!

  135. Baloney Curator. Dims don’t play reach across the aisle and Obama certainly does not. It’s his agenda or meet the pale rider.

    Give each household premiums of no more than $500 a year and we would be bankrupt within weeks. Health care is not cheap, and you’re simply being subsidized on the backs of others. The fact that you and yours benefit at the expense of many others reveals more to be about your true character than anything else you could say here.

    Since your a bleeding heart, why don’t you volunteer to share your cheap insurance, raise your premiums to $5,000 a year like most would pay in the private sector (or more), and then we can talk about your supposed moral superiority.

    As it is, you’re another government lackey living off the public dole, less qualified, and simply an accessory to serendipity of big government. Your rocking chair will be cut before you even recognize it.

  136. The fact that you and yours benefit at the expense of many others reveals more to be about your true character than anything else you could say here.

    So the millions of military families who earned their health care are instead just leeches getting subsidized on the backs of others?

    True character??? You just showed your contempt for those serving and who have served their country. Why don’t you take a trip to Walter Reed or your local USO or VFW and tell those you see they are all government lackey’s?

  137. If the Congressman is guilty then yes by all means give him the boot. From what the story says they are just allegations so it has to be proven first doesn’t it?

  138. He resigned from running. Just make sure you add this one to your list of your inclusive guilty.

    Now, about your military service. You’re to be commended. Thanks. However, military service in and of itself, does not make one honorable. It to can be a huge benefit. And as far as comparing your service to Walter Reed or USO? That’s like comparing your basketball game to Michael Jordan’s.

    But the fact remains Wally, health care is broke. Now you want to add hundreds of billions of dollars in perpetuity to the rolls at your rates? Where exactly do you intend to come up with hundreds billions of dollars in perpetuity?

    While your service commendable, that doesn’t grant you carte blanche the responsibility for ponying up your fair share. Frankly, your service is overrated. I can show you EMTs, firemen and cops that perform a more noble service and have far more character than you do. So Rambo, you ante up first. 😉

  139. Then why don’t you stick up for these EMTs, firemen and cops who are getting their benefits cut? Health care expenses for municipalities have exploded across the country, draining local budgets and forcing major cuts in services to firefighters and police. I bet municipal health care cost have more than doubled from fiscal 2001 to 2008. If we had national health reform, with all people, young, old, healthy, ill and frail covered at affordable rates and included in the risk pools used to determine rates for health insurance, then we would all be better off and be able to dictate to insurance companies what is affordable, instead of them telling us what we must pay, or worse dropping our coverage all together.

  140. Then why don’t you stick up for these EMTs, firemen and cops who are getting their benefits cut?

    Because we are all having our benefits cut. Times are tough – public sectors are not exempt.

    If we had national health reform, with all people, young, old, healthy, ill and frail covered at affordable rates and included in the risk pools used to determine rates for health insurance, then we would all be better off and be able to dictate to insurance companies what is affordable, instead of them telling us what we must pay, or worse dropping our coverage all together.

    You can’t dictate what is affordable because markets determine what is affordable. Your entire state is irrational. It’s a pipe dream and we can’t be all things to all people. Your damn inefficient big government has already put Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security on the brink of ruin. You’re not even taking into account physicians are having their rates cut 20+% and we are already on the verge of a doctor shortage. Are you willing to see a P.A. or nurse technician instead of a doctor?

    Curator, you suffer from the same malady that Rutherford does – you have no idea how the practice of medicine works. Add to the fact you can’t add 30MM people to insurance without additional cost outlays, I don’t care how you spin it, and what you are asking if for 85% of the insured to receive less care at a greater cost.

    I don’t know what it will take to convince you that government does nothing well. It is a disaster at every turn. Even our excellent military is excellent because we spend a far greater sum than any nation on earth.

  141. Curator, if you just opened the state borders, you’d have the same thing without government run healthcare. Secondly, how much are the unions bankrupting these municipalities?

    Did you know that union membership has dropped to just 7% since Obama took office? In fact, the only place where unionization is growing is…wait for it…the federal government.

    Better yet, why don’t you explain to us the difference between auto insurance and health insurance. You might stumble over something there….

  142. Has policy ever been passed using reconciliation? What part of BUDGET don’t you get? Ever heard of the Byrd rule? Answer the insurance question first, then you can try to tell me how this thing is even Constitutional.

  143. uhhhmmm….. The health-care bill passed the Senate in December with 60 votes under the normal process. What part of GOVERNMENT don’t you get? The only thing that would pass under a simple majority vote would be a series of amendments that fit under the “reconciliation” rules established to deal with money issues.

    I’m sure the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts which were passed under reconciliation and increased the deficit by $1.7 trillion were just fine and dandy. Imagine if this blog existed back then I could just imagine what I would have read. I would have clearly seen your outrage over that unconstitutional use of power.

    What many Democrat have said all year long is that reconciliation for comprehensive health-care reform wouldn’t work. Why? Because the insurance market reforms would be stricken due to the Byrd rule. That is why the bill passed with the supermajority, with 60 votes, not using reconciliation. Do you conveniently forget that this has passed already?

    Why is this so hard to understand? The whole purpose of reconciliation is for deficit reduction! Reconciliation as outlined is just for making some revenue and expenditure changes. It doesn’t matter to GOPhers that they are flat out lying about what the reconciliation process is being used for. And somehow majority rule will forever damage the Senate, when this has been used repeatedly in the past without the halls of Congress crumbling. The GOPhers practice of making not just that all major legislation, but all legislation and presidential appointments that need Senate approval get 60 votes is the completely new unprecedented abuse of power here, and not using reconciliation to bridge the gaps between House and Senate versions of a bill that has passed both houses.

  144. Thank you Curator. I could not have said it better myself. I’ve already told these guys that only budget adjustments will be done via reconciliation, not policy.

    It’s more fun to spread the fear. 😉

  145. Rutherford, Wally:

    The American constituency was so thrilled with the Senate bill of health care that passed, that the drunken murderer Ted Kennedy’s went to a Republican in possibly the second or third most libbie state. Mary Jo was unavailable for comment, but Ted has been sober now for about a hundred days.

    But since you guys don’t seem to understand that the American public ultimately decides policy for the country (when they are awake), the fact that you currently have 60 Dims in office will have to be changed significantly this fall. It’s a shame that all Senators aren’t up for a vote and we could leave you with about ten Dim Senators left to park their asses. 😉

  146. You know Rutherford…sometimes you can clearly see when and where Tex realizes he has lost the debate. He reverts to bringing up a dead Senator so he can slander him some more. I think they call this distraction.

    “oh look over there on the floor…something shiny”

  147. You know Rutherford…sometimes you can clearly see when and where Tex realizes he has lost the debate. He reverts to bringing up a dead Senator so he can slander him some more. I think they call this distraction.

    You mean like an anti-christian crusader who gets answers repeatedly to his hypocracy claims, and then makes it about Republicans instead on his last move of the goal posts? Nahhhh, no one would ever do that…

  148. Wally,

    I’ve been waiting for you. What you call distraction, I call amusement. What you call debate, I call mocking your style. Like I find it amusing you think you’re an intellectual.

    Even if you somehow manage to pass Bongocare, it is as popular as the plague, can’t be paid for or implemented, and you still lose. In fact, you trying to implement this facade is a bigger loser than if you immediately had lost the vote. I want you to continue to bend the rules, force bad legislation, play bully.

    I don’t panic when you public servant type, completely beholden to the public dole, rant and threaten because I know where this is headed. I have ulterior motives to be sure. You lefties are doing exactly what I knew you would do because you repeat the same mistakes over and over. That’s the definition of stupidity. For fourteen months now, I’ve had first hand account of your ineptness. My memory is simply longer than most. About every sixteen years, this cycles. And then for about twelve years, you fizzle.

    This is going nowhere because for no other reason we can’t pay for it. Obama’s plan is unsustainable, people recognize that, and every day that passes you are losing respect and power. You just don’t know that that.

  149. and then makes it about Republicans instead on his last move of the goal posts?

    Who moved the goal posts? We have multiple topics going on in this thread (as usual). Curator’s comments about reconciliation have nothing to do with the religious debate. I’m confounded as to how you’re connecting the two.

  150. Rutherford,

    Got any wisdom to convey from high about Charlie Rangel?

    I think Charlie provides a great caricature of the good part of the left-wing party. Good sense of humor, corrupt to the core, ingratiated for purposes of self-servitude. Kind of black Bill Clinton, minus the overwhelming libido. I mean, who can’t find humor in that we have a tax felon chairing the committee who writes the tax laws?

    There are times, I can see where it would be fun to be a lib. Living off the dole, feigning compassion while you’re stealing from the cookie jar, committing adultery in a party where adultery is looked at as a virtue? Smoking a stogie in the Oral Office while having the pole smoked by someone your daughter’s age?

    Can you possibly image the selfishness it would take to drive off a bridge drunk, leaving your passenger to drown, and the only thoughts that pass thru your mind are “I got dry and formulate a plan to save my career. Heck, I’ll even run for President 12 years later and my people will love me!” Even your staunchest enemies have to marvel at the bankruptcy of the mind – straight out of Caligula lore.

    This is great stuff! 🙂

  151. And Rangel is a tax cheat, so kick him out of office, or make him resign in disgrace as will probably happen. What is your point, or do you just want to continue masterbating over the career of a dead Senator? Is that what everybody does at freerepublic?

  152. Curator, maybe you haven’t been paying attention, but the bills that were passed previously, have been side-lined and they are going to pass new bills. They don’t count anymore…

    They are specifically talking about passing policy via reconciliation, not budget, and frankly, how does this fall into the budget? It doesn’t and you’re being intellectually dishonest to even pretend that it does.

  153. Speaking of hypocrisy,

    Anybody that reads here they will remember Rutherford being angry about the overwhelming majority of Americans being aghast at bring Khalid Sheik Mohammad to NYC for trial. Rutherford praised the brave Bomba, the enlightened Eric Holder who together demonstrated their ineptness guts and their leadership, scolding those of who disagreed as bending the Constitution, or worse of our own hypocrisy.

    As the weeks went by, Rutherford mellowed to a degree recognizing he wasn’t going to win the popularity argument, so he reverted back to the guilt argument; a little bit of Bomba apology for condemning KSM before his trial, mixed in with his own brand of sarcastic scolding for the rest of us dummies.

    Well, apparently Bomba has had a change of mind about the effectiveness of Attorney Marc Rich Eric Holder. 😈

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030405209.html?hpid=topnews

    In the coming months, there will be many changes of Dimocratic mind about health care as well.

  154. BiW …. update your About page.

    Seriously, are you retired? How in heaven’s name do you manage to write on so many blogs and have at least two of your own? As you may have noticed, I’m finding a very hard time lately just finding time for this one despite how much I enjoy writing and commenting here,

  155. Comments like this are why I love looking at old discussions here:

    “Thank you Curator. I could not have said it better myself. I’ve already told these guys that only budget adjustments will be done via reconciliation, not policy. “

What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s