(44) comments Back to story

npappous
Norman Pappous

I'm not certain that God is happy with any of us .

That said, this quote disturbs me -

"Whose interest was the Republican Party representing when it allowed the loonies in your party to shut down the U.S. government for 16 days and cost the nation’s economy $24 billion?"

Since when does the United States of America depend on government to fuel its economy? I thought that was the role of government in socialist or communist nations.

Further - that is BORROWED MONEY!!!! What is "looney" is to continue to borrow when we are really at the point that we are condemning our children to a lower quality of life so we can enjoy a higher quality of life.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

As I've mentioned in other forums, republicans aren't good christians.

Carlos Ponce

And as I've mentioned before in other forums, it is not up to you to judge who is and who is not a good Christian. That is for GOD to decide. Stop the hate sverige!
May God Bless Us, God Bless Us, Everyone!

Carlos Ponce

Your Scripture readings are fine but they refer to INDIVIDUAL responsibility to care for our fellow man, not the Nations'. According to Scripture the nations will be judged on their treatment of Israel.
It was Democrat Harry Reid who chose to chose to shut down the Federal government, not the Republican led house when he sat on bill after bill rather than compromise. The final offer was to delay Obamacare, something some Democrats NOW want to do. It is only through Liberal spin aided by the lame stream media that the MYTH has spread that the Republicans shut down government.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

So, because Harry Reid didn't pay the blackmail, that made him responsible? Interesting. That could have huge legal ramifications for criminal defense. I can see a kidnapper claiming that it was the kid's parents that caused their child to be killed. All they had to do was pay the million dollar ransom.

I take no issue with the Republicans making a final push to kill or delay Obamacare.

However, the responsible thing to do would have been for the two houses to agree on a plan to fund everything through the end of the year, or into next spring, and then agree to have detailed budget talks in order to complete this fiscal year and get something out there for the 2015 budget. Kind of like what did happen, but without the drama and pompousness.

npappous
Norman Pappous

I think the term "blackmail", in this case, is in the eye of the beholder...

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Perhaps over the top, but the point is still that the government shut down because the CRs insisted on only funding things not related to Obamacare. The political reality was that funding Obamacare was not going to be delayed, yet the CR's sent to the Senate continued to say that we weren't funding anything unless Obamacare was not funded.

The game itself would have been entertaining to watch had it been played in August and September, instead of late September to early October.

Carlos Ponce

Acting like a petulant child, Harry Reid refused to let the bills come to a vote. There was no "blackmail" involved. The Senate should have let the Bills come to a vote but Harry played politics instead of doing what was good for the country. The least he should have done is let the Bills go to a joint committee of Congress to reconcile differences. Instead, he just SAT on them.

From Schoolhouse Rock:
BILL:"Yeah, looks like I'm gonna live! I'm gonna go to the House of Representatives and they're gonna vote on me.
If they vote yes, what happens?
BILL: Well, then I got the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again."
But BILL was wrong! Harry would NOT let the process get started again. Harry Reid was responsible for the government shutdown.

" I'm just a Bill, stuck on Capitol Hill because Senator Reid doesn't like me. "

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Exactly what kind of an outcome would you have expected if Reid HAD wasted his chamber's time by bringing one of those bills to a vote? Something pretty much along the lines of a party-line response? The house did not send those bills because they expected them to pass. They know full well they wouldn't.

Say, for example, the Senate were to send an Obamacare Fix bill over to the House. This Fix bill does not delay Obamacare, nor does it kill it. It merely enhances a couple areas and rewords a couple others. Do you honestly think that Boehner would introduce it to the floor of the House? If he did, it would only be for the political spector of the laughter.

Paul Hyatt

Lloyd Criss is lying when he stated that the democrats ushered in civil rights.... I know you never learned your history Mr. Criss, but it was the democrats who FOUGHT against civil rights.... In fact it was the democrats who found and started the KKK and made all of the Jim Crow laws, that Sir, you can not refute....
Of course we all know you do not like to know your facts unless you can twist them to your advantage....

Gary Miller

KKK, NAACP. Racist white Democrats, Racist black Democrats.
If you need a raciast look for a Democrat. Need we know more?

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Well, ! IHOG ! -
The first active soon-released ex-slaves were courted by the Republican reconstruction side. That was, then, the party of "Abraham Lincoln". Democrats mainly in south did not relent with their separatist ways.

Yes, for a long time, "democrat" was associated with the KKK, et cetera. Then, as History 101 taught us, both parties shifted in their philosophies. Since the "New Deal", the democrats aligned with the social service, republicans - the elitist Eastern establishment.

Even Texas was anti-Eastern establishment "democrat" for a long time. We all know this has shifted. That is, most Republicans/Tea Partiers are now separatist and xenophobic. Democrats - social advocates for the oppressed. Exception: Lowell Weicher was a "liberal" republican up until the 90s, I believe. Texas had a couple of "conservative" democrats who switched to republican. Perry did so, so did Reagan years ago. The older Reagan and Perry got, the less wise - so to speak.

End of History 101. But, geez - it can get tiring giving "history reviews" to IHOG and the conservatives. I think some of the conservative folks need a slower-paced "remedial" course. Maybe we can "waive" the TAKS test on the conservatives so we can pass them on. lol

Carlos Ponce

I instructed students on the Texas TEKS (Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills which was tested by the TAKS and now STAAR tests and can tell you that you require remediation. Democrats started their shift to Socialism just prior to the Woodrow Wilson Administration. The Republicans have now shifted to a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution although there are a few deviations on both sides of the aisle. The TABS, TAAS, TEAMS, TAKS, and STAAR tests were before my time but I did administer them. I can assure you I could ace each. No waiver needed but I'll be glad to tutor you free of charge.

Carlos Ponce

Correction, the tests were AFTER my time.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

STUDENT TEST TAKEN PASS/FAIL

Ponce, C.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

STUDENT TEST TAKEN PASS/FAIL

Ponce, C. History FAIL

Paul Hyatt

Mr. Criss if you are going to use Bible scriptutre to prove your point what about the scriptures that condemn your party platform???? I guess those don't count in your mind do they????

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I presume you mean those that say our government has no role in punishing people for their moral sins like homosexuality, divorce, same-sex marriage, and the like? Or that the government shouldn't condone someone punishing others for their moral crimes, despite the fact that the Bible repeatedly says that judgement belongs to God?

If these are truly condemned by the Bible, the Bible says that we have the opportunity to repent and ask for forgiveness. Many people that claim to be aligned to the Right do not believe that homosexuals should be allowed to repent of their own accord.

Would you like to see a party platform that condones "beating the gay out of them?"

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to kevjlang posted at 9:43 am on Thu, Nov 7, 2013:

To answer your last question. Yes, they probably would. Let's be honest. The Tea Party/Republican party platform is to "wish away" the poor, gay/lesbian, "minority", and the needy.

The platforms saying "traditional family values are encouraged" gives tacit approval to show disdain and condemn "unconventional" families. Even some of the more fundamentalist republican/christian/tea partiers condemn single motherhood, as if it was always such women's choice to be struggling to raise one or more children.

npappous
Norman Pappous

Wow! Talk about painting with a wide brush....

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I don't think that sverige1 appreciates the Tea Party or the Neo-Cons much.

George Croix

CRA of 1964
Senate vote FOR was 69% of Democrats (46 out of 67) and 87% of Republicans (27 out of 33).
House vote FOR was 63% of Democrats (153 out of 244) and 80% of Republicans (136 out of 171).
Note the following:
"When the bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964, the "Southern Bloc" of 18 southern Democratic Senators and one Republican Senator led by Richard Russell (D-GA) launched a filibuster to prevent its passage.Said Russell: "We will resist to the bitter end any measure or any movement which would have a tendency to bring about social equality and intermingling and amalgamation of the races in our (Southern) states."
The most fervent opposition to the bill came from Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC): "This so-called Civil Rights Proposals, which the President has sent to Capitol Hill for enactment into law, are unconstitutional, unnecessary, unwise and extend beyond the realm of reason."
You might need a 'do-over' there, Lloyd, on that revisionist history you're serving up with the Kool Aid. Nobody is buying the President now lying about his lies. Nobody who can read or cares to can keep a straight face and buy your claims about Democrats giving us Civil Rights.
Do you REALLY expect anyone who got past 7th grade civics and government to believe such bunk?
Heck, on second thought, maybe you're right...
Now, as for 'The Shutdown', well, woodjalookatthat. Them mean 'ol Republicans and Tea Party folks were EXACTLY RIGHT about wanting to put the ACA on hold or at least delay it until it was ready for primetime, since it was not, and them Obamacare backers from POTUS all the way down to Podunk, were exactly wrong, and our CIC even led the way in LYING to us all flat out about it for the last 3 years, knowing better. And, to date, still is lying about it. More spin than a 15 cent top.
How's THAT help anybody, other than to help some into the pockets of others. To help some pay double or triple insurance premiums. To help some pay vastly higher deductibles. To help some get their time cut from 40 hours to 29.5?
Utterly screwing up 1/6 of the entire economy (what's left of it) of the whole nation in perpetuity makes your 24 billion bucks claimed lost in 17 days about as important in the financial scheme of things as NOT picking up a penney off the sidewalk does to your personal finances.
We could go on, avoiding stepping in the BS piles, but a summary of yet another such paternalistic article insulting the intelligence of anyone over the age of 9 just might be this:
You want a job, or help only when you really need and deserve it, and a chance to make your own future. Vote conservative.
You want a hand out, and to be helped even when not needing it or when undeserving, and a chance to be kept for the foreseeable future, vote liberal.
There it is...

Gary Miller

Mr. Criss

You show poor judgement by admiting you read things that offend you.
The fact the majority of us enjoy the writings of the three Musketeers overides your objections.
Use you right to choose. Don't read it.

George Croix

Personally, I'm offended by the author's offense...[beam]
The Constitution.
Learn it.
Know it.
Live it.
Along with the 'separation of church and state', which isn't in there anywhere either, there exists no right to not be offended.
Enjoy... [beam][beam]

Charles Roger Wood

Every Bible verse in this article is quoted accurately.

It cannot be denied that the scripture, as highlighted in the article, exhorts us all to love each other.

Politically or otherwise, if one is motivated--even in part--by hatred, he fails to uphold the foundational principle.

Carlos Ponce

Lloyd Criss was right! His Column was the lowest form of spin!

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to gecroix posted at 2:13 pm on Thu, Nov 7, 2013:

Well, geocroiex -
We will have to give you another brief review on American History 101 for non-majors. When the founding "fathers" came upon this land, soon to be called USA, they were leaving oppressive European lands where the Church emassed most of the land ownership. Anything sorted out to the people were only for the oldest born.

Couple that with requirements to belong to prescribed religion in Europe, we had many of our colonists escaping financial and religious persecution. The bulk of our new colonists ascribed to the Unitarian Universalist ideals where freedom of religion (or freedom FROM religion) was a crucial tenet of such belief system. With that in mind, yes, our founding fathers greatly believed in the "separation of church and state".

They were fleeing from such encroachment from their homelands. For that reason, anyone who inserts religion here in this country in regular business (federal, state, local, or private) - that individual is debasing the intended purpose of having our free United States of America.

If one wants to celebrate the gods, let them go to a church or other such arena assembly (like the Olsteens). Leave the rest of us alone conduct commerce without fairy tale stories inserted in our business.

Carlos Ponce

sverge, if I were you, I'd go to the University where you took American History 101 and ask for my money back. I'm certified by the State of Texas to teach History and I can tell you your take on American History is HIGHLY skewed to the left. Again I am offering you tutoring free of charge. God Bless You and God Bless America!

George Croix

Summarizing the article:
"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so."
Personally, I think Reagan got that half wrong.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 8:03 am on Fri, Nov 8, 2013:

Well, ponce -
Good thing you were directed to "teach to the test". Otherwise, your hundreds of students would have been subjected to perhaps biblical prosletyzing and right-leaning religulous tenets, - aka the kind of thing Bill Maher adroitly points out.

I feel sorry for history teachers in schools. That subject doesn't get the respect it deserves. Did they make you coach too?

Carlos Ponce

No I do not coach but I have video recorded the Marching Band since 1983 and travel with them to games and band contests. Several of the coaches are former students who are perfect gentlemen and good role models.They take their jobs in the classrooms as seriously as their roles on the fields or on the courts. And although we had several administrators who insisted that I "teach the Test", I taught my subject. So you listen to Bill Maher, I am not surprised.

Paul Hyatt

Carlos Ponce probably knows more on his off days then you will ever know on your best days....

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Well, geocroeox -
Please make note that many of our first founding fathers (Jefferson, Adams, Fillmore, Taft) were adherents to Unitarian Universalist. Frederick Douglass was quoted as saying "we profess to favor freedom, yet depreciate agitation."

http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_unitarian.html
http://www.adherents.com/largecom/fam_unitarian.html

Geez, it's so hard to educate the "right". I should get a bonus for this extra tutorial.

Paul Hyatt

Your so called facts are nothing but non-facts.... shame of it is that you "think' that you are right even when you are proven wrong.... Typical of the left leaning people....

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

More wise words from the Universalists:

"Most of the Founding Fathers were Deists, Unitarians or similar faiths that believed that God does not directly influence the world or order its events. They believed in rational thought, in personal responsibility for our actions, and the need to protect the innocent."

Carlos Ponce

Here are the facts, sverige:
There are 204 unique individuals in this group of "Founding Fathers." These are the people who did one or more of the following:
- signed the Declaration of Independence
- signed the Articles of Confederation
- attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787
- signed the Constitution of the United States of America
- served as Senators in the First Federal Congress (1789-1791)
- served as U.S. Representatives in the First Federal Congress

Religious Affiliation of U.S. Founding Fathers # %

Episcopalian/Anglican 88 or 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 or 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 or 16.8%
Quaker 7 or 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 or 3.1%
Catholic 3 or 1.9%
Huguenot 3 or 1.9%
Unitarian 3 or 1.9%
Methodist 2 or 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

Only THREE Unitarians does not constitute "most". Most (over half )were Episcopalian/Anglican. Source:
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html
Did you make up your statement, were taught or were told that?

Carlos Ponce

The table above counts people and not "roles," meaning that individuals have not been counted multiple times if they appear on more than one of the lists above. Roger Sherman, for example, signed all three foundational documents and he was a Representative in the First Federal Congress, but he has been counted only once.
See web site for further explanation of these numbers.

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

Let's note the fact that the Anglican Church was, and still is, the Church of England. In Merry Old England, they did not stand to directly lose anything by repression of other churches. Yet, they, as the Majority of the Founding Fathers saw the wisdom of the nation NOT establishing a church.

I think they figured that governing was a big enough job, and that the people had no need for the government to be trying to enlighten their souls. I think they also figured that religion is a big enough job, and that the churches should find better things to do with their time than trying to control the government.

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Response to carlosrponce posted at 2:05 pm on Fri, Nov 8, 2013:

Well, poncie -
Just as the quote I borrowed below says that "most of the Founding Fathers were deists or similar faiths...". The Anglicans (the majority in your statistic you posted) are similar to the Unitarians in that they too believe that "God does not directly influence the world or order of its events".

We all know the religious theological liberalism that the Anglicans possess. So, thanks for further proving my point. Too bad the religious fundamentalists can't just get their "fix" at church and leave the rest of us alone the other 6 days out of the week.

Carlos Ponce

So the Anglicans of the 18th Century are similar to the Unitarians......... There are a few differences:
Anglicanism developed as a middle way between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism. Unitarian Universalism developed from Protestant Reformation.
Anglicanism accepts the Holy Trinity doctrine while Unitarian Universalism does not.
Diversity in beliefs and churches in Unitarian Universalist churches and congregations, while Anglican Churches have a creed and a common set of Christian beliefs.
The Anglican spiritual texts are the bible and The Book of Common Prayer. Unitarian Universalism has no official text.
Anglicanism order priests, bishops, and deacons, while Unitarian Universalism orders only ministers.
Anglicanism has a greater number of members in the United States and worldwide.
Source:
http://www.differencebetween.net/miscellaneous/religion-miscellaneous/difference-between-unitarian-universalism-and-anglican/#ixzz2k8LOMMfK

kevjlang
Kevin Lang

I believe sverige1 was only referencing a single point of commonality. Your list details many dissimilarities, but doesn't address the one similarity he cited. Do you believe sverige1 is correct on that point?

sverige1
Lars Faltskog

Well, kev...I notice the crickets chriping in place of a "poncie" answer to your clarification. Yes, indeed, I was making one similarity, and - a very important one.

Even to this day, most folks who either stayed alert in lower classman's class of Religion 101 or have a knack for finding a wikipedia article can come to the conclusion that the bulk of our forefathers ascribed to the less oppressive of the religions. In essence, Unitarianism...or Anglicanism.

I would think if there existed a scale of "rigidosity", that Unitarians would be a "1" for being the most "lax", and Anglicanism, perhaps a "2" or "3".

George Croix

For some reason, the 'gift' given to us by the author's Party of choice, the ACA, wasn't mentioned.
Perhaps because:
"While President Obama continues his cross country pitch on the merits of his landmark health care law, dismal new data shows only five people in the D.C. area have signed up for the Affordable Care Act – or ObamaCare."
“With data from D.C.’s four participating health plans in, there’s been a whopping five people enrolled in the city’s exchange. That’s right – five. Whether it’s significant problems with the website, people being forced off the coverage they had or skyrocketing costs, these numbers are even more proof of what a disaster ObamaCare is and why it should be delayed.”

Thanks.

George Croix

There are lots of people like Alan Grayson.
They all share a common attribute.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.