Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> On 09/08/2012 05:28 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> > Because while it would be illegal to have a religious "test" to hold
> > public office, candidates who don't espouse their love for Jesus (or in
> > rare cases, just God is enough - for the Jewish and Muslim elected
> > officials), 79% of the people in the US are Christians who think that
> > there's something wrong with those who don't believe in a supernatural
> > deity, angels, or other superstitious nonsense that's commonly held
> > (don't let them hold some "weird" superstitious nonsense like
> > Scientology, though - because their brand of superstition is always
> > "superior" to that of the crazy people), and they won't vote for someone
> > who they think is "wrong in the head" when it comes to which sky fairy
> > they believe in.
>
> Man, I thought that was just a myth... The USA is seriously that messed up?

It's no myth.

A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim or that
he is an atheist.  The fact that these lies are even worth telling indicate the
kind of atmosphere here.  (Another lie about President Obama is that he is a
progressive.  I only wish that one were true.)

Michele Bachmann (who was a serious contender for the Republican nomination for
president) recently spun a great tale about how our government has been
infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood.  (The Muslim Brotherhood claims to be
unaware of this development, but maybe that's just part of the ruse.)  Many
Republicans, including former presidential candidate John McCain and the speaker
of the House told Bachmann that she was out of line, but just when you thought
sanity might break through in that party, fellow former candidates Rick Perry
and Rick Santorum came out and defended her.  And make no mistake, Bachmann has
the solid backing of the voters in her district.

It has been trendy for politicians, including presidential candidates, to state
that our problems are too great for man to solve, and that we must hand them
over to the Almighty.  In other words:

   "I cannot solve your problems, therefore, you should vote for me!"

And this is actually a selling point.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:08:56 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:

> A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim
> or that he is an atheist.  The fact that these lies are even worth
> telling indicate the kind of atmosphere here.  (Another lie about
> President Obama is that he is a progressive.  I only wish that one were
> true.)

Actually, I think there's probably a very good chance that Obama is 
culturally Christian but religiously atheist.  Of course, he could never 
admit that because it would be political suicide.

> It has been trendy for politicians, including presidential candidates,
> to state that our problems are too great for man to solve, and that we
> must hand them over to the Almighty.  In other words:
> 
>    "I cannot solve your problems, therefore, you should vote for me!"
> 
> And this is actually a selling point.

The other selling point (used mostly by Republicans, though never 
explicitly stated) is "Government is inefficient; let us prove it.  Vote 
for us!"

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 5:08 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Also, what's up with the House of Lords Spiritual?

Is that the House of Lords, Spiritual?

Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad 
more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they 
had to be listened to.

-- 
Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,

To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.


-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message

Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> > introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
>
> To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.

And that is exactly what the politicians, and possibly the oil companies, don't
want you to know during an election year.

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 9:30 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 12:17:05 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> If you doubt this, recall how they're all screaming up and down for
>> domestic drilling, because we need to be energy independent, yet when an
>> amendment was introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA, it was
>> voted down--by the Republicans.
>
> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.
>
> IOW, blame Obama for not being a Republican or not holding to Republican
> values.  If only he would believe what they believe, then there'd be no
> problem.  Other than we'd have Republican values dictating policy.
>
> Jim
>
Actually, someone joked a while back that the surest way to get anything 
progressive done in Washington was to put in two bills, one that was 
100% Republican, and endorsed by Obama, and one that claimed to be 
Republican, but was 100% progressive, but which he declared he would 
veto. It might only work once, but if you packed enough into the, "I 
don't want this passing", bill... lol

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 7:39 PM, Cousin Ricky wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> On 8/9/2012 9:17, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>>> introduced to keep the domestic oil in the USA,
>>
>> To be fair, this makes no sense. Oil is a commodity.
>
> And that is exactly what the politicians, and possibly the oil companies, don't
> want you to know during an election year.
>
>
They also probably don't want people to know that the only reason the 
oil subsidies probably where apposed by oil special interests, even 
while the oil execs said they didn't need them, is that, if we took 
global warming seriously, and took steps to curtail it, one of the 
things we would have to do is bury long term investments in thousands of 
new oil wells they have existing permissions to build, for the next 
50-100 years, effectively killing their whole entire investment strategy 
(which amounts to Palin's "Drill baby, drill!", and the rest's, "Then 
sell it to China!").

Post a reply to this message

On 8/9/2012 11:39 AM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2012 14:08:56 -0400, Cousin Ricky wrote:
>
>> A couple of the lies leveled at President Obama are that he is a Muslim
>> or that he is an atheist.  The fact that these lies are even worth
>> telling indicate the kind of atmosphere here.  (Another lie about
>> President Obama is that he is a progressive.  I only wish that one were
>> true.)
>
> Actually, I think there's probably a very good chance that Obama is
> culturally Christian but religiously atheist.  Of course, he could never
> admit that because it would be political suicide.
>
There was a post a while back on a blog which stated, in essence, that, 
among Jews there are Orthodox, moderates, and atheists, while, 
basically, among Christians there are Evangelicals, moderates, and uh... 
really moderate? Not even the ones that are atheist would be caught dead 
admitting it, unless they are priests, in which case there have been a 
recent rash of them, and a whole special organization, which involves 
them all helping and supporting each other, to either get out, or keep 
shepherding the flock, even while they realize that the "sheep" have 
actually been lemmings, all along.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 05:30 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:

> That doesn't surprise me one bit.  The Republican agenda is simple:  Vote
> for whatever Obama is against, and vote against whatever Obama is for.
> Then blame him for failing to move things forward.

Isn't that what the opposition party does in /every/ nation?

Seriously, I have yet to hear a single idea come out of the UK 
government without whichever parties are in opposition condemning it as 
a stupid idea that will never work and will cost British taxpayers millions.

Post a reply to this message

On 09/08/2012 08:34 PM, Stephen wrote:

> Anyway it is historical. Back in the day Archbishops were just a tad
> more powerful than they are now. And they had their own armies. So they
> had to be listened to.

IT'S THE BISHOP!

<que music...>

Post a reply to this message