John Adams

Some spiritual leader. Even Hitler wasn't in the Hitler Youth.

No argument from me. The Democrats are in big trouble. The Republicans have taken all their issues- they now are the party of spend and spend, and the left just clings to a few issues like civil liberties and abortion.

Sadly, that pledge is right out of the West Wing- from the Conservative candidate played by Alan Alda.

How about this pledge: "For every dollar in tax decreases I propose, I'll propose two dollars in spending decreases."

The Monkey stole my response, though he stated it more elegantly. You are dodging. We're not talking about Jews or Muslims- that's not this thread. This is the Catholic thread. If you want to have a moral relativism thread comparing religions, start one. Your consistent response to Catholic failings (some of which you may acknowledge) is: "But look at them. They're doing it." My 3 year old daughter is kind of over that sort of thinking, and I'd hope that the Catholic religion would be too. Are you a leader or follower?

Your colorful and irrelevant analogies dodge the fact that the Catholic Church is wrong. That someone else is wrong is their concern, and as this may relate to certain Muslim nations, they are widely criticized for it. When Jesus stood beside the adulteress about to be stoned, did he say, "Throw all the stones you want. But if the Jewish Elders say not to, then follow suit and do what they do." And you also ignore that LOTS of religions, many protestant and some sects of Judaism, have already taken the lead on the roles of women. So, THEY have changed. Who is the Catholic Church waiting to follow?

I don't really care if the Catholic Church corrects its failings or not, beyond the fact that it would certainly be good, at least for women, if the Church changed certain things, such as the role of women. Your defense of "But other people are worse" is pretty hollow, and cannot be satisfying; Ditto to your "we'll change when they do" argument. You're arguments are saying that you'd rather your church play second fiddle to others on moral issues like subjugation of women. That's sad. And who is "forcing" the Catholic Church to change? First, it's unlikely that it will. Second, if it does, who is "forcing" it?

I jest. The Republicans won't shrink that size of government. But they may give it lip service. At least the Democrats raise taxes when they increase spending. There's something intellectually honest about that.

Phew. I feel better now. I am excited to see Bush actively seek to cut the size of the government, maybe by 5-10%.

They must be so proud. Obviously, they failed in your case, but at least they try to teach independent thought nowadays. Your hang-up about them was never fully expressed in the earlier thread.

I don't follow you.

No. I don't. Maybe you should visit some Jesuit schools.

I don't fear religion. I fear those who use it to push their moral and social agendas on others. And I fear those who would prefer to lockstep with their religion rather than reach their own conclusions. Which puts me opposition to you on another topic: I like the Jesuits precisely because they teach people how to think critically and not be lemmings. Being able to confuse someone is not an asset. It's not surprising that you're proud of your ability to be obtuse though. It is your gift.

Per usual, I have no idea what you are talking about. Are you (a) saying that Bush's win was mandated from Heaven? I don't get your thought police statement at all. Are you mocking the Republican thought police? Or the Democratic thought police? I get them mixed up: the uniforms are so similar.

For those watching the West Wing this season, this type of grotesque behavior is EXACTLY what the Republican nominee railed against in one episode. Of course, that was fiction. Reality is below. Frist- no shame Think what I may about the Democrats, and their grotesque behavior in blocking nominees, this is NOT a filibuster "against people of faith." What scum. Meet the people who now control America: your Republican Party.

They do. Ken was focusing on the fiscal responsibility angle because that was the topic of the thread. The Founding Fathers risked their own and their families lives to change the government that oppressed them. All we have to do is vote to effect a change. The Libertarians suffer from a few major problems: (1) They have been a party of idealists, and not realists, for a while. What I mean is that they have too many members running around talking about their Utopian ideal of NO governmennt regulation on almost everything. Most people can't envision this, and distrust this idea, especially when it comes to things like drugs, welfare (in some form), schools, and infrastructure. This has begun to change. Libertarians are increasingly realistic, and focus on real plans, not for decimating government, but just for shrinking its size/reach in realistic bits. This should have broader appeal, but the perception of the Libertarians is often still that they(we) are a party of Utopian Hedonists who need to grow up. If the Libs can overcome this perception, they will have a shot at gaining influence. (2) The two party system works- for the two parties. People vote for their party because that's their habit, and they know that third parties don't win. (3) There is no known standard bearer. The Libertarians need a "name" defector (likely some true Conservative) or a known charasmatic leader. This sounds shallow, but it's true. A name candidate would give the party street cred. The Michael Badnariks and Harry Browne's of the world will not draw national interest.

A few months ago, the Crap Throwing Monkey made a point that stuck with me. There's a ceratin balance between freedom and fear. Take away too much freedom and we are not America. Sadly, while we should fight terrorism tooth and nail, we will all have to almost accept a certain level of terror so that we can still live free. The *worst* response to a dirty bomb detonation would be to further restrict freedom. Freedom is what we have that makes us different and better than the terrorists.

Never happen. State lines mean very little nowadays. The feral gov't does all it can to erase them.

I don't know what *you* may mean by "sin," but I took it to mean just plain "wrong." And I do not think it is wrong to engage in homosexual behavior. I go to a health club in Philly. It's got a basketball court, which is why I'm a member, and it's also got a high gay population. There are gay guys on the machines, on the court, and in the lockerroom. Big deal.

Even though they are the Bengals, you are high. No one trades good draft picks for players any more.

Oooh look: beaux is back on his one horse.

I think I'm falling in love with you.

You need more, or some, years of Catholic schooling. For a self-confessed Catholic, can't you even do theology right? Jesus didn't write the Bible, even by the Bible's account. So Jesus didn't leave out parts of the Bible, the authors did. And even though the NT covers 3 years of his life, of that, it only discusses a few stories during the course of those three years. Maybe the part where he plays catch with his son in the backyard of his suburban Nazareth home wasn't good enough to make the cut of stories. Even if you accept that the Bible is the Word of God, who are you to question why certain parts of the story were left out? 30 years is a long time for Jesus to be wandering around- it must have been a compelling time, considering the blockbuster success of the other three years, and yet, that part of the story can't be found. Neither of us knows what happened. Which is why a writer of FICTION chose to take a stab at it. Notice how you are the only person arguing that the book is anything but fiction? One in the face of all the bookstores and readers of that book... only you. These fantasies of yours make you borderline certifiable.

Yeah. But if it has a bibliography, it's dangerous non-fiction. 99.9% of readers and all the bookstores are wrong. And, to the extent Brown made mistakes about the date of the Dead Sea Scrolls' discovery... well, there's a point here somewhere that matters... I can't make it out... in a work of fiction, there's a mistake... and so that's very important because... "shoddy scholarship!... anti-Catholic... something... losing focus...

Of course, you're right. If I had cited a source in my bibliography, that would have made my statement an error in an otherwise scholarly work.