US Mid-Term Elections

[thelerner]

So.. .. .. how's 2016 shaping up??

 

at the moment, I don't care. I'm just glad the damn mud slinging commercials and robo calls have stopped. I hope we're blessed with a year of peace and nobody starts running til early 2016, but I'm a dreamer.

[Marblehead]

So.. .. .. how's 2016 shaping up??

I'm not sure. But I doubt the republicans would win unless they get a sound candidate and in my mind that could be only Jeb.

 

IMO there are a lot of negatives with Hillery but Bill's attachment with many voters will give her great support.

 

And yes, the robot telephones calls were a pain. I consider its use very rude and tiresome.

[Apech]

I suppose Hillary is front runner then? I always found it hard to have much against Bill C. (the impeachment thing made me feel sorry for him ... not sure why). But when I read Christopher Hitchens on the Clintons I had to change my opinion.

 

So the Republicans have no good candidates? That's probably a good thing I would guess.

[Vmarco]

So.. .. .. how's 2016 shaping up??

 

at the moment, I don't care. I'm just glad the damn mud slinging commercials and robo calls have stopped. I hope we're blessed with a year of peace and nobody starts running til early 2016, but I'm a dreamer.

IMO....the only way, under the current conditions, to have a game changing election, is through on-line voting.

[Marblehead]

I suppose Hillary is front runner then?

It looks that way to me right now. (Personal opinion: That will be a sad day for America if she wins.)

 

I always found it hard to have much against Bill C. (the impeachment thing made me feel sorry for him ... not sure why). But when I read Christopher Hitchens on the Clintons I had to change my opinion.

Yeah, the impeachment thing was a farce. They first tried to get him for behavior unbecoming but when that didn't work they tried to get him for lying to congress for his quote "I did not have sex with that woman." But he, Bill, being a lawyer, was well aware of exactly which words he was using. He did not have sex with her; she gave him a blow job.

 

So the Republicans have no good candidates? That's probably a good thing I would guess.

Not that I can see right now. It would be a bad thing if you don't want Hillery to be president.

[Marblehead]

IMO....the only way, under the current conditions, to have a game changing election, is through on-line voting.

That won't ever happen.

[Vmarco]

That won't ever happen.

No, not that it ever will happen,...but under the current two party regime,...unlikely for a long time. For one thing,...the option for an on-line vote vs a multi-hour ordeal to go to poll booth, or absentee ballad,...there would be no more "provincial votes that are never counted,...and such a polling option would show that neither of the Two Parties could singularly get more than 30% of the vote,...which by itself, would reshape the dialogue, and the Party in power.

 

Under the current system, that of disenfranchising nearly 1/2 of all voters,...assures the system will remain sick for a long time.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Vmarco

[Vmarco]

“As a Christian I have...the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.” Adolf Hitler

[Vmarco]

“Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth.” ―Albert Einstein

[Apech]

It looks that way to me right now. (Personal opinion: That will be a sad day for America if she wins.)

 

Yeah, the impeachment thing was a farce. They first tried to get him for behavior unbecoming but when that didn't work they tried to get him for lying to congress for his quote "I did not have sex with that woman." But he, Bill, being a lawyer, was well aware of exactly which words he was using. He did not have sex with her; she gave him a blow job.

 

Not that I can see right now. It would be a bad thing if you don't want Hillery to be president.

 

What's wrong with Hillary? Would she make a bad president?

[Marblehead]

What's wrong with Hillary? Would she make a bad president?

You sure know how to put me on the spot, don't you?

 

Actually, she isn't much different from most other politicians. But consider that I do not hold most politicians in very high regard.

[Apech]

You sure know how to put me on the spot, don't you?

 

Actually, she isn't much different from most other politicians. But consider that I do not hold most politicians in very high regard.

 

 

I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I just wondered what particularly she believes in, or has stated as policy or perhaps her personality which makes her a bad idea.

[Brian]

well, in my case, it was quite the opposite. And I struggle to see how someone as demonstrably intelligent and sensitive as you could possibly conclude that the man was anything but a psychopathic liar and cold-blooded war mongerer.

Well, almost by definition, anyone who seeks a chief executive position is both a narcissist and a megalomaniac. Looking back over the roster of US Presidents, I see very few in which both traits are not fairly obvious. Speaking specifically of Nixon, this is most certainly true. Additionally, he was highly (and increasingly) paranoid and he had a persecution complex which bordered on (or maybe crossed the border into) a self-image of martyrdom.

 

It was evident at the time, however, and supported by documentation since that he agonized over many of his decisions. This is not the behavior of either a psychopath or a sociopath -- terms which I think tend to get thrown around too loosely. A deeply flawed character who made some horrendous choices and who lied in an attempt to cover his ass & save his reputation but not, in my estimation, a psychopath or a war-monger.

 

It is impossible to look at that conflict from a strictly US-focused lens or with a focus on the Nixon administration and get any feel for the big picture, as you know. Even with that awareness, however, so much has been painted over that it takes some digging to find the ugly patterns underneath. For instance, how different might the second half of the 20^th century have played out if Woodrow Wilson (one of the most despicable of US Presidents) and his League of Nations had not refused to hear Ho Chi Min's complaint right after the first world war? What if the Chinese hadn't invaded North Vietnam days after Ho Chi Min took control of the North in 1945? What if the British hadn't taken Saigon a month later? What if the Soviet Union hadn't gotten involved a few years later? What if Truman hadn't started secretly sending troops, supplies and money to the South in 1950? What if Ho Chi Min had allowed the national elections in 1956 as agreed to in Geneva in '54 instead of beginning a purge? What if Ike hadn't officially begun US involvement in 1955? What if Kennedy didn't send an additional 15,000 (official) troops to Vietnam? What if Goldwater (who advocated either fighting to win or getting out) had been elected in 1964? What if Johnson hadn't lied to Congress about the Gulf of Tonkin incident (among MANY other things, as evidenced by the so-called Pentagon Papers), hadn't started bombing Laos and hadn't ratcheted US troop deployment from under 20,000 to well over half a million during his term in office? Nixon, for all his mistakes and terrible decisions, actually started stepping down US boots-in-the-ground almost immediately -- bringing home about 30,000 his first year in office and another 150k or so each year thereafter.

 

As to the so-called Peace Talks, Ho Chi Min had been masterful in the negotiations with France and China in the mid-1940s, using the opportunity to crush internal opposition. He was a Leninist national-socialist ideologue who would accept nothing short of complete control over the entire Nguyen empire. His successors were equally ideological and the Peace Talks were really a farce. The terms eventually agreed upon were cease-fire and departure of all US forces with the promise of non-violence and of allowing the people of South Vietnam to decide their fate through fair elections. Instead, the reunification came with tanks and machetes. Nixon was accused of manipulating the Talks prior to his first election (and Truman wire-tapped Nixon's campaign in response) because Kissinger was merely an astute political player, and because newly-elected President Thieu refused to sit at the table and negotiate the terms of surrendering South Vietnam to the North.

 

Nixon was accused again of manipulating the Peace Talks prior to the 1972 election but it turns out that Kissinger leveraged the growing sense of detente between the US and both China and the Soviet Union (North Vietnam's political, financial and military backers). DRV President Thang had thrown everything into the so-called Easter Offensive and it didn't pay off. Fearful that this setback, combined with improved relations between the US & his two sponsor-nations, would result in a diminution of external support, Thang had Thuy return to Paris to arrange a scheduled departure of US troops under false pretenses (the promise of peace and democratic elections) -- about a month before the US Presidential election of 1972.

 

As I said, it was a bit more complicated than "Nixon was a blood-thirsty psychopath..."

[Brian]

 

 

I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I just wondered what particularly she believes in, or has stated as policy or perhaps her personality which makes her a bad idea.

She is a hardcore Alinskyite. Have you done any research yet on Saul Alinsky? If not, you should. She interned with him, she deferred a job offer from him in order to get three years lawyering experience first (he died shortly after) and her 92-page senior thesis at Welsley College was entitled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. In that paper, she strongly defends him but laments that his proposed actions weren't bold enough and that some were naïve. She also disagreed with his premise that the collapse of US society could only come from community organizers operating outside the government -- she believed that the overthrow, by any means necessary, could be better effected from inside the government.

[Marblehead]

I wasn't trying to put you on the spot. I just wondered what particularly she believes in, or has stated as policy or perhaps her personality which makes her a bad idea.

Okay. Brian said enough. My response would have been personal (and not very nice).

[joeblast]

the overthrow, by any means necessary, could be better effected from inside the government.

anyone that doesnt know about the trail of dead bodies, drugs, guns, and corruption in the clinton's wake needs to do a little reading. anyone who calls bush a war criminal but loves bill & hillary are hypocrites. (I didnt say he wasnt a war criminal, because everything that went down was criminal, including WTC)

 

http://www.arkancide.com/

 

Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.

 

and until the federal reserve banks are prosecuted under #14 section 4 and the federal reserve is completely dissolved and their debts rendered null and void (since they've made enough in the last hundred+ years) then absolutely nothing will change.

 

that has no possibility of happening so long as people keep up with the fake left right party scheme swindle. until americans finally get it through their head that both the republican and democrat parties are not beholden to the constitution, or to faithful representation of their constituency, serving their own interests as well as those who write the big checks for them...

 

until americans repudiate both parties and 3rd, 4th, however many parties pop up to swallow the corrupt and cancerous R-D scheme....until that is done,

 

our pockets will be continually robbed,

we will have no true representation in government.

 

the finer points of communism vs fascism are but an intellectual curiosity, because functionally speaking, tyranny is tyranny, whether its communist, fascist, crony capitol-ist , banksterist, or what have you.

 

 

and its still beyond me how people think Obama is intelligent. never was there a more conspicuous puppet.

 

its nice and quiet here.

[Brian]

<snip>

...anyone who calls bush a war criminal but loves bill & hillary are hypocrites...

<snip>

This is a point I have been trying to drive home here for years -- the idea that this is all a Democrat vs. Republican thing is an engineered subterfuge designed specifically to divide the citizenry against itself in order to steal power from the people and establish an all-powerful State the likes of which the world has never known. The perpetrators honestly believe they are doing it for our own good, which is what makes them so terrifyingly dangerous.

[CloudHands]

Why the F were I talking here ?

Edited November 12, 2014 by CloudHands

[thelerner]

Call me naive, but I read history as well as some of the modern books on the two presidents. From my angle, You- JoeBlast, Brian, Soaring Crane, VMarco, let me save some typing by saying- everyone on this thread who is not me, is crazy; taking part in exaggerated partisan conspiracy crap.

[joeblast]

sure man, 2 bullets to the back of the head, easily qualifies as a suicide...really, have you ever even opened that can of worms regarding the clintons? its a substantial percentage as deep and shitty as the bush family. (to whit, jeb in 16? who the f is anyone kidding?)

 

 

 

so are you insinuating that the federal reserve is actually a legal, constitutional entity? and has not absolutely raped the hell out of the currency, enabled the government to have a blank check for its wishes, encouraged inflationary speculation, etc, etc, etc...

 

 

 

 

I dunno. this is why nothing will ever get done, because far too many people who consider themselves to be clear headed rational thinkers are also of the mindset that there couldnt possibly be such evil congregated and doing such things to the populace.

 

I mean, that's NEVER happened in history before...

 

sorry bro, all 3 branches of the government are bought and purchased. the executive is a puppet, the legislation is locked by the upper echelons of both faux sides to ensure the continuance and integrity of the party line, the judiciary trots out whatever outcome they're told to procure, whether the process is constitutional or not it doesnt matter, they declare the outcome and sorry, its law now, cant do nothin about it. (there is very little doubt about this after seeing citizens united and obamacare debaucheries - I know, I "defended" CU in the past based on it putting a level playing field for political money between corporations and unions, but I also stated at the time the better outcome would have been leveling the playing field in the opposite direction and removing the unions et al ability to spend in a virtually unlimited fashion on politics.)

 

bought and purchased by the very forces that finance and enable it.

 

sure they said they'd taper, but go ahead, look, the FR banks themselves just picked up the slack on their own balance sheets and the aggregate remains the same.

 

when ya gonna smell that rotten fish? when the curtain lifts and we're shown what the dollar is really worth once the resource wars start playing out? why the hell do you think russia is being antagonized? energystuffz. what backs the "full faith and credit of" the petrodollar? its prefix.

 

the world's dumping their dollars, and unfortunately severe pain by the us citizenry (and you can of course extrapolate that everywhere the tentacles go...how's greece , cypress.....iceland, for that matter? ) is going to result when the rest of the world figures out that it has to gang up on the central banksters lest they be consumed like we have been. look at the gold purchases....and we have ben bernanke telling us its a barbarous relic, the CFR edits out greenspan saying gold is the real deal and not even the dollar can come close to touching it in terms of real value....

 

*shrugs* I gather ya just dont see the joke, brotha (I mean, do you accept the truth of things like 9-11? because if you dont even accept the truth of things like that....forget about it, go back to sleep and enjoy life. no offense intended either...its just that if this amount of evidence is not enough to convince people that there are forces managing the system that deny the functionality of all of the fundamentals of said system, yet somehow, some way, that system continues to work.....right, guns and weapons....and that ready made patriot act, eh? )

 

 

I'm still surprised there's people out there that believe this is an apple.

 

Edited November 12, 2014 by joeblast

[soaring crane]

Nixon was accused again of manipulating the Peace Talks prior to the 1972 election ...

 

As I said, it was a bit more complicated than "Nixon was a blood-thirsty psychopath..."

 

Yes, I'll concede that 'callous, murdering sociopath hell-bent on furthering his political career' could be more accurate re Nixon. In my lay-understanding, the distinction between sociopath and psychopath is that the the former is aware of and quite probably enjoys the misery and pain s/he inflicts on others while the latter is oblivious to the effects of his/her violent actions on others.

 

Read this:

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-21768668

 

How many Vietnamese died in that time? How many deaths were associated with his crazed ambitions?

 

Not that he was (or is) the only one. And not that I disagree with with the points you make about all the callous, murdering sociopaths who have enjoyed high office in the US government; I simply happened to be astonished at the time by your assertion that the Viet Nam war had been ended by a moderate Republican. The way you put it, one could conclude that you consider Nixon to have been some kind of humanitarian, and a victim of revisionist history, when in fact he was barely human to begin with and his filthy history is still being unfurled. We don't know how many more nuggets of depravity remain hidden.

[soaring crane]

Call me naive, but I read history as well as some of the modern books on the two presidents. From my angle, You- JoeBlast, Brian, Soaring Crane, VMarco, let me save some typing by saying- everyone on this thread who is not me, is crazy; taking part in exaggerated partisan conspiracy crap.

 

hahaha ... what? I'm not sure what I've written to be labelled crazy or partisan. I made a couple pretty good suggestions as to why the political climate in the US is the way it is, and I reacted to a statement from Brian. But that's about it, far as I remember.

 

Nobody replied to my suggestion that the country would benefit from an independent, publicly-funded media system. So let me elaborate:

 

If I had the magic wand, I'd create, overnight, a TV, radio, print and web network, fully funded (to the tune of billions a year) by public money, and completely immune to governement or commercial interests.

 

A system like this was created by the allies in Germany after the war because they recognized the power of the Nazi propaganda machines. The propaganda was coming from government and commercial/industrial sources, and both of them were colluding with one another to make the misery as, well, miserable as possible.

 

The system as it exists today is pretty complex, with regional systems and national systems running independent of one another, but sharing some programming.

 

That means we get incredibly high-quality reporting on the governmemt and on industry, and they can do nothing about it.

 

We pay a tax for this system and it's one of the taxes I genuinely support and wouldn't mind seeing raised.

[Apech]

She is a hardcore Alinskyite. Have you done any research yet on Saul Alinsky? If not, you should. She interned with him, she deferred a job offer from him in order to get three years lawyering experience first (he died shortly after) and her 92-page senior thesis at Welsley College was entitled "There Is Only the Fight . . . ": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. In that paper, she strongly defends him but laments that his proposed actions weren't bold enough and that some were naïve. She also disagreed with his premise that the collapse of US society could only come from community organizers operating outside the government -- she believed that the overthrow, by any means necessary, could be better effected from inside the government.

 

 

Well I did read his wiki page and I was very impressed that there did indeed exist a radical progressive in America. he wanted to organise to give power to the 'have-nots' ... well I'm all for that. Seems to me the 'haves' are getting more and more these days and the 'have nots' are getting less and less.

 

In the UK and Europe he would be regarded as a lefty but perfectly normal and rational in his views as far as I can see. This is the problem ... the US has no left wing at all ... just different shades of right wing ... so when it pops its head up you get all scared and start calling them national socialists and communists all in one breath cos you don't understand what the fuck they are. This is the secret ... in democratic politics there is supposed to be a spectrum of views ... communist is ok ..it doesn't have to hold power but it has it's point of view.

 

I would be stunned if Hillary is really how you characterise her. To me ... if I were to be critical she looks like a chancer .... she wants power ... and she'll say anything, do anything, to get it. If I really thought she was genuinely committed to community organisation I would pray she got elected.

 

There I've said it. LOL.

[Vmarco]

　

 

Call me naive, but I read history as well as some of the modern books on the two presidents. From my angle, You- JoeBlast, Brian, Soaring Crane, VMarco, let me save some typing by saying- everyone on this thread who is not me, is crazy; taking part in exaggerated partisan conspiracy crap.

 

Only exaggeration for those into revisionist history.

 

The problem in America is not the Right-Wing Christian social conservatives,...it is the Moderate Christians who enable Fundamentalist agendas.

 

　

tracie h wrote:

 

　

I have a theist friend who thinks I’m too quick to blame some of the world’s ills on religion. After all, he was raised in religion. He believes in god, and he doesn’t care if anyone else does or not. He isn’t trying to force it onto anyone else. He isn’t writing to legislators to ask them to incorporate his beliefs into laws that impact anyone else. And none of his friends or family has ever done anything like that, either. Christianity isn’t impacting U.S. policy. I’m simply imagining things.

My friend is an example of what Sam Harris discusses in his writings when he describes how moderate Christians act as a buffer—a safety net—for fundamentalist Christians who are pushing their agendas into public policy and legislation. To criticize such a Christian agenda insults moderate Christians (like my friend) who are quick to defend that their religion should not be blamed for public ills. After all, what moderate wants to be held responsible for harmful public policies and legislation?

Say that religion is at the root of such a problem, and you get shot down before you’re even out of the gate (if I can mix my metaphors)—not by overzealous fundamentalists, but by moderate, liberal Christians—like my friend. Point out where religion harms society, and you’re met with the shout down—from moderate, middle-of-the-road Christians—that you’re guilty of painting religion with too broad a brush. You’re cherry picking lunatics and fanatics and trying to impose that dysfunctional mess upon all Christians, who are, for the most part, socially benign.

To be honest, I have no idea if the majority of Christians are "moderate"—in the sense that they have personal beliefs they don’t try to spread around or impose on others. I have no aversion to assuming most Christians fit that bill. Certainly most believers I have met personally aren’t any different. But whether they have majority numbers or not, it’s the fanatics that are running the program, invading politics, and shaping law and policy in this nation to bend it to a fundamentalist Christian agenda.

If a silent majority doesn’t like being represented by a squeaky-wheel faction—I recommend they should learn to speak up against their brethren whom they condemn privately as "lunatics" and "fanatics." Instead, from what I can see, moderates would rather use their collective, "majority" voices to speak out against anyone else who condemns their fanatical members publicly. And here I have to excuse (and applaud) more responsible, moderate Christians—few though they may be—who do actually counter fundamentalism publicly, such as Barry Lynn Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

But it can no longer be denied, by any reasonably informed person, that public policy is being shaped by Christian agendas—whether it is the work of a fanatic, but highly politically efficient, minority of Christians or not. And if the moderate middle rebuffs criticisms of their more fanatic brethren, denies there is any problem in their midst, and refuses to join anyone in confronting the negative elements within their own camp—how are they not part of the problem? These moderates aren’t just guilty of letting the fundamentalist element run roughshod while they sit silently by, they’re actually protecting fundamentalist actions against legitimate criticisms by throwing the accusation "gross generalization" and "prejudice alarmist" at anyone who dares claim there even is a problem to criticize within the Christian ranks.

In the editorial section of this morning’s Austin American-Statesman, there are two articles that address the statistically observable supreme failings of Texas’ abstinence-based sex education in public schools. One article, "Learning Sex the Texas Way," has this to say:

"Gov. Rick Perry's office said he is comfortable with the abstinence-based approach. ‘We oppose any sex education other than abstinence until heterosexual marriage,’ said his spokeswoman."

Make no mistake, Perry has won re-election in the past. I cannot claim that he is unpopular. And I’m guessing he knows who his supporters are. What politician doesn’t? If he put forward policies not backed by the majority of voting Texans—how would he remain in office? Any thinking person might legitimately then ask, "what constituency would support failing programs and policies that put their own children at risk of deadly STDs and unwanted pregnancies?"

Let’s examine that question.

At the American Family Association (AFA) online, in their article, "Abstinence-Only Education Proves Effective," it states, "there is no logical reason why abstinence-only education would not be effective in reducing sexual activity among teens."

Logical or not, we come pretty close to abstinence-only in Texas—and it’s not working as it "logically" should.

Just to cement that this is a Christian organization, in their section "Does AFA hate homosexuals?" the site states:

"The same Holy Bible that calls us to reject sin, calls us to love our neighbor… AFA has sponsored several events reaching out to homosexuals and letting them know there is love and healing at the Cross of Christ."

Make no mistake AFA is a Christian coalition.

Another supporter is The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. On their site is an article "Support Abstinence Education," that says, "Don’t let the Senate jeopardize the future of abstinence education. Call or e-mail today!"

Do I need to keep going? The religious right has code words as well, such as conservative, family values, traditional, moral, and so on. They have less overtly religious organizations as well, such as the National Review—which bills itself as a "conservative" media source. Not every group is an outright Wallbuilders. But the more you educate yourself about these issues, the faster you begin to recognize the words that equal "Christian." Doubt me? Try following a few of these sites for a month to see if you don’t start seeing particular words and phrases that begin to stand out as secular, yet repetitive.

Why use codes? Why not simply say, "This is my religious belief, and I’m going to do all I can to promote it in public policy and legislation"? AFA pretty clearly does this—so why not all organizations with a Christian base?

There is one clear advantage to hiding a religious agenda. Ask Intelligent Design proponents. When the courts tell you that teaching Creationism in schools is using the government to promote religion, and you can’t do that, you are forced to find more subversive, secular-sounding means to reach your goals. You take out "god" and put in "Intelligent Designer." (Just make sure to double-check the search-and-replaces in your documentation really well before going to court.)

Still, today I realized something different and new and as enlightening as it is disturbing. I realized that even powerful mainstream critics of these religious fundamentalists have learned to pretend that this is actually a battle between secular ideologies—Republican vs. Democrat—and religion plays no part. In both opinion pieces, religion is oddly absent—as is any mention of who might be promoting such policies. Why call out Perry alone? Yes, he’s a politician, and his performance should be examined in the paper. I can’t deny that. But is a public official who has won re-election really the cause of bad policy or is he merely the elected representative for it? Again, without the support of the majority of voting constituents in Texas—he could not have won re-election. Perry is doing the will of the (voting) majority in Texas. And when his office can issue a statement such as the one quoted earlier—can there be any doubt it’s a Christian Right majority he intends to please?

What would happen if the paper published an editorial critical of the "Christian" agenda to promote abstinence-only education? In addition to raising the ire of far right groups like AFA, Wallbuilders, Liberty Commission, and so on—they would upset, as well, huge numbers of "regular" people—like my friend—who would cry "foul" at being lumped under the umbrella of the fundamentalist "lunatic fringe" who are causing this harm.

But if I say Christians are at the root of the abstinence-only policy, I’m not generalizing any more broadly than if I were to say that horses run in the Kentucky Derby. The group promoting these policies consists of self-identified Christians. And the animals running in the Derby consist of horses. Do all Christians support these policies? No more than all horses run in the Derby. So, what’s the problem? I don’t care if some Christians—even most Christians—aren’t supportive of these policies. It’s no less true that the policies are, by the largest margin, Christian created, promoted and supported. But if we say that, nobody will hear—not because the Religious Right will shut us down, but because religious moderates will.

My friend made this point loud and clear. "There’s nothing religious in those articles. It’s just about the schools and education. Where do you see religion even mentioned?"

He’s right that I don’t see religion even mentioned. But I have to ask if he sees any mention of who is at the root of these policy directives? Does my friend imagine Perry just made this up himself?

Fundamentalist Christians use public policy and legislation to push their religion onto everyone else. Anyone who criticizes the far right source is immediately shot down by the moderate middle. And, for the most part, we all pretend religion has no bearing on public policy—to the point that many people actually believe this is true. Anyone who says otherwise is just an overly excited alarmist. And the fundamentalists proceed, without mainstream majority opposition or interference, to push their religious agenda onto everyone else, with absolute gratitude toward their moderate brethren—the ones who would never do anything to push their religion onto anyone else.

 

　

[Vmarco]

Some have commented that the recent US election had the lowest percentage of voter participation since 1942"

 

1942 is an interesting date.

 

Trivia:

 

According to people such Herman C. Weber, DD, an expert in religious censuses and statistics, that few early Americans were members of a Christian church. In the 1933 Yearbook of American Churches, for instance, it says that just 6.9% of U.S. citizens belonged to a church in 1800. By 1850, religious membership had risen to 15.5%. By 1900, Christians had doubled their percentage to 37%. However, not until 1942 did Christian affiliation exceed 50% of the U.S. population.

 

It was also in 1942 that the majority of politicians put their Faith-based agendas before their Oath to the Constitution. In 2002, all members of the Senate and Congress put their faith-based agendas before their Oath to the Constitution,...and thus all current Federal politicians should be stripped of citizenship under the 14th Amendment, Sec 3,...preferrably being sent to some faith-based Country.

 

 

"the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion". President John Adams, 1797 Statement drafted by George Washington, unanomously ratified by the Senate, and signed into law by President John Adams in 1797, is a law because the US Constitution says all such statements are the law (According to Article VI of the United States Constitution.