Übergeek 바둑이: Exactly right, point by point.

Vikings: Most of the doctrine is built around Mark 16:16 and seriously that is not a verse to hang one's hat on. It was probably added by a scribe. It's not present in the most reliable manuscripts. Some congregations took the snake biting seriously and let snakes bite them. Of course hey died as a result so that practice isn't wide spread but it's in the Bible.

The eternal flame of Muslim outrage
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

Shhhhhhh, we’re told. Don’t protest the Ground Zero mosque. Don’t burn a Koran. It’ll imperil the troops. It’ll inflame tensions. The “Muslim world” will “explode” if it does not get its way, warns sharia-peddling imam Feisal Abdul Rauf. Pardon my national security-threatening impudence, but when is the “Muslim world” not ready to “explode”?

At the risk of provoking the ever-volatile Religion of Perpetual Outrage, let us count the little-noticed and forgotten ways.

Just a few months ago in Kashmir, faithful Muslims rioted over what they thought was a mosque depicted on underwear sold by street vendors. The mob shut down businesses and clashed with police over the blasphemous skivvies. But it turned out there was no need for Allah’s avengers to get their holy knickers in a bunch. The alleged mosque was actually a building resembling London’s St. Paul’s Cathedral. A Kashmiri law enforcement official later concluded the protests were “premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere.”

Indeed, art and graphics have an uncanny way of vitiating the Muslim world’s atmosphere. In 1994, Muslims threatened German supermodel Claudia Schiffer with death after she wore a Karl Lagerfeld-designed dress printed with a saying from the Koran. In 1997, outraged Muslims forced Nike to recall 800,000 shoes because they claimed the company’s “Air” logo looked like the Arabic script for “Allah.” In 1998, another conflagration spread over Unilever’s ice cream logo — which Muslims claimed looked like “Allah” if read upside-down and backward (can’t recall what they said it resembled if you viewed it with 3D glasses).

Even more explosively, in 2002, an al-Qaida-linked jihadist cell plotted to blow up Bologna, Italy’s Church of San Petronio because it displayed a 15th century fresco depicting Mohammed being tormented in the ninth circle of Hell. For years, Muslims had demanded that the art come down. Counterterrorism officials in Europe caught the would-be bombers on tape scouting out the church and exclaiming, “May Allah bring it all down. It will all come down.”

That same year, Nigerian Muslims stabbed, bludgeoned or burned to death 200 people in protest of the Miss World beauty pageant — which they considered an affront to Allah. They shouted, “Allahu Akbar!” And “Down with beauty!” And “Miss World is sin!” Contest organizers fled out of fear of inflaming further destruction. When Nigerian journalist Isioma Daniel joked that Mohammed would have approved of the pageant and that “in all honesty, he would probably have chosen a wife from among them,” her newspaper rushed to print three retractions and apologies in a row. It didn’t stop Muslim vigilantes from torching the newspaper’s offices. A fatwa was issued on Daniel’s life by a Nigerian official in the sharia-ruled state of Zamfara, who declared that “the blood of Isioma Daniel can be shed. It is abiding on all Muslims wherever they are to consider the killing of the writer as a religious duty.” Daniel fled to Norway.

In 2005, British Muslims got all hot and bothered over a Burger King ice cream cone container whose swirly-texted label resembled, you guessed it, the Arabic script for “Allah.” The restaurant chain yanked the product in a panic and prostrated itself before the Muslim world. But the fast-food dessert had already become a handy radical Islamic recruiting tool. Rashad Akhtar, a young British Muslim, told Harper’s Magazine how the ice cream caper had inspired him: “Even though it means nothing to some people and may mean nothing to some Muslims in this country, this is my jihad. I’m not going to rest until I find the person who is responsible. I’m going to bring this country down.”

In 2007, Muslims combusted again in Sudan after an infidel elementary school teacher innocently named a classroom teddy bear “Mohammed.” Protesters chanted, “Kill her, kill her by firing squad!” and “No tolerance — execution!” She was arrested, jailed and faced 40 lashes for blasphemy before being freed after eight days. Not wanting to cause further inflammation, the teacher rushed to apologize: “I have great respect for the Islamic religion and would not knowingly offend anyone, and I am sorry if I caused any distress.”

And who could forget the global Danish cartoon riots of 2006 (instigated by imams who toured Egypt stoking hysteria with faked anti-Islam comic strips)? From Afghanistan to Egypt to Lebanon to Libya, Pakistan, Turkey and in between, hundreds died under the pretext of protecting Mohammed from Western slight, and brave journalists who stood up to the madness were threatened with beheading. It wasn’t really about the cartoons at all, of course. Little-remembered is the fact that Muslim bullies were attempting to pressure Denmark over the International Atomic Energy Agency’s decision to report Iran to the UN Security Council for continuing with its nuclear research program. The chairmanship of the council was passing to Denmark at the time. Yes, it was just another in a long line of manufactured Muslim explosions that were, to borrow a useful phrase, “premeditated and organized to vitiate the atmosphere.”

When everything from sneakers to stuffed animals to comics to frescos to beauty queens to fast-food packaging to undies serves as dry tinder for Allah’s avengers, it’s a grand farce to feign concern about the recruitment effect of a few burnt Korans in the hands of a two-bit attention-seeker in Florida. The eternal flame of Muslim outrage was lit a long, long time ago.

Review: David Limbaugh’s Crimes Against Liberty

Every
president has his bête noire.  For Reagan, it was Sam Donaldson.  For
Clinton, it was Ann Coulter.  For President Obama, it’s David Limbaugh.

No better book has been written compiling the evidence against a president that Limbaugh’s Crimes Against Liberty. 
“This book is about a young presidency,” Limbaugh opens.  “[Y]oung, but
already the most destructive in American history.  Everything about
Barack Obama’s radical background signals his visceral contempt for
America – its culture, its values, and its political and economic
systems.  His unmistakable goal is to bring America down to size – an
America that has been, in his view, too big for its britches, selfish,
exploitative, unfairly wealthy, arrogant, and dismissive.”

Pedro Martínez: Really? Is that statement true?

GTCharlie: That's not the point. The point is that objective truth exists and we have to find that for ourselves. And God is anything but democratic.

There are well-reasoned arguments for believing Christianity is True. That is to say that the information we find in the Bible, and in particular the New Testament, is true. A person is free to accept or reject the claims. That's basically how it works. But TRUTH stands alone and doesn't need anyone's approval or "vote." Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Mankind has no power over it. And since objective truth exists, all other claims to the contrary are by necessity false.

GTCharlie: No, that's not what I said. Your belief and my belief don't matter ultimately. What matters ultimately is what is TRUE.

And it's not intolerance to believe that Christianity is TRUE and other beliefs are false. It's logical to believe that and illogical to believe otherwise (if you are a Christian).

Übergeek 바둑이: Read the Naked Gospel and you'll know what I believe. Much of what we were taught in our earlier years was due to the cultural of the church at that time. Give em fire and brimstone etc. There are many church teachings that aren't biblical. Tradition sometimes trumps truth. That's why we must do our own digging and like the Bereans, we check the Scriptures for ourselves.

If the Bible is true, than no other "holy book" can be true. The Koran can't be true if the Bible is true and vice versa. You can't have two competing truth claims and accept them both as true.

The Bible is the revealed Word of God. It's his Word to us. If we believe what the Bible says, it's not "our belief" that matters but what matters is the TRUTH of that in which we believe. If I believe in something that isn't true, my belief isn't what matters. What matters is the reality that what I believe isn't in fact true. So what really matters isn't belief, but TRUTH. I don't mean the kind of "truth" that one finds in a post-modern system. Relativism is self refuting and illogical. However, objective truth makes complete logical sense and in spite of fancy arguments to the contrary, we live by a firm adherence to objective truth.

It make little sense that God's Revealed Word would be found in a multitude of way if those differing ways are contradictory. Something cannot be A and non-A at the same time and in the same way. So IF the Bible is God's Word to us, that all other truth claims must be rejected if they contradict the Bible's revealed TRUTH. In the same way, if the Koran is true, then the Bible is false. They can both be false, but they can't both be true.

Bwild: I actually agree that in some respects, we people are a bit like sheep. Clearly some more than others. And I don't see this as a bad thing. Jesus called the people his sheep. But what he meant (and what I mean) is that they need a Shepherd - someone to watch over them. While some of us take pride in our independent spirits, we are all, at least on some level, sheep.

BTW, while some may believe most anything that's taught in church, that's not true for all. In fact, most people I know (and hang with) are not this way. Sure we believe it if we believe it to be the truth, but we don't simply believe it because some guy in the pulpit said it.

I didn't see Christ rise from the dead but I still can believe that it is true. One does not need to be an eyewitness to believe and event is true. And there are well reasoned arguments that support the belief that Christ rose from the dead. Many people through the ages have believed. Some were former atheists. More than one atheist has researched to prove the resurrection a fraud and came away a believer.

I don't think there is just one single reason to believe the Bible to be the Word of God. While it's true that some learn from childhood to believe, there are many than come to believe the Bible is true when they are much older. It may be true that a child believes blindly, for what do they know of reasoned thinking. But this is not true for adults. And when you have learned men and women coming to faith later in life, that is not something that can be explained away by talk of "blind faith." I may have come to faith somewhat "blindly" but it's not what sustains my faith. While I believe in my heart that the Bible is true, I also believe it in my mind. I'm fully convinced that God exists, that the Bible is His revealed Word for us, and that Jesus is His Son, and that Jesus died and rose from the grave. Such beliefs do not conflict with intellectual thought.

I do however believe that many do blindly follow their political leaders. As for me being hard right, not really. I'm definitely a conservative but I have many moderate views.

And everyone is part of some flock. It's like the group of kids at the highschool who all are in rebellion and claim to be "expressing their individuality" and independence. They are their own "unique" man or woman. And this group of kids, they all look, dress, act - the same. They are a flock of sheep just like the rest. They are worse off because they think they are different. But they are not.

If people are like sheep, NO ONE isn't one. They may like to think of themselves as "not a sheep" but the reality of it is, we are all sheep at some level. And I don't think that is a bad thing. It does depend on what exactly I mean by being a sheep.

GTCharlie: More blood has been spilled with secular philosophies than with religious ideologies. It's silly to talk about religion in these ways. It's painting with too wide a brush. And when people use the word "religion" many mean something different. Without a defining of terms, people can't really be sure what is exactly being claimed.

Übergeek usually has well thought out posts but in this case, he has some problems with logic. He says the root cause of the problem is organized religion but he really hasn't defined what "problem" he's discussing. The burning of the Koran, he seems to be saying, is just a symptom of "the problem." He goes on to say simply that organized religion is this problem. But he then emphasizes the problems that arise when religious claims compete. This explains nothing. Political claims compete too. So what of that?

He states: "I am sorry to say that in most churches (or mosques, sinagogues, temples, etc.) that I have seen, people are herded like sheep, all because that sheep instinct allows them to overcome any doubts they might have about their own beliefs."

This is not an argument. It's an ad hominem. I go to church and I certainly don't get herded like a sheep. I know of no one in mainstream Christianity that behaves this way. We question our leaders, study on our own, and often disagree with minor points. When we disagree with major points, we usually leave that congregation. It happens. Some reasons are good, others not so much. But the point is that people do think for themselves far more than Ubergeek suggests. And referring to people as "sheep" is simply a way to marginalize their intelligence. It's an old trick.

Next Ubergeek over generalizes. It's "most people" this and "most people" that. Sure, he's done a study on this.
" Then most people believe blindly. Most people don't realize that the religion they follow might have been born centuries ago, but its current beliefs might have sprung only in the last 300 years because most current organized religious sects did not exist before the Renaissance and the Enlightenment."

This argument is old and boring.

"Everyone is trying to impose human limitations on an infinite God,"

Everyone? hmmm, well I know of no one in my circle of friends that does that. I've never EVER sat in on any teaching that did this. This is pure nonsense.

" and the belief that a single book can contain EVERYTHING that there is to know about God"

I know of NO ONE that believes this regarding the Bible. It's NOT taught. We know as Believers that what we can know about God is very limited. But that the Bible is HIS revealed word to us and it tells us "something" about the nature of God. But EVERYTHING? We never have believed that.

The rest of Ubergeeks post is an over mischaracterization of what is believed by orthodox Christianity. It's typical uninformed babble and has no useful place in an informed discussion. His last few sentences show rather well his antagonism toward religion in general and his negative view of those who regard FAITH as something real and true.

"And at the root cause of human stupidity sits organized religion and the sheep that follow it. They need their opium and they go and get their dose every weekend."

snobbery at its best

The Los Angeles Times reports :





But we do know that as of the end of 2009, 41 people inside Obama's very own White House owe the government they're allegedly running a total of $831,055 in back taxes





Why stop there?





In the House of Representatives, 421 people owe a total $6,524,892. In the Senate, 217 owe $2,774,836. In the IRS's parent department, Treasury, 1,204 owe $7,670,814. At the Labor Dept., where Secy. Hilda Solis' husband had some backtax problems before her confirmation, 463 owe $7,481,463. Eighty-one workers for the Federal Reserve System's board of governors owe $1,076,733.

Over at the Justice Department, which is so busy enforcing other laws and suing Arizona, 1,971 employees still owe $14,350,152 in overdue taxes.

Then, we come to the Department of Homeland Security, which is run by Janet Napolitano, the former governor of Arizona who preferred to call terrorist acts "man-caused disasters." Homeland Security is keeping all of us safe by ensuring that a Dutch tourist is onboard every inbound international flight to thwart any would-be bomber with explosives in his underpants.

Within that department, there reside 4,856 people who owe the tax agency a whopping total of $37,012,174.

And they're checking our pockets for metal and coins?



All told, federal employees across the nation owe $1 billion in back taxes. Congressman Jason Chaffetz ( R-Utah) wants all these people fired unless they pay up and stay on the straight and narrow. Sounds like the housecleaning should begin at the top - in the White House where, for once, Barack Obama can show some sense of ethics. Maybe Nancy Pelosi can clean the swamp of scofflaws who take our heard-earned taxpayer dollars but don't follow the rules themselves: who take but who do not give.

Muslims burning down Catholic churches in Sudan and Nigeria is commonplace according to African priests who visited my parish this past year. One of the priests said the people had just built themselves a new church, and worshipped in it for a few months before it was leveled. Where is the Vatican's outrage on these horrendous crimes?

So, the issue has nothing to do with whether someone should be allowed to burn a sacred text, but it has everything to do with the group you are offending. If you're Christian, you can forget the powerful elites coming to your aid when your church is trashed or your crucifixes are covered up. Apparently, in present day America, all religions are not equal; as a matter of fact, the scales are tipping toward Mecca.

President Obama when giving a speech at Georgetown University, a Catholic institution, had all images and symbols of Jesus Christ covered so as not to show up in his video frame.

"In coordinating the logistical arrangements for yesterday's event, Georgetown honored the White House staff's request to cover all of the Georgetown University signage and symbols behind Gaston Hall stage," Julie Green Bataille, associate vice president for communications at Georgetown, told CNSNews.com."

In Afghanistan last year, Christian U.S. Army troops engaged in proselytizing the Afghan people by attempting to hand out Bibles written in their native language. The soldiers were stopped, and the copies of the Bible were burned. According to Politico:


Christian Broadcasting's David Brody says "the Bibles were burned because the rules on the base say that all garbage is burned at the end of the day. But just asking here; if the U.S. Military seized a stack full of Korans, would they be burned? You think that might cause a little outrage in the Muslim world?"

So, everyone, please shut up about the Quran-burning religious nuts at that ridiculous church (who at least don't behead or
imprison people of other faiths for not being of their own). The
freedom to be insensitive to others is part and parcel of freedom of
speech. It's no different when talking about building mosques at Ground
Zero; burning American flags; or whatever. Feel free to protest and
even despise what you don't approve of.

Personally, I am far less
offended by their insensitivity than I am by the flag-burning,
America-hating subset of the political left (who believe in free speech
for themselves and their special interests; but not for you if you disagree with them). In fact, they will defend to the death their right to keep you silent.

But, there is nothing more...American... than defending some clueless moron's right to make a complete fool of himself or herself.

Or,
to model himself after one specific clueless leftist moron, perhaps
Terry Jones could just put the Quran in the dirt somewhere and stomp on
it? [link]

PRICELESS

<span>from Dr. Sanity <span>by <span>patsanty@aol.com (Dr. Sanity)

Bernice:

Bwild:

Bernice: politicians never seem to learn. Republicans here better get it right or they will be out next too!

Inconvenient Truth: 10 Times More Hate Crimes Against Jews Than Muslims

<span>from NewsBusters.org - Exposing Liberal Media Bias <span>by <span>Noel Sheppard

you don't think for yourself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUQI5PzKPPs&feature=channel

Caution: NOT for the faint of heart (that only applies to liberals)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBrWEOJo3s4&feature=player_embedded

How's that Iranian outreach working out Barry?
Rick Moran
The Iranian government is paying a bounty to the Taliban in Afghanistan for each dead American.

MSNBC reports:

Iran is paying Taliban fighters $1,000 for each U.S. soldier they kill in Afghanistan, according to a report in a British newspaper.

The Sunday Times described how a man it said was a "Taliban treasurer" had gone to collect $18,000 from an Iranian firm in Kabul, a reward it said was for an attack in July which killed several Afghan government troops and destroyed an American armored vehicle.

The treasurer left with the cash hidden in a sack of flour, the newspaper said, and then gave it to Taliban fighters in the province of Wardak. In the past six months, the treasurer claimed to have collected more than $77,000 from the company.

The Sunday Times said its investigation had found that at least five Kabul-based Iranian companies were secretly passing funds to the Taliban.

The newspaper's correspondent, Miles Amoore, said he met and interviewed the treasurer, who he said had been an illiterate farmer who was taught to read and write, plus basic accountancy, by the Taliban last winter.

"We don't care who we get money from," the treasurer was quoted as saying. He described the relationship with Iran as a "marriage of convenience." Iran is a predominantly Shiite country, while the Taliban is dominated by Sunni Muslims.

"Iran will never stop funding us because Americans are dangerous for them as well. I think the hatred is the same from both us and Iran. The money we get is not dirty. It is for jihad," the treasurer told Amoore.

Gee...just think how bad it would have been if our fearless leader hadn't groveled at the mullah's feet, begging them to like us?

White House panicking over elections
Rick Moran
Politico's Jim VandeHei on Face the Nation:

With many polls indicating the Republicans may win back control of the House of Representatives (and possibly the Senate as well) in the upcoming mid-term elections, Jim VandeHei, the executive editor of Politico, told CBS' "Face the Nation" that the Obama administration is in a horrible position.

"Does the White House understand this?" asked guest host Harry Smith. "Do you feel any sense of panic or concern" on the part of the administration?

"They get it. There's panic. There's concern," VandeHei said. "The reality for this administration stinks, politically and practically, when it comes to the economy. You're not going to be able to change that 9.6-percent unemployment figure. You can't get anything from Congress in the next couple of months."

CBS Congressional correspondent Nancy Cordes said the Democrats are distancing themselves from President Obama.

"Not only are they running away from President Obama, they're running away from being Democrats in some cases. In some races you actually see the Democratic candidates not really mentioning that they're a Democrat in their campaign ads," Cordes said.

According to a CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey released Monday, the GOP leads the Democrats by 7 points on the "generic ballot" question, 52 percent to 45 percent. That 7-point advantage is up from a 3-point margin last month.

The generic ballot question asks respondents if they would vote for a Democrat or Republican in their congressional district, without naming any specific candidates.

"The survey indicates that independents and voters who dislike both parties are starting to break toward the GOP," says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. "In a year when anger at incumbents is a dominant political force, the key to the election lies among those who aren't rooting for either side."

According to the poll, the two parties are equally unpopular. Forty-nine percent of all Americans have an unfavorable view of the Democrats, with the same percentage feeling the same way about the Republicans. Just over one in five questioned dislike both parties.

Back in April, Americans who dislike both parties appeared to mildly favor the GOP on the generic ballot, by a 43-to-39 percent margin, with a large number saying at the time that they would pick a minor-party candidate or stay at home.

"Now, a lot of those voters appear to be bolting to the GOP," Holland said. "Republicans now have a whopping 38-point advantage on the generic ballot among voters who dislike both parties."

How many Democrats are running ads saying they voted for ObamaCare

Here's what Politico is reporting:

A handful of House Democrats are making health care reform an election year issue - by running against it.

At least five of the 34 House Democrats who voted against their party's health care reform bill are highlighting their "no" votes in ads back home. By contrast, party officials in Washington can't identify a single House member who's running an ad boasting of a "yes" vote - despite the fact that 219 House Democrats voted in favor of final passage in March.

One Democratic strategist said it would be "political malfeasance" to run such an ad now.

Curiously, I Googled it to see what I'd find. lol. I'm in GOOD company!

"Bill O'reilly is nothing more than a pathetic homophobic racist pig,"
"Jon Voight is a homophobic, racist pig ..."

Instead of engaging on the issues, this is so typical of the liberal left. I know why they don't engage on the issues: They have no case. That's why we rarely see that sort of engagement here. Most liberals who post here NEVER make a case for any liberal position. I'd love to see a rational defense of Obama's spending or of the enormous health care bill. Not even those who voted for that monster will defend it publicly. hmmmm, now what does that tell you?

43 percent of white Americans vote for Obama in November 2008

Obama had a 78 percent favorability rating in January 2009 according to Gallup

It's NOT his color, its his policies.

Cynthia Tucker: Voter Anger Is About Racism - 'Fear of a White Minority'

Are you sick and tired of being called a racist because you don't agree with Barack Obama's policies?

If
you are, you shouldn't read any further, for Cynthia Tucker this
weekend claimed the voter anger that threatens the Democrat majorities
in the House and the Senate is all a function of racism

rod03801: In this case no. It's descriptive.

When liberals have no argument, they resort to calling names.

Against Obama? You're a racist.
Make fun of Obama? You're a racist.
Against illegal's coming into this country and want it stopped? You're a racist.
Want illegals deported? You're a racist.
Think entitlements perpetuate the cycle of poverty and want to see some major changes to welfare? You're a racist.
Think marriage should only be defined between a man and a woman? You're a homophobe.
Think abortion is wrong because you consider it taking the life of an innocent human being? You're an oppressor of women.

and on it goes. To those morons I say, bite me.

Democrats asking voters to forget their record
Rick Moran
First, Democrats started running away from Obama. Then they started running against their own Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

Now, they're running away from their record.

The candidate was outraged - just outraged - at the country's sorry fiscal state.

"We have managed to acquire $13 trillion of debt on our balance sheet," he fumed to a roomful of voters. "In my view, we have nothing to show for it."

And that was a Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado, who voted "yes" on the stimulus, the health-care overhaul, increased education funding and other costly bills Congress approved under his party's control.

Faced with a potential wipeout in November's midterm elections, candidates such as Bennet are embracing budget cuts with the enthusiasm of Reagan Republicans.

rod03801:MLKing was a Republican.

rod03801: I am speaking of liberal politicians and of course I'm using hyperbole.   I don't really mean it for them either.  But I do mean that they will do whatever it takes to court the vote.  (Republicans do this on some level as well).   It's all about power.  What right to illegal aliens have to be in America?  None really.  But the left makes it about civil rights etc.  That's how they play it.  Clinton characterized the Arizona law as a human rights violation.  She doesn't really mean that because she knows better.   The Arizona law mirrors an existing Federal law.  It's all a ploy by Clinton and Obama (his adminstration has filed suit) to gain the Hispanic vote.  Blacks are paid off in entitlements for their votes.  And people like Sharpton keep the myth of racism alive.  I don't mean to say there exists no racism theses days.  But it's not the 50's or the 60's any longer.  So what was Sharpton doing marching arm in arm with those other black civil rights dinosaurs singing we shall overcome?  It's all about keeping racism alive (keeping alive the idea that this is still a racist country etc).  It's propaganda.  And generations of blacks will grow up hating an enemy that doesn't exist.

Bernice: It's not politically profitable so the black liberals and the white liberals perpetuate racism and a victim mentality so they can keep power.  They are all about votes.  That's why liberals pretend to care about Hispanics.  They don't.  They want their votes.  They would court pedophiles if they could get enough votes from it.  Rule of law means nothing to them if there are votes involved.

BTW, Black Mafia = Sharpton, Jackson, and the Obama Administration.

 America’s “Black Mob” makes everything about skin color to “get paid” and gain political power.



Black kids were doing extremely well in the D.C. school voucher program. Obama killed the program to appease the teachers’ union.


A most shameful agenda item of the Black Civil Rights Mafia is to convince another generation of black Americans they are victims of a racist America. Their purpose is to recruit them into their ranks and voting Democrat.

Beck and the Tea Party patriots are far greater stewards of MLK’s dream than the “sold out”  Black Mob.

Due to tremendous rejection of Obama’s policies, reelection is not looking good for Democrats in November. Rushing to the aid of the Democrats, the Black Mob and the liberal media have launched a “Hate America and White Tea Partiers” campaign. Their hope is to fire up misinformed blacks and brain-dead white libs to run to the polls in November.

Hey libs, first one of you to besmirch Marcus is a racist bigot!  His ideas are fair game, he is not.

Photo code:

Übergeek 바둑이:

"failing to realize that the US is a country that cannot change."

Based on your assumptions and bias that America should change. The majority of Americans like the US and don't want fundamental changes to the country.

"Instead the US is more militarized than ever and the American government is constatnly trying to find enemies to justify the ever increasing militarization of the American economy. "

A mis-characterization. The US doesn't have to find enemies that don't exist. We live in a volatile world. The enemies are there. Look around.

"Rather than accept that the Capitalist system has some serious flaws and contradictions, the American government decided to intervene and save a failed financial system."

Nonsense. Capitalism is a successful system. The system didn't fail. The banks operated outside accepted rules in a capitalist system. The government violated another capitalist rule by intervening. The system would weed out the failures and the survivors would NOT make those same mistakes.

"Americans do not want to see that the current economic system is unsustainable."

It's sustained quite well for a long time. What has to happen is for the government to allow for big compainies to fail when their time is up. Nothing lasts forever.

Another serious problem in the US is Union thuggery. Many companies can no longer afford the huge payouts to union workers. Reasonable pay is one thing. But unions force companies to fail with their huge demands and unwillingness to budge in their demands. I've seen this sort of thing in huge businesses in Minnesota. The huge demands from the unions, topped off with huge taxes from the government.

"Maintaining the military system and the banks has come at a high price."

You have to have a strong military if your a country the size of the US and particularly because of our place in the world.

As for the governments involvement in the banks - a very bad idea. It's not the government's job and they should stay out of it.

"Funds that were meant to provide for social services and "entitlements" "

We need to decrease the social services and entitlements we provide at the federal level. We've created generations of lazy do-nothings as a result. Generational poverty is a product of entitlements.

The US system has proven over time to be a very effective system. The Progressives in this country have for years sought to make minor changes here and there and have succeeded in many ways. Bottom line: people need to get off their butts, work hard, find one or two jobs, do what you have to do, and quit relying on government handouts to get by. The government in the US wasn't created to babysit its citizens.

Übergeek 바둑이: It doesn't matter what that money was for. What matters is the larger point. Reckless spending. And even while there is no money to pay for it, and the public at large is against it, Obama and his lemmings pass the huge (and unread) Health Care Bill (for which there will not be enough money to pay for the monster).

A blogger has opined:

We have come a long way in the last twenty months. The President of the United States, his Chief of Staff, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, and the Majority Leader in the United States Senate have done for the Republican Party what no Republican could have accomplished. Just as rigor mortis was about to set in, they brought the old corpse back to life. For their efforts on our behalf, we should be forever grateful.

--it's not well understood by Democrats that what has taken place, the demise of their power, was due to their own unpopular policies and arrogant elitist attitudes. The people responded (unlike in the way one uninformed poster here tried to portray it) from the average man up. It is a grassroots movement and it's going to unseat a huge majority of Democrats. It's also targeted Republicans who also, "don't get it."

You would do well to pay attention because your party can never regain power in the same way, unless it makes some serious changes. Republicans can never hold power unless they make some serious changes. It's a double edge sword.

Tuesday: You wanted Bush to fail in his Iraq policy. You didn't support his administration's policy on waterboarding. You wanted him to fail.

Saying you wanted him to succeed and then acting otherwise. I'll take your actions before your words.

As for me, YES, I want Obama to fail. I want his Health Care bill to fail. I want Cap and Trade to fail. I want his Foreign Policy to fail. I want MOST of his attempts at changing the US to fail.

Do you not understand that the reason Obama is so unpopular and that the Democrats stand to lose the House and the Senate is that people want them to fail. They don't want the Democratic vision for America. They are rejecting it.

That's what is meant by wanting him to fail. We want Obama's efforts to fundamentally change America to fail because we believe he is taking us in the WRONG direction.

Tuesday: He's not done well for the Country. He's hurting us. He's a horrible president and more and more people (liberals and independents - those that voted for him) are coming to this same decision.