ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Dan Fienen on January 28, 2016, 11:44:42 AM

Title: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 28, 2016, 11:44:42 AM
Questions and discussion could also be raised about candidates on the Democratic side of things.

One topic that I am interested in discussing are the Hillary Clinton emails.  Her actual "crime" if it is ever deemed to have risen to the level may not seem to be much, but the implications of her actions could have had much more serious consequences, what it says about her character and attitude towards her duties, and how fair it is to simply dismiss this as a nonissue.

The facts seem fairly straight forward.  During her tenure as Secretary of State, rather than using the government run, maintained and secured email system, she used her own private server and email system for both personal and official business.  It may be debated whether that was at the time illegal, but it certainly was not smart.  And it was not that she would have had difficulty in obtaining IT support to do whatever necessary.  Not for the Secretary of State to wait on hold for a tech support with badly accented English.

As it turns out, there was highly classified material on her server.  Whether or not anybody actually hacked into to her server is still undetermined, but it is not as though her private email system would not have been a target of opportunity.  The government has not always been successful at keeping spys out of its own computer networks, should it just be assumed that Hillary Clinton's was more secure?

Even if having the server and using it for low level official business was not illegal, a topic of some debate, that highly classified material ended up there is a matter for serious concern.  Her reason for using her private email system for all her email correspondence was that it was more convenient, otherwise she thought that she would have to carry two devices, one for private one for business - something that many, many people do for a variety of reasons.  Does this speak to an attitude that favors her personal convenience over good practices, or a feeling that rules should not apply to her?

General David Petraeus resigned, pled guilty, was fined, and now is being threatened with demotion and loss of some pension benefits for mishandling classified material when he allowed his biographer with whom he was having an affair read some classified material.  There is no evidence that the material was ever leaked further, or that damage was done to national security.  General Petraeus could have faced more serious penalties, but still what he got for what he did was not insignificant. 

Should former Secretary of State have her own mishandling of classified materials simply ignored because she is a Clinton and a presidential candidate?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: LutherMan on January 28, 2016, 11:51:54 AM

Should former Secretary of State have her own mishandling of classified materials simply ignored because she is a Clinton and a presidential candidate?
No.  She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on January 28, 2016, 12:01:45 PM
Here we go.  Hang on.The righteous ones don't like Hillary Clinton.  She has been called a post-menopausal killer whale along with Angela Merkel. She can't possibly withstand the harpoons of the true believers. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on January 28, 2016, 12:14:54 PM
Here we go.  Hang on.The righteous ones don't like Hillary Clinton.  She has been called a post-menopausal killer whale along with Angela Merkel. She can't possibly withstand the harpoons of the true believers.


I despair for our country...."the faults you see in others are things you do not like about yourself."


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Terry W Culler on January 28, 2016, 12:41:28 PM
Here we go.  Hang on.The righteous ones don't like Hillary Clinton.  She has been called a post-menopausal killer whale along with Angela Merkel. She can't possibly withstand the harpoons of the true believers.


What in the world does this mean?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: MaddogLutheran on January 28, 2016, 12:59:52 PM
Here we go.  Hang on.The righteous ones don't like Hillary Clinton.  She has been called a post-menopausal killer whale along with Angela Merkel. She can't possibly withstand the harpoons of the true believers.
Who exactly are "the righteous" here?  Who is calling names?  Citation please.

I wonder if Susan Sarandon is one, since she is opposing Hillary. 

"What has she done that we're bragging about? How has she led?": Susan Sarandon backs Bernie for president instead of Hillary over Clinton's vote for the Iraq War - "she failed that test"
 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3420286/Susan-Sarandon-backs-Bernie-president-instead-Hillary-vote-Iraq-War.html)
#WarOnWomen #TrueBeliever #ClintonLiedPeopleDied
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 28, 2016, 01:01:29 PM
Here we go.  Hang on.The righteous ones don't like Hillary Clinton.  She has been called a post-menopausal killer whale along with Angela Merkel. She can't possibly withstand the harpoons of the true believers.
I take it you think she is above being prosecuted. Why?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 28, 2016, 01:23:13 PM
Here we go.  Hang on.The righteous ones don't like Hillary Clinton.  She has been called a post-menopausal killer whale along with Angela Merkel. She can't possibly withstand the harpoons of the true believers.
My concern and my questions have nothing to do with her being a woman, pre- or post-menopausal.  They are concerned with her actions.  I am reminded of the old legal dictum, If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts; if both the law and the facts are against you, pound the table.  Pounding the table does not alter the legality of Hillary Clinton's actions, nor does her gender.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on January 28, 2016, 03:24:54 PM
Here is a link to a Pew report on Faith and the 2016 Election:   

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=434f5d1199912232d416897e4&id=5d8409ec6b&e=770fca1806

"Half of all Americans say religious conservatives exert too much control over the Republican Party, while slightly fewer (44%) say secular liberals have too much influence over the Democratic Party. These views are significantly influenced by partisanship. Roughly two-thirds of Republicans and those who lean Republican (68%) say secular liberals are too influential in the Democratic Party, while exactly the same share of Democrats and Democratic leaners (68%) believe religious conservatives exert too much influence over the GOP. Both groups are far less likely to express these views about their own party."
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 28, 2016, 04:07:32 PM
What does the religious life of the person asking the question have to do with Clinton's email mess?

Is it fair to say that people generally want their candidates, and their political party to reflect the religious orientation (or lack thereof) that they hold?  Democrats and those who are secular in allegiance or practice ("Yes, I'm spiritual, I'm not religious;" or "I'm religious, I just don't believe in organized religion;" or "Of course I belong to a church, I just can't remember which one.") and to an extent those whose religious preference is progressive express great concern about the influence of Conservative Christians on the Republican Party.  They rarely if ever express similar concerns over the influence of Progressive Christians on the Democratic Party (perhaps they would say that they have little?).

Generally speaking the amount of concern people express over the influence that some group or another have in politics is inversely proportional to the congruence that group has with their own ideology.  Influence by a group that I agree with is right and proper, influence by a group that I oppose is illegitimate and should be banned.

When was that last time that you heard a Democrat complain about Democratic candidates stumping in the pulpits of Black Churches?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on January 28, 2016, 05:10:25 PM
Read the Pew study, Pastor Fienen; it answers some of your questions in ways that I think you do not want them answered.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 28, 2016, 07:24:16 PM
Read the Pew study, Pastor Fienen; it answers some of your questions in ways that I think you do not want them answered.
Since you claim to know me so well, knowing my motivations much better than I do, knowing my hopes and fears and knowing that I am primarily moved by fear, perhaps you could indicate some of the answers to questions in the report that I do not want that way.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: DeHall on January 28, 2016, 08:06:27 PM
Here is a link to a Pew report on Faith and the 2016 Election:   

http://us1.campaign-archive1.com/?u=434f5d1199912232d416897e4&id=5d8409ec6b&e=770fca1806

"Half of all Americans say religious conservatives exert too much control over the Republican Party, while slightly fewer (44%) say secular liberals have too much influence over the Democratic Party...[snip]

1,525 people ≠ half of Americans
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: LutherMan on January 29, 2016, 10:26:07 AM
State: We’ll release the rest of Hillary’s e-mails … after New Hampshire’s primary

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on January 29, 2016, 12:28:48 PM
State: We’ll release the rest of Hillary’s e-mails … after New Hampshire’s primary

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed)

If she's convicted, it won't matter how well she does in the Democrat Party's Primary elections. And, if she's defeated in the Primaries anyway and can't win the nomination, then the movement to try and convict her will lose a lot of momentum. On top of that, the FBI is already pushing for an indictment (http://www.msfanpage.link/breaking-the-day-has-come-fbi-ready-to-indict-hillary-clinton-video/), which would make the timing of the release of emails moot. 

There's another issue at play here. I remember when everyone from politicians to high school history teachers pointed out that the Russian people only knew about what the government wanted them to know because the only source of news that had was Правда (Pravda), the newspaper controlled by Tass, the state propaganda ministry. Today, here in the US, finding negative news about leading Democrat Party politicians in the mainstream media is difficult. Finding truthful information about what the Democrat Party is up to often requires using news media sources outside of the major TV and Cable news networks, as well as outside of the major newspapers. And no matter what any of those sources ever say, if they aren't part of the mainstream new media, supporters of the Democrat Party will claim that they aren't "reliable" sources, like the modern, American equivalents of Правда.

Imagine being a Christian disciple or missionary in the first or second century if the priests of the pagans were able to convince people that only religions with big, stone temples that had "stood the test of time" were true. Imagine if the people that the early Christian disciples spoke to only respected religious leaders who had certified, advanced credentials and reputations, not former fishermen, shepherds, tax collectors, tent makers, etc. (I'm trying to get some sort of church slant into this totally political thread. :))
Title: Poll: Obama, Clinton most admired
Post by: LutherMan on January 29, 2016, 12:54:28 PM
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=12955

Poll: Obama, Clinton most admired

Americans’ most admired man and woman in the world are — once again — President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This was Clinton’s 14th time at the top, the record for number of years leading the list for either men or women.

In the Gallup Poll’s “Most Admired List” released Dec. 28, Donald Trump tied Pope Francis for the No. 2 spot. Malala Yousafzai, who won the Nobel Prize as an activist for women’s education, came second on the women’s list.

As often happens in these open-ended polls, those behind No. 1 have barely a fraction of the votes. While 17 percent of those surveyed named Obama and 13 percent Clinton, 5 percent named Trump and the pontiff, as well as Yousafzai. After that, the names in the men’s race are in a statistical tie: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Bill Gates, Dalai Lama, Billy Graham (59th time on the list), George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson.

Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama were tied for third among women, followed by Carly Fiorina in a tie with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Queen Elizabeth. Following them were Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ellen DeGeneres and Sarah Palin.
Title: Re: Poll: Obama, Clinton most admired
Post by: Fletch on January 29, 2016, 01:10:06 PM
http://www.thelutheran.org/article/article.cfm?article_id=12955

Poll: Obama, Clinton most admired

Americans’ most admired man and woman in the world are — once again — President Barack Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. This was Clinton’s 14th time at the top, the record for number of years leading the list for either men or women.

In the Gallup Poll’s “Most Admired List” released Dec. 28, Donald Trump tied Pope Francis for the No. 2 spot. Malala Yousafzai, who won the Nobel Prize as an activist for women’s education, came second on the women’s list.

As often happens in these open-ended polls, those behind No. 1 have barely a fraction of the votes. While 17 percent of those surveyed named Obama and 13 percent Clinton, 5 percent named Trump and the pontiff, as well as Yousafzai. After that, the names in the men’s race are in a statistical tie: Sen. Bernie Sanders, Bill Gates, Dalai Lama, Billy Graham (59th time on the list), George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Republican presidential candidate Ben Carson.

Oprah Winfrey and Michelle Obama were tied for third among women, followed by Carly Fiorina in a tie with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Queen Elizabeth. Following them were Sen. Elizabeth Warren, Myanmar leader Aung San Suu Kyi, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Ellen DeGeneres and Sarah Palin.

We are doomed!  The poll results sound like something Pogo would have come up with.   ;)

... Fletch
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: LutherMan on January 29, 2016, 01:18:14 PM
Why on earth would The Lutheran report this?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 29, 2016, 02:04:38 PM
State: We’ll release the rest of Hillary’s e-mails … after New Hampshire’s primary

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed)

If she's convicted, it won't matter how well she does in the Democrat Party's Primary elections. And, if she's defeated in the Primaries anyway and can't win the nomination, then the movement to try and convict her will lose a lot of momentum. On top of that, the FBI is already pushing for an indictment (http://www.msfanpage.link/breaking-the-day-has-come-fbi-ready-to-indict-hillary-clinton-video/), which would make the timing of the release of emails moot.

Being a convicted felon is no bar to running for President, or from serving as President. In fact, you can run for President while behind bars. It's been done before, by Eugene V. Debs in the 1920 Presidential election. You just may not be able to vote for yourself (or anyone else, for that matter), depending on the state.
http://www.history.com/topics/eugene-v-debs 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 29, 2016, 02:07:45 PM
Why on earth would The Lutheran report this?

Why did you?

    ::)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Steverem on January 29, 2016, 02:40:26 PM

Being a convicted felon is no bar to running for President, or from serving as President. In fact, you can run for President while behind bars. It's been done before, by Eugene V. Debs in the 1920 Presidential election. You just may not be able to vote for yourself (or anyone else, for that matter), depending on the state.
http://www.history.com/topics/eugene-v-debs


And by Lyndon LaRouche in 1992, if memory serves.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Michael Slusser on January 29, 2016, 02:55:05 PM
Why on earth would The Lutheran report this?
We've been here before, LutherMan: http://104.244.124.69/~alpbadmin/Forum/index.php?topic=6186.msg389714#msg389714 (http://104.244.124.69/~alpbadmin/Forum/index.php?topic=6186.msg389714#msg389714)

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: DeHall on January 29, 2016, 03:07:54 PM

Being a convicted felon is no bar to running for President, or from serving as President. In fact, you can run for President while behind bars. It's been done before, by Eugene V. Debs in the 1920 Presidential election. You just may not be able to vote for yourself (or anyone else, for that matter), depending on the state.
http://www.history.com/topics/eugene-v-debs


And by Lyndon LaRouche in 1992, if memory serves.

....And Leonard Peltier in 2004.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: LutherMan on January 29, 2016, 03:24:46 PM
Why on earth would The Lutheran report this?
We've been here before, LutherMan: http://104.244.124.69/~alpbadmin/Forum/index.php?topic=6186.msg389714#msg389714 (http://104.244.124.69/~alpbadmin/Forum/index.php?topic=6186.msg389714#msg389714)

Peace,
Michael
Guss I didn't click your link, just took your word for it at the time...
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: LutherMan on January 29, 2016, 03:27:38 PM
Oh my: Some Hillary e-mails “too damaging” to release?

http://hotair.com/archives/2016/01/29/oh-my-some-hillary-e-mails-too-damaging-to-release/
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on January 29, 2016, 06:17:55 PM
Interesting perspective on the life and career of Hillary Rodham Clinton from the early days and forward. She is about love and kindness.

http://www.buzzfeed.com/rubycramer/hillary-clinton-wants-to-talk-to-you-about-love-and-kindness#.urnL8Xe1
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on January 29, 2016, 08:51:12 PM
State: We’ll release the rest of Hillary’s e-mails … after New Hampshire’s primary

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed (http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/267495-clintons-emails-to-be-released-as-thousands-more-are-delayed)

If she's convicted, it won't matter how well she does in the Democrat Party's Primary elections. And, if she's defeated in the Primaries anyway and can't win the nomination, then the movement to try and convict her will lose a lot of momentum. On top of that, the FBI is already pushing for an indictment (http://www.msfanpage.link/breaking-the-day-has-come-fbi-ready-to-indict-hillary-clinton-video/), which would make the timing of the release of emails moot.

Being a convicted felon is no bar to running for President, or from serving as President. In fact, you can run for President while behind bars. It's been done before, by Eugene V. Debs in the 1920 Presidential election. You just may not be able to vote for yourself (or anyone else, for that matter), depending on the state.
http://www.history.com/topics/eugene-v-debs

I wasn't suggesting that she wouldn't legally be allowed to run. I was suggesting that if convicted, she wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected, and so the Democrat Party would get rid of her faster than George McGovern dropped Tom Eagleton, even though McGovern said he was 1000% behind Eagleton.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Obama protect himself by pardoning her. That would also make her unelectable, even though it wouldn't legally prevent her from running.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on January 30, 2016, 10:23:15 AM
Pardon?  What nonsense.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 30, 2016, 10:32:30 AM
    As one who has lived in Iowa since 2010, this is the first time I will attend a caucus where there is a contest for the nominee of the Democratic party. While the Republican circus contest has gotten a lot of attention, especially in my northwest corner of Iowa (I work in Sioux County, the most red and conservative of the red and conservative counties, not only in Iowa, but in much of the country), the contest among the Democratic contenders is also important. So I am glad the impending snowstorm will hold off until late Monday night/Tuesday morning so that the first real indication of how actual voters might choose can be determined, spun, discussed, dismissed, and puzzled over. Then on to New Hampshire! (And please take all of your ads, phone calls, and junk mail with you. I could wallpaper a not-so-small room with all of the flyers that have filled my post office box in the past month.)

   I am glad that I do not live in the same community that the congregations I serve are in. Being that public about my party registration is not something I am really comfortable with, and especially in this year with so much polarization around personalities and politics. As it is, I consulted my husband (also a pastor) and asked if attending the caucus in the community where the congregation he serves is located would cause any difficulties. He just laughed and said that he expected that most of the others I would see in the Democratic caucus room would be members of his congregation. He even told me I could say "Hi" from him!

   And if you are so inclined, please include in your prayers some for the political process in our country, in Iowa and elsewhere. I can't cite it off the top of my head, but I remember that Luther included good government as one of the blessings from God. For all the jokes, the Iowa caucuses are local democracy in action, and a precious freedom to speak, agree and disagree, and express a preference for the one who may become the President of this nation. I'm glad I get to experience it.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on January 30, 2016, 10:40:21 AM
Pardon?  What nonsense.


Agreed. She should not be pardoned.


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: bookpastor/Erma Wolf on January 30, 2016, 10:50:16 AM
Pardon?  What nonsense.


Agreed. She should not be pardoned.


Lou

Especially since she hasn't even been indicted.  And may not be.

(I recognize that the pardon given by President Ford to his predecessor, President Nixon, was given to someone who had not been convicted, or even yet indicted, of any of the criminal offenses with which he may have been charged with following his resignation. But I would argue that that was a highly unusual and unique situation. To begin to use the power of the Presidential pardon to prevent cases from being brought to trial would risk unraveling the Constitutional authority that such pardons possess, and would only make this nation even more cynical about those in elected office (if that is indeed possible).)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on January 30, 2016, 11:03:41 AM
The recent revelations concerning the emails is cause for concern.  If the reports from the State Department (not just figments of Republican or Fox News imagination) turn out to be well founded, that there were several emails that contain material so highly classified that even now they cannot be made public even redacted, there is some substance to these concerns.  If they were not classified when they ended up in her email server and they contain material this sensitive, why weren't they classified?

Now concerns are not the same as indictments, much less convictions. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on January 30, 2016, 03:47:14 PM
Pardon?  What nonsense.


Agreed. She should not be pardoned.


Lou

I never suggested that she should be pardoned. She should be indicted, tried, convicted, and locked up. But Democrat Party politics seldom operate on what should happen. Democrat Party politics operates based on what actions produce a particular desired outcome.

When it was clear that Richard Nixon was going to be impeached, Hugh Scott and other GOP leaders in Congress went to him and persuaded him to resign. He chose to figuratively "fall on his sword" for the good of his party, and the nation. The current Democrat politicians in office, and the one seeking the Presidency, don't have that sort of regard for the good of the nation. And so, I predict that there is a possibility (though I'm not placing odds) that Obama will throw Hillary under the bus for the good of the Democrat Party by pardoning her. Obama could make the same claim that Gerald Ford made when he pardoned Nixon, that it was to put a sordid piece of history to rest so that the nation could move on. Some folks believed that when Ford said it. Most did not. That's why Jimmie Carter was elected President in 1976.

Would anyone believe Obama if he pardoned Hillary to "put the episode behind us so we could move on", or would they see it as a transparent attempt to protect his own rear end? I imagine those who currently believe Obama's body waste has no odor would believe him. I would not. But, from a political manipulation perspective, it would effectively take Hillary out of the race, so that they could persuade Joe Biden to come in and block Bernie Sanders. Most hardcore Democrats think the same things about former independent Sanders as Republicans think about Donald Trump. They want a REAL Democrat as their candidate, just as the GOP wants a REAL Republican as theirs.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on January 30, 2016, 07:39:47 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 30, 2016, 07:47:39 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: David Garner on January 30, 2016, 07:54:06 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.

In other news, I heard we landed on the moon.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on January 30, 2016, 08:07:12 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.


There was an investigation years ago when the Clintons were just coming on the radar. Seems Ms Clinton disclosed one year that she had made $100,000 trading in the cattle markets in Chicago. Seems she had taken a position in cattle futures for something like one day and had made that amount of money. Nothing, of course, could be proven, but one wonders how a novice trader could make such a shrewd move in their first exposure to the rough and tumble world of commodity trading. The Clintons were of course, long time friends of pork and beef magnate and Arkansas native Don Tyson. Very shrewd operators.


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: David Garner on January 30, 2016, 08:26:28 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

The last Republican they endorsed was Eisenhower.  Well before my lifetime, at least.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Fletch on January 30, 2016, 08:47:39 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

The last Republican they endorsed was Eisenhower.  Well before my lifetime, at least.

I thought for sure someone would have known Teddy R.

... F
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on January 30, 2016, 09:29:08 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 30, 2016, 09:41:19 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?
Can't answer your question with any degree of certainty, but I'd be interested to know the names of Republicans you think sound like Hillary.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John_Hannah on January 31, 2016, 08:18:06 AM
Here is the NY Times' "Republican endorsement" for this year's primary:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/a-chance-to-reset-the-republican-race.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John_Hannah on January 31, 2016, 08:19:43 AM
And for you Democrats:  http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/31/opinion/sunday/hillary-clinton-endorsement.html?ref=opinion

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Fletch on January 31, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Interesting to look at the space given to the candidates (both Rep and Dem) in those two NYT articles.  Obviously, they support Hillary - the lost email and "non-secure US secrets and throw Benghazi employees under the bus" candidate.  Do you smell bias?   ;)

... F
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Richard Johnson on January 31, 2016, 07:09:06 PM
Interesting to look at the space given to the candidates (both Rep and Dem) in those two NYT articles.  Obviously, they support Hillary - the lost email and "non-secure US secrets and throw Benghazi employees under the bus" candidate.  Do you smell bias?   ;)

... F

Well, I smell partisan preference, at least.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Randy Bosch on January 31, 2016, 07:31:38 PM
Interesting to look at the space given to the candidates (both Rep and Dem) in those two NYT articles.  Obviously, they support Hillary - the lost email and "non-secure US secrets and throw Benghazi employees under the bus" candidate.  Do you smell bias?   ;)

... F

Well, I smell partisan preference, at least.

Just in the USA, partisan preference in newspapers has always existed. 
The Jefferson vs. Adams contest in 1800 might still be considered the biggest newspaper mudslinging battle in history. 
Every following election had broadsheets and major city newspapers trying to top the previous one with amazingly salacious and slanderous offerings.

Anyone who thinks any newspaper does not have a partisan preference is naive, delusional, or mastering their favorite fishwrapper's fodder for future flinging.
 
Best advice: Know or find out the preference before you read a publication; then, read it prepared to know the civil kindness or lack thereof of your alleged friends and alleged enemies.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on January 31, 2016, 09:20:29 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?
Can't answer your question with any degree of certainty, but I'd be interested to know the names of Republicans you think sound like Hillary.

All of them, with the exception of Donald Trump I suppose.  Take social issues like whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice off the table and there really is no difference.  One great example of this is approach to foreign policy.  All of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul are war hawks just like Hillary.  Whether you agree with him or not, this is why it's great that Bernie is running because his being in the race brings to light just how liberal Hillary isn't.  It also reveals how even renowned papers like the NYTimes may not be as liberal or open-minded or progressive as they purport to be.  Instead they are beholden to a particular way of doing things, a particular framework that is rather unimaginative and, imo, quite cynical. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on January 31, 2016, 10:05:48 PM
Speaking of "partisan preference," NPR's "On the Media" program today was about talk radio (which means conservative radio) and the campaign, noting how the mouths of Limbaugh, Beck, and cohorts spew support for Cruz, Rubio, the Tea Party and Trump; and belch out hatred of anything Clinton or Democratic.
As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on January 31, 2016, 10:27:30 PM

As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.

That's because even progressives won't listen to progressive talk radio.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on January 31, 2016, 11:08:43 PM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?
Can't answer your question with any degree of certainty, but I'd be interested to know the names of Republicans you think sound like Hillary.

All of them, with the exception of Donald Trump I suppose.  Take social issues like whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice off the table and there really is no difference.  One great example of this is approach to foreign policy.  All of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul are war hawks just like Hillary.  Whether you agree with him or not, this is why it's great that Bernie is running because his being in the race brings to light just how liberal Hillary isn't.  It also reveals how even renowned papers like the NYTimes may not be as liberal or open-minded or progressive as they purport to be.  Instead they are beholden to a particular way of doing things, a particular framework that is rather unimaginative and, imo, quite cynical.
Really? Cruz and Hillary sound the same to you? Carson? Fiorina? You think they sound like Hillary Clinton? If you divide everying into A) dovish isolationist candidates, and B) everyone else, I guess you could arrive at that conclusion. But even given that distinction, I don't think there are any Republicans who wouldn't utterly repudiate Hillary's handling of foreign affairs as Secretary of State.

"Social issues" is a pretty broad swath of things to arbitrarily take off the table. Unless taxation, government services, health care, preferred Supreme Court justices, and a bunch of other things are all lumped under "social issues" I don't think the idea that Hillary and the non-Trump Republicans sound basically the same holds any water at all. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2016, 12:57:21 AM

As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.

That's because even progressives won't listen to progressive talk radio.

It's even hard to get liberals to listen to liberal talk radio. To be a liberal it is almost a requirement to ignore politics and listen to music radio instead.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 01, 2016, 03:55:21 AM
Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Fletch on February 01, 2016, 06:07:32 AM
Interesting indeed that Scripture says to HEAR the Word.  Now I understand why liberals/progressives READ to get their information and why they go so far astray from the Word.  ;D

... F
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 01, 2016, 07:58:31 AM
Interesting indeed that Scripture says to HEAR the Word.  Now I understand why liberals/progressives READ to get their information and why they go so far astray from the Word.  ;D

... F

...except, what you are hearing on conservative talk radio is anything but the WORD. ;)

edited because I forgot to include the emoticon.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: David Garner on February 01, 2016, 08:42:49 AM
Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

Sirius XM Progress, for one.

They're rare, but they exist.  We used to have Mike Malloy in Atlanta.  There are others.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Fletch on February 01, 2016, 08:50:06 AM
Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

Sirius XM Progress, for one.

They're rare, but they exist.  We used to have Mike Malloy in Atlanta.  There are others.

You are certainly correct, David.  A quick Google search shows the following.  I guess progressive liberal humble correspondents don't bother to fact check - just go with their personal views.   ;)

The following is a list of United States radio stations that air talk programming with a liberal or progressive viewpoint. All are listed in alphabetical order by state.

See individual station articles for specifics, background and history.


http://ltradio.wikia.com/wiki/List_of_progressive_talk_radio_stations


... F
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John_Hannah on February 01, 2016, 09:42:35 AM
All news media reflect some bias in varying degrees.

Clearly the New York Times reflects a moderate Democratic bias. Other papers, radio or TV shows, magazines, et. al. may reflect a far left, far right, or moderate Republican bias. When one reads any of it, the bias should be kept clearly in mind.

Of course, these are businesses and they would not remain profitable were it not for the people who buy their products. Most of those buyers also vote.   :)

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: James S. Rustad on February 01, 2016, 09:57:21 AM
Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.

Air America?  Oh, that's right.  It went off the air because almost no one listened to it.

Just for the record, I've known many conservatives that read extensively.  I don't always agree with them, but they exist.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: James_Gale on February 01, 2016, 10:11:07 AM
Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.


I do know liberals (some related to me) who can read.  Not all can read very well.  Among this group are those who get their guidance -- not from talk radio -- but from hip comedy shows, such as the Daily Show (at least in the Jon Stewart era), Colbert Report (until the host left for a better gig), and the John Oliver f&*k-this-and-f*%k-that fest on HBO.  Here's an all-time gem (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBrHkxqNT7s) from a comedy web site illustrating the point by showing interviews with attendees at the 2010 Stewart/Colbert "Rally for Sanity" on the National Mall.   
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 01, 2016, 10:47:41 AM
Again, it's interesting (I think. Maybe. Maybe not. Hopeful? Or not?) that Mr. Erdner does read my comments. But I wonder: What "liberal talk radio"? Who? Where? 
And if we're taking pot shots at categories of people.... I might opine: No, liberals, unlike conservatives, do not get their guidance and information and inspiration from radio, they can read.
And it is this kind of attitude, adopting a smug superiority over those with whom one disagrees (liberals read, conservatives - those redneck yahoos - won't or can't read) that has made government increasing dysfunctional and continues to polarize not only our politics but our society.  I don't really believe that Pr. Austin considers all, or even most, conservatives functionally illiterate.  It was just a throw away line thrown in to express his biting, acrid whimsy (when was the last time he delivered such a whimsical snark at liberals?) but the point is that he considers such attempts at whimsical humor not only funny but acceptable.  All we need is the follow-up, "What's the matter with you conservatives have you no sense of humor?"  Is the ultimate judge of humor the ability to accept derogatory jokes at your own expense?  That "humor" really needs to be in the same category of anti-Semitic, anti-Black and Polack jokes.  But of course, when Pr. Austin makes put-down jokes about others, we all are supposed to bow to his superior intellect (he can actually read) and humble ourselves to accept his anti-Conservative jokes because being the butt of his whimsy is our proper place.

We have Hillary Clinton joking about making it a matter of pride that she has made and considers Republicans her enemies.  Republican candidates seem eager to out do each other in considering those who cross our southern boarder our enemies worthy of no consideration, and those who are here, no matter the circumstances as trash to be taken out as expeditiously as possible.  What has happened to America that our political rhetoric needs to be expressed in the starkest and most polarizing way in order to be heard.  Voices of reason and moderation get lost in the din.  This not just from the unwashed masses of conservative, but also from the effete liberal elite.  Whatever else may be said about Donald Trump (and a lot can and should be said) he has dialed into the unrest of a great many people who feel themselves disenfranchised and alienated the political process in which they feel nobody speaks for them, their concerns and their needs.

This has become a problems on all hues of the political spectrum and extends back for decades.  Politics in America has always been a rough and tumble sport.  But after the campaigning, we need to come together to hammer out laws, policies, agencies and programs that advance our nation and for the good of the people, in one way or another, all the people, not just those like me.  Perhaps the current venom harks back to the Presidency of Reagan where it was considered by many a sine qua non to establish one's credentials as part of the intelligentsia to consider him a Hollywood lightweight and intellectual nonentity.  Most if not all presidents since, Republican and Democrat, have faced such scathing and loathing.  Neither Donald Trump, nor Hillary Clinton, nor for that matter Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, nor Bernie Sanders are the second coming of Christ, nor is any of them the second coming of Satan.   
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Terry W Culler on February 01, 2016, 11:02:56 AM
No, Dan, I think it began with Nixon.  The hatred the left felt for him for his work in bringing Alger Hiss to justice was so strong that they stopped at nothing to destroy him.  btw, we don't hear anymore about Hiss or Rosenberg being innocent do we, now that we've had access to Russian intelligence data.  So Nixon was right after all.  But they still brought him down.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 01, 2016, 11:20:15 AM
How about this, Pastor Fienen?
If liberals are so darn smart, why can't they win elections?
The problem with liberals is that they never met a government program they did not like, especially the ones limiting religious freedom.
Liberals are thoroughly opposed to censorship, but would like to legislate Rush Limbaugh off the air.
Progressives don't like anything absolute, unless it's vodka.
Liberals will tolerate anything except someone who opposes them, and they call that a "hate crime."

Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: David Garner on February 01, 2016, 11:56:10 AM
I've always preferred P.J. O'Rourke's descriptor of Republicans and Democrats:

"The Democrats are the party of government activism, the party that says government can make you richer, smarter, taller, and get the chickweed out of your lawn. Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work, and then get elected and prove it."
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: jmiller on February 01, 2016, 12:46:18 PM
As someone who spent more than a dozen years as an analyst at the CIA, I can tell you there is absolutely no doubt she knowingly broke the law in handling highly classified information and put sources, methods and lives at risk.  Anyone who believes otherwise either simply doesn't understand how things work in Washington or is blinded by worship of Mrs. Clinton.  She should be indicted. If there is any justice left in this country, she will be.
 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: DCharlton on February 01, 2016, 12:54:21 PM
Speaking of "partisan preference," NPR's "On the Media" program today was about talk radio (which means conservative radio) and the campaign, noting how the mouths of Limbaugh, Beck, and cohorts spew support for Cruz, Rubio, the Tea Party and Trump; and belch out hatred of anything Clinton or Democratic.
As long as we're bashing "mainstream media," let's acknowledge that talk-radio is that; and that it is overwhelmingly hard-line conservative.

Actually, Beck does not spew support for Trump.  In fact, he spends as much time "bashing" Trump of late as he does Clinton.

Having once been a consumer of left wing media for many years (Air America, MSNBC, the Daily Show, Stepeh Colbert) I can only say that the spewing and belching on talk radio is no worse than that found on the left.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2016, 01:49:51 PM
Air America?  Oh, that's right.  It went off the air because almost no one listened to it.

Just for the record, I've known many conservatives that read extensively.  I don't always agree with them, but they exist.

And, for the record, when we conservatives are sitting in chairs at home or other places, we read. Sometimes we read words printed on paper. Sometimes we read words displayed on computer monitors. When we are driving in our cars, we listen to the radio. We do not read when we are driving in our cars because we're concentrating on watching where we're driving. I make it a habit of neither reading nor texting while driving my car. But, I find that listening to the radio does not inhibit my ability to drive.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 01, 2016, 05:21:10 PM
This story from NY Times seems to contradict jmiller's assertions:  "The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

"Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.

“ 'We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,' Mr. Fallon said."
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: jmiller on February 01, 2016, 06:45:40 PM
Don't be fooled. The key word in this obfuscation is "marked." But whether or not a classified document is marked classified or not is irrelevant. It is the reader's responsibility to recognize the nature of the information. She did... make no mistake.  Her subordinates removed the markings and copied the intelligence into new messages for her consumption on unsecure systems..... Messages that she hoped would never be part of the public record. I produced intelligence for policy makers for years. I know how this works. She should be indicted.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Randy Bosch on February 01, 2016, 07:05:30 PM
This story from NY Times seems to contradict jmiller's assertions:  "The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

"Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.

“ 'We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,' Mr. Fallon said."

Nice subtely nuanced response by the paid spokesperson (that's what they're hired to do, so do it well), including "likely originated", but not addressing the issue. 
The Secretary also originates communications for which others will then set the level of confidentiality based upon their expert knowlege of the system.

Mr. Teigen, a controlling statement in the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” form SF-312 that Ms. Clinton signed as a condition of occupying the office (It is available from a broad number of sources) means she attested to the stipulation that:

"As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526."

This is not unknown language.  She was an attorney.  Similarly, an attorney would not consider information received from a client as anything other than "privileged and confidential" before (if ever) it is overprinted with "Privileged and Confidential".

If only she had just squared it up from the beginning, this would have all been negotiated into relative meaningless long ago.
Perhaps there is a "Reset" button for this one, too.  Hopefully no lives were lost or administration policies submarined by unwanted disclosures. 

I don't believe she will ever be indicted over this. Whether or not it would be deserved is for others to determine, yet I note that the chain of review prior to indictment or bargaining out is entirely composed of political appointees of the administration (Note, however, that although Gen. Petraeus committed a far, far more contained violation of a similar Agreement for his service in the CIA and went through the legal ringer.  Same administration, also observing all of the legal niceties).

Probably, some loyal public servant in the document chain of control, following orders or being a lone ranger in transmitting such documents, will soon be thrown under the bus or make a category error of obstructing an investigation even if they didn't have a "hand" in transmittal, like Scooter Libby in the Valerie Plame affair (apparently turned out that someone else "leaked" her name, not him, but he obfuscated when answering federal investigator questions, which is against the law, too).

In the meanwhile, Jimmy Fallon's take on this affair may be less tortuous than Brian Fallon's.




Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: James_Gale on February 01, 2016, 07:16:49 PM
This story from NY Times seems to contradict jmiller's assertions:  "The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

"Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.

“ 'We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,' Mr. Fallon said."


Neither Secretary Clinton nor her campaign have access to the documents.  Indeed, if Secretary Clinton told her campaign spokesperson what was in the documents, she broke the law.  She is not even allowed to discuss content with her lawyers until they have received the appropriate security clearance and have been read in on the SAP protection covering some of the documents.


It's now clear that the information in at least some of these documents was classified from the outset.  It matters not whether the intelligence agencies or State classified the information. 


If the Justice Department does not indict Mrs. Clinton, expect details of her conduct to leak. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2016, 07:38:02 PM
This story from NY Times seems to contradict jmiller's assertions:  "The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.

"Mrs. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said all of the emails should be released.

“ 'We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,' Mr. Fallon said."

The bottom line is that using a personal server for ANY official State Department business was forbidden. Nitpicking over subtle nuances of how severely she broke the law is something for the judge and jury to decide at her trial. If she has truly done nothing wrong, I would assume she would welcome the opportunity to clear her name in court, since she already failed to use the Congressional inquiry as an opportunity for full disclosure.

As a Christian, I wouldn't expect God to punish her for appearances of impropriety. But as a voter selecting the next President of the United States, there is simply far too much smoke to not have a strong suspicion that there must be a fire. The stakes are too high to risk putting someone with such poor judgement and lack of transparency in the White House.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 01, 2016, 09:51:07 PM
Hillary Clinton has a good record of sound judgment and years of service.  Her experience is far ahead of any of the other candidates.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 01, 2016, 10:04:32 PM
Hillary Clinton has a good record of sound judgment and years of service.  Her experience is far ahead of any of the other candidates.
Is that why you didn't vote for Obama? Because he had barely been sworn into his first term as senator and mostly dodged every difficult vote before he began running for president?

Can you give an example of Hillary's sound judgment?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 01, 2016, 10:05:50 PM
Peter writes:
Can you give an example of Hillary's sound judgment?

I comment:
She stayed a solid, practicing, believing Methodist and did not join the LCMS.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 01, 2016, 10:15:33 PM
Peter writes:
Can you give an example of Hillary's sound judgment?

I comment:
She stayed a solid, practicing, believing Methodist and did not join the LCMS.

Hahahahahaha! By far one of the best responses I have ever read on here. 

Touché, Charles.

In Christ,
Scott+
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 01, 2016, 10:20:23 PM
Hillary Clinton has a good record of sound judgment and years of service.  Her experience is far ahead of any of the other candidates.

Would you mind telling us the color of the sky on your home world? What a) successful b) moral thing has that hill billy Lady Macbeth accomplished?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 01, 2016, 10:26:10 PM
Peter writes:
Can you give an example of Hillary's sound judgment?

I comment:
She stayed a solid, practicing, believing Methodist and did not join the LCMS.
But that also disqualifies her by Norman's standards. She is running for president of everyone, not just Methodists. Being a practicing "believer" is a negative.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 01, 2016, 10:42:56 PM
I think it is worthwhile to note, Mr. Hummel, that none of us of a certain ilk here have applied any insulting names to Republicans who are squabbling for the presidency. But we could, O we could! There's the... and then there's the ... and the brother who.... and the never-ran, and ....
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Randy Bosch on February 01, 2016, 10:53:02 PM
I think it is worthwhile to note, Mr. Hummel, that none of us of a certain ilk here have applied any insulting names to Republicans who are squabbling for the presidency. But we could, O we could! There's the... and then there's the ... and the brother who.... and the never-ran, and ....

Well, I don't like it regardless of source or target, but won't follow those that (or is it "who") refer to critics of anyone as subhuman or deranged either.  Plus, you have clearly overlooked the "Donald Trump..." thread when you state "none of us of...".

Therefore, I must conclude that you are the only one in these precincts of "a certain ilk".  Clearly an endangered species, are you!
Equality and diversity demands your inclusion somewhere in the egalitarian masses!   ;)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 01, 2016, 11:10:29 PM
Hillary Clinton has a good record of sound judgment and years of service.  Her experience is far ahead of any of the other candidates.

Would you mind telling us the color of the sky on your home world? What a) successful b) moral thing has that hill billy Lady Macbeth accomplished?

I made an almost identical reply before changing pages and seeing your post. I would love to see a list of Hillary's accomplishments. I have a 3 x 5 card to write them on.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Robert Johnson on February 02, 2016, 12:18:28 AM
All news media reflect some bias in varying degrees.

Clearly the New York Times reflects a moderate Democratic bias.

Used to be moderate Democratic; they've gone harder left in the last decade or so.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 02, 2016, 04:47:40 AM
Ted Cruz wins in Iowa.   He gives hope to despised people.

 http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/cruz-victory-gives-hope-to-despised-people-everywhere
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: LutherMan on February 02, 2016, 05:04:57 AM
Ted Cruz wins in Iowa.   He gives hope to despised people.

 http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/cruz-victory-gives-hope-to-despised-people-everywhere
Why do you post this crap?  It is akin to the onion...
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 02, 2016, 05:14:22 AM
Ted Cruz is the candidate of hope for you too, Craig.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 02, 2016, 05:40:46 AM
I think it is worthwhile to note, Mr. Hummel, that none of us of a certain ilk here have applied any insulting names to Republicans who are squabbling for the presidency. But we could, O we could! There's the... and then there's the ... and the brother who.... and the never-ran, and ....

I have no problems with you or anyone disparaging any number of the Republican candidates. The #2 in Iowa shares many of the same characteristics as Ms. Clinton. Famous for doing stuff that really aren't accomplishments, and an oversized ego that thinks it's owed something because it wants something.At least Trump isn't complicit in the murder of 4 Americans.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 02, 2016, 07:19:18 AM
I notice that there is still some of that mistaken assumption that ALL members of any group are automatically deserving of a certain exalted status regardless of the actual circumstances of their lives. As a Republican, I still have a great deal of respect for many famous politicians from the Democrat Party. These people, though I might not have agreed with their stances on issues at the time, or in the case of historical figures, in retrospect, I still recognize that they are people worthy of respect.

Well known Democrats, past and present, who I believe are were genuinely worthy of respect as people and/or as politicians include, but are not limited to:

John F. Kennedy
Walter Mondale
Hubert Humphrey
Harry Truman
Edmund Muskie
Bob Casey (Pennsylvania Governor)
Robert Kennedy
Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Mike Mansfield
Tip O'Neill
Al Gore, Sr.

Conspicuously undeserving of inclusion on any list of politicians from the Democrat Party deserving of respect are:

Hillary Rodham Clinton
Nancy Pelosi
Barbara Boxer
Al Gore, Jr.

Ineligible for either list would be Bernie Casey, who only recently affiliated with the Democrat Party after a long career as an independent.

Your opinions may vary. I support the contention that individual perceptions of political figures will vary from one person to another, and I respect the opinions of those who disagree over which politicians are "respectable" and which are not. But I am firmly convinced that one must kow-tow to ALL politicians, and elevate all politicians to some elevated platform of respect regardless of their personal records is nothing but  sheep dip.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 02, 2016, 07:26:16 AM
It's the New Yorker!, Craig. That's a couple of levels higher than the Onion. (And the Onion is pretty darn good.)
But we know you have a low tolerance for satire and whimsy.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 02, 2016, 11:17:32 AM
This is all sheer foolishness.  Nice endorsement of Hillary Clinton will appear in tomorrow's New York Times.  Suggested reading for all.
I could be wrong because I haven't double-checked, but I don't think the NYT has endorsed a Republican in my lifetime. They might have written their endorsement of Hillary for this election the day after Obama won the nomination in 2008.

Funny because Hillary talks a lot like a Republican, at least of the neocon variety, but hey what do I know?
Can't answer your question with any degree of certainty, but I'd be interested to know the names of Republicans you think sound like Hillary.

All of them, with the exception of Donald Trump I suppose.  Take social issues like whether a candidate is pro-life or pro-choice off the table and there really is no difference.  One great example of this is approach to foreign policy.  All of the Republican candidates with the exception of Rand Paul are war hawks just like Hillary.  Whether you agree with him or not, this is why it's great that Bernie is running because his being in the race brings to light just how liberal Hillary isn't.  It also reveals how even renowned papers like the NYTimes may not be as liberal or open-minded or progressive as they purport to be.  Instead they are beholden to a particular way of doing things, a particular framework that is rather unimaginative and, imo, quite cynical.
Really? Cruz and Hillary sound the same to you? Carson? Fiorina? You think they sound like Hillary Clinton? If you divide everying into A) dovish isolationist candidates, and B) everyone else, I guess you could arrive at that conclusion. But even given that distinction, I don't think there are any Republicans who wouldn't utterly repudiate Hillary's handling of foreign affairs as Secretary of State.

"Social issues" is a pretty broad swath of things to arbitrarily take off the table. Unless taxation, government services, health care, preferred Supreme Court justices, and a bunch of other things are all lumped under "social issues" I don't think the idea that Hillary and the non-Trump Republicans sound basically the same holds any water at all.

I’m a little surprised that you are unable to see what I’m getting at especially for someone who has read William Cavanaugh.

Yes, to be honest, I don’t see or hear much of a difference between Hillary and those you mention (although I completely forgot about Ben Carson).  The differences that are there are simply distractions from the deeper issues at play.  To hearken to Noam Chomsky (who I’m sure you must love!!) there is only one party, the business party, within this party there are Moderate Republicans (Democrats) and Republicans.  Ultimately, though, the differences aren’t much as evidenced by a report done a few years back that found that both “parties” shared 48 of the same big donors. 

Looking at issues like Ed Snowden, Citizens United, approach to military, as well as the approach to the economy and ultimately you have a lot of agreement.  For example, Hillary claims she’ll play hard with Wall Street, which goes against the Reagan sensibilities of many of the Republicans, but she’s probably only saying that because of Bernie.  You’ll note that in one debate she went as far as to defend Wall St. which involved a reference to 9/11. She also is for not bringing back Glass-Steagal and was in favor of the TPP only to flip flop (she’ll probably go back to being favor of if elected).  Also, I have yet to hear her or any of the Republicans condemn Citizens United which reveals a lot more than whether they are for or against Obamacare (which is here to stay despite Cruz’s claiming he’ll repeal it).   You’ll note too, that like her Republican counterparts, with the exception of Trump and Carson, she has Super-Pacs and big money behind her as well.  Sure, Hillary may raise taxes on the rich but it’s not going to rock the boat. 

So Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are pro-life yet they are also pro-gun and pro-military.  Here we have Ted Cruz playing to the evangelical base and then he references Desert Storm and how quick of mission that was because of extensive bombing etc.. This, he claims is what we need to do in Syria.  Ted Cruz, the pro-life candidate, fails to note that in that Desert Storm campaign upwards of 200,000 innocent civilians were killed in a month’s time.   Carly Fiorina has spoken in a similarly destructive fashion.  Both like Clinton will continue the culture of death just in different ways.   Either we sacrifice the unborn to the gods of convenience, comfort and security or we sacrifice them later on when they are out of the womb.  This is exactly what Martin Luther King Jr. spoke out against in his “Beyond Vietnam” speech.  Oh and god forbid we consider giving up our guns.  Does anyone notice the contradiction that we who believe that Jesus is Lord and saved us by non-violently giving up his life are the first to get passionate about guns?  Let’s also not forget the hard work of the gun lobby and also weapons manufacturers to influence various candidates.  Weapons manufacturers have no problem giving to both sides, simply google it and you’ll see.   Right or left our culture’s problem with violence will not change.  And both "sides" continue to perpetuate the culture of fear.

I also want to throw out there that Ted Cruz and Clinton share another thing in common: Goldman Sachs and the use of Machiavellian tactics in order to get elected (bear in mind this well-documented on both sides).  Clinton has reportedly been paid upwards of $600,000 is speaking fees by Goldman Sachs, though we are not allowed to see the manuscripts of what she said.  Cruz’s wife is a Goldman Sachs exec (although on leave).   It’s interesting to note that he met her on the 2000 Bush campaign.  That Bush administration would be riddled with Goldman Sachs people just like the Obama administration.  I doubt that’ll change much if Cruz or Clinton are elected. Oh and both hold degrees from Ivy league schools and have run with an elite crowd while claiming to be for the people.  It was pretty ridiculous when that Duck Dynasty guy claimed that Cruz was one of them in that commercial. 

Lastly, Republicans would repudiate Hillary’s handling of foreign affairs simply because she bears the name Clinton.  Benghazi aside her policies and approaches were consistent with Bush policies and approaches.  I mean advocating the toppling dictators that we formerly supported…hmmm…

There’s so much more that I can say but I am limited by time.
 
In Christ,
Scott+

There's also this http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-right-political-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-right-political-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/)

Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 02, 2016, 12:24:07 PM
Pastor Geminn says here some very smart things. I don't always like the things he says, but that's because they are true, not because he said them.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 02, 2016, 12:37:19 PM
I saw the Atlantic piece. Didn't find it persuasive. And Noam Chomsky's Marxist categories don't take into account what motivates people. There are rich and powerful people, but there is more to a person's motivation than maintaing riches and power. George Soros and the Koch brothers have very different visions for America. The fact that they are rich and powerful doesn't mean their aims coincide.

Lutheranism is very clear that Christianity allows for wars and for Christians to serve as soldiers. By our Confessions we are not pacifists and we reject the position of the anabaptists who were pacifists. The idea that serving in a war is no different than killing the unborn out of personal convenience is incoherent because it lumps vastly disparate things together under one big category of "things that result in someone dying," which is a materialist position that cannot deal with categories like just and unjust, good and evil, and so forth. We can argue whether a particular war was just or unjust, but that is something totally different than trying to make the case that support for a particular war is inconsistent with pro-life views on abortion.

I agree that reducing everything to two parties makes for sometimes arbitrary and therefore incoherent packaging of issues and that this election is showing those packages fracture. Both establishments favor more free trade while both of their voter bases oppose it, for example. Both establishments favor immigration while the GOP base does not and the Dem base, especially unions, blue collar workers, and African-Americans, is at least divided on the issue. Reagan Democrats are voting for Trump or Sanders because they're the sort of people who are most hurt by free trade and immigration, while college-educated professionals are voting for Clinton or Rubio because they're the most helped by those same two issues. So on some of the issues that gain the most press there is similarity between the establishment candidates of both parties and the insurgent candidates.

But if you don't look at it through that lens of insider/outsider or Big Guy/little guy, you see great differences. As I see it, there are really three coherent political philosophies in play and only two parties in which to play them. Socialism is a coherent philosophy, as is Libertarianism, as is religious (or cultural) conservatism. When those things get pigeonholed into two parties, you get odd alliances, like a Libertarian who favors legalized prostitution voting for a pro-life conservative who favors abstinence-only sex education because they agree on smaller government. That's one of the reasons I'm glad Sanders is running as an unapologetic socialist. I disagree with him point for point, but at least I'm disagreeing with an internally coherent set of points and doing so with an internally coherent set of counter-points.

At the heart of socialism is the general welfare of the society as the highest good, even if individual freedoms must be sacrificed. It is the soul of the hive. Socialism is favored in densely populated areas where being forced to work together is a small price to pay for avoiding the chaos of everyone doing their own thing. I'm much more likely to put up with rules about what I can do in my own home when I share a wall or a floor or ceiling with someone to whom that laws also applies. Socialism also thrives in more culturally homogenous places where people tend to all share the same basic history and values, which means being forced to do something doesn't feel particularly egregious. Socialists at heart are the people who honestly think, "Government is just the word for what we choose to do together." Non-socialists think the opposite of that is true-- government for them is by definition what we're forced to do together; everything else besides government is what we choose to do together (or not). I reject socialism because it treats the nation like one big family without any of the informal things that make a genuine family work. Denmark can operate really well like one big relatively happy family. It fails catastrophically when it tries to do so with people who don't share a general sense of Danish cultural values. "It takes a village to raise a child" is true, but that's because traditional villages operate not with faceless bureaucracies but via traditions, religious authority, relatively rigid family and gender roles, shame-based sexual mores, diffifult coming-of-age ceremonies, and host of things that can't be replaced by federal programs and which the federal government actively tries to eliminate. In short, while I agree it takes a village, the federal government is nothing like a village and is in fact the enemy of true villages. Socialists tend to think of their political enemies as uncultured or unrefined.

Libertarianism thrives in wide open spaces where people are able to avoid bumping elbows and do not foresee themselves being forced to live with the consequences of other people's choices on a day to day basis. That's why taxes and social programs are anathema to them; both things force them to react to or compensate for other people's choices. "You didn't save for retirement? That was stupid of you, but not my problem. I will probably lend a hand if asked, but I'll resent being forced to do so as though you spending my money is a matter of justice or fairness." I reject Libertarianism because it doesn't deal with the reality of human entanglements. It treats people as though they come into the world as free agents whose relationships are voluntary pacts. Libertarians tend to think of their political enemies as unintelligent and therefore unable to grasp how things like the rule of law, free markets, etc. really work. They also tend to evaluate things on purely materialistic terms-- education is job training, roads are for commerce, etc. This is really the flipside of Socialism with the individual over the hive instead of vice versa.

Cultural conservatives, of which I am one, elevate other aspects of culture, especially marriage and family but including tradition, moral norms, etc. over both the government and the individual. Government exists purely as a servant. The home is central and the government peripheral and conditional. Cultural conservatives tend to think of their political enemies as immoral. At any rate, as you say, there is a lot more to say but I'm out of time. Perhaps more later.     
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 02, 2016, 01:25:32 PM
Lutheranism is very clear that Christianity allows for wars and for Christians to serve as soldiers. By our Confessions we are not pacifists and we reject the position of the anabaptists who were pacifists. The idea that serving in a war is no different than killing the unborn out of personal convenience is incoherent because it lumps vastly disparate things together under one big category of "things that result in someone dying," which is a materialist position that cannot deal with categories like just and unjust, good and evil, and so forth. We can argue whether a particular war was just or unjust, but that is something totally different than trying to make the case that support for a particular war is inconsistent with pro-life views on abortion.
 

Oh my gosh, this is by far one of the most ignorant paragraphs I have ever read from you.  Yes, Lutheranism allows for such things but to simply write off what I wrote as some materialist conception is simply nonsensical and goes against the witness of the church catholic.  For one it goes against the witness of the earliest Christians who were against both abortion and military service because they refused to shed innocent blood.  What is more there is a direct correlation between our how much we spend on defense and abortion.  At this point I simply recommend that you read MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam” Speech.   

That you are a writer for ALPB is simply beyond me. 

At this point, I’m at a loss for words. 

In Christ,
Scott+
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 02, 2016, 01:39:18 PM
Lutheranism is very clear that Christianity allows for wars and for Christians to serve as soldiers. By our Confessions we are not pacifists and we reject the position of the anabaptists who were pacifists. The idea that serving in a war is no different than killing the unborn out of personal convenience is incoherent because it lumps vastly disparate things together under one big category of "things that result in someone dying," which is a materialist position that cannot deal with categories like just and unjust, good and evil, and so forth. We can argue whether a particular war was just or unjust, but that is something totally different than trying to make the case that support for a particular war is inconsistent with pro-life views on abortion.
 

Oh my gosh, this is by far one of the most ignorant paragraphs I have ever read from you.  Yes, Lutheranism allows for such things but to simply write off what I wrote as some materialist conception is simply nonsensical and goes against the witness of the church catholic.  For one it goes against the witness of the earliest Christians who were against both abortion and military service because they refused to shed innocent blood.  What is more there is a direct correlation between our how much we spend on defense and abortion.  At this point I simply recommend that you read MLK’s “Beyond Vietnam” Speech.   

That you are a writer for ALPB is simply beyond me. 

At this point, I’m at a loss for words. 

In Christ,
Scott+
By now you must be used to things like the Lutheran Confessions being beyond you, though. You tried to make the religious case that supporting a war was a contradiction of a pro-life position on abortion. That position is, as I pointed out, incoherent and not in keeping with the Lutheran Confessions.

To be clear, this passage is what I was responding to. You wrote: "So Ted Cruz and Carly Fiorina are pro-life yet they are also pro-gun and pro-military.  Here we have Ted Cruz playing to the evangelical base and then he references Desert Storm and how quick of mission that was because of extensive bombing etc.. This, he claims is what we need to do in Syria.  Ted Cruz, the pro-life candidate, fails to note that in that Desert Storm campaign upwards of 200,000 innocent civilians were killed in a month’s time.   Carly Fiorina has spoken in a similarly destructive fashion.  Both like Clinton will continue the culture of death just in different ways.   Either we sacrifice the unborn to the gods of convenience, comfort and security or we sacrifice them later on when they are out of the womb."
Your first sentence contrasted being pro-life with being pro-military, as though somehow supporting the military were the equivalent of supporting legal abortion. That is the sloppy thinking I reject. I know the RC position and the history of the ancient church regarding service as soldiers. But I also know that our Confessions explicitly affirm that it is not unChristian to engage in just wars or to serve as soldiers. So the only issue is whether a given war is just or not, which is something about which people of good will (which given the tone of your response apparently doesn't include you) might disagree. The same is not true of abortion. It is a completely different topic lumped together with support for the military by sloppy theology.


Edit to update: I just re-read both AC XVI and Ap. XVI. Interestingly, Ap. XVI begins, "The opponents accept article sixteen without qualification."For those without a BoC handy, AC XVI (German text, Kolb-Wengert translation) reads, in part, "...Christians may without sin exercise political authority; be princes and judges; pass sentences and administer according to imperial and other existing laws; punish evildoers with the sword; wage just wars; serve as soldiers....etc. Condemned here are the Anabaptists who teach that none of the things indicated above is Christian."  So among all their disagreements, one thing Lutherans and Catholics have always agreed upon is that governments may in good conscience wage just wars and Christians may in good conscience serve as soldiers in them. It is not the church catholic but the sects manifold that get all riled up at the idea that governments may justly wage wars and Christians may serve as soldiers in them.

The constant efforts of Lutherans to salve their consciences about voting for pro-choice politicians with moral equivocation about wars and the death penalty grows tiresome.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 02, 2016, 01:49:16 PM
Someone with more church history chops than mine could say better, but was the reluctance of early Christians to military service because of pacifist leanings?  I seem to remember that of greater concern was the mandatory oath of allegiance to the Emperor that involved burning a pinch of incense or some such sacrifice as worship of the Emperor.  Am I remembering wrongly?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 02, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
Someone with more church history chops than mine could say better, but was the reluctance of early Christians to military service because of pacifist leanings?  I seem to remember that of greater concern was the mandatory oath of allegiance to the Emperor that involved burning a pinch of incense or some such sacrifice as worship of the Emperor.  Am I remembering wrongly?


I believe that there was a ban against Christians serving in occupations where they might have to take a life. That eliminated the military.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 02, 2016, 06:59:52 PM
Someone with more church history chops than mine could say better, but was the reluctance of early Christians to military service because of pacifist leanings?  I seem to remember that of greater concern was the mandatory oath of allegiance to the Emperor that involved burning a pinch of incense or some such sacrifice as worship of the Emperor.  Am I remembering wrongly?


I believe that there was a ban against Christians serving in occupations where they might have to take a life. That eliminated the military.

Yes, it's throughout the early church fathers.  I'm not making this stuff up.  They actually took Jesus' words to love their enemies quite seriously.  We don't really begin to see a change until about the 4th century with the normalization of Christianity.  Good ole Augustine helped to turn the tide in such thinking along with Christianity becoming the state religion. Even the notion that it had to do with the Emperor cult would still be problematic for us today given the spirituality behind nationalism.  But only a materialist would deny that, right?

In Christ,
Scott+
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 02, 2016, 07:03:15 PM
Someone with more church history chops than mine could say better, but was the reluctance of early Christians to military service because of pacifist leanings?  I seem to remember that of greater concern was the mandatory oath of allegiance to the Emperor that involved burning a pinch of incense or some such sacrifice as worship of the Emperor.  Am I remembering wrongly?


I believe that there was a ban against Christians serving in occupations where they might have to take a life. That eliminated the military.

Yes, it's throughout the early church fathers.  I'm not making this stuff up.  They actually took Jesus' words to love their enemies quite seriously.  We don't really begin to see a change until about the 4th century with the normalization of Christianity.  Good ole Augustine helped to turn the tide in such thinking along with Christianity becoming the state religion. Even the notion that it had to do with the Emperor cult would still be problematic for us today given the spirituality behind nationalism.  But only a materialist would deny that, right?


A statement I remember reading, but have not been able to find again, gave the exact date in the 4th century when Christianity changed. It was the first time that one Christian killed another Christian for not having the right Christian belief. The author argued that before that time, Christianity was a religion that adherents were willing to die for. It became one that they were willing to kill for.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 02, 2016, 07:13:25 PM
Someone with more church history chops than mine could say better, but was the reluctance of early Christians to military service because of pacifist leanings?  I seem to remember that of greater concern was the mandatory oath of allegiance to the Emperor that involved burning a pinch of incense or some such sacrifice as worship of the Emperor.  Am I remembering wrongly?


I believe that there was a ban against Christians serving in occupations where they might have to take a life. That eliminated the military.


Except, of course, there were Christians in the Roman Legions.....and, of course, Paul talks about his work in words among the Praetorians (the soldiers who guarded the emperor, often considered elite).


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 02, 2016, 07:23:29 PM
The confessional position on warfare is not that Christianity is worth killing for. It is that warfare and capital punishment are secular things, and the ordering of society is something Christians may participate in. The linking of warfare and capital punishment to abortion is simply bad theology, especially for a confessional Lutheran. Christians may have secular vocations, and those vocations may call for them to kill. That is totally unlike saying Christianity is worth killing for. A general may be called to order an attack. That is part of his vocation, and a Christian who is a general might do it in good conscience. Killing one's child is never part of the role of mother, and aborting a baby is never the valid job of a doctor. So abortion is in a completely different realm from soldiering.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: pearson on February 02, 2016, 07:42:49 PM

The linking of warfare and capital punishment to abortion is simply bad theology, especially for a confessional Lutheran. Christians may have secular vocations, and those vocations may call for them to kill.


I find the pro-life arguments, on the question of abortion, thoroughly convincing; but still I wonder: is it morally acceptable for a Christian physician to perform abortions?  If it's true that "Christians may have secular vocations, and those vocations may call for them to kill," then when the secular vocation of medicine involves the legal destruction of a living fetus (i.e., killing), do Christians hold the physician involved guilty of an ethical transgression?  If so, why?  Medicine seems clearly to be a secular vocation, and in cases where that vocation may call on a Christian physician to kill, why (based on the statement above) wouldn't the Christian physician be held morally blameless?

Tom Pearson 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 02, 2016, 08:16:43 PM

The linking of warfare and capital punishment to abortion is simply bad theology, especially for a confessional Lutheran. Christians may have secular vocations, and those vocations may call for them to kill.


I find the pro-life arguments, on the question of abortion, thoroughly convincing; but still I wonder: is it morally acceptable for a Christian physician to perform abortions?  If it's true that "Christians may have secular vocations, and those vocations may call for them to kill," then when the secular vocation of medicine involves the legal destruction of a living fetus (i.e., killing), do Christians hold the physician involved guilty of an ethical transgression?  If so, why?  Medicine seems clearly to be a secular vocation, and in cases where that vocation may call on a Christian physician to kill, why (based on the statement above) wouldn't the Christian physician be held morally blameless?

Tom Pearson
Because his calling is to heal, not to kill. A doctor killing is equivalent to a general waging an unjust war. He can't claim that just because he was asked or hired to do something, that makes it legal and just for him. The one hiring/asking has no call or authority to tell him to kill.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: pearson on February 02, 2016, 09:33:10 PM

Because his calling is to heal, not to kill. A doctor killing is equivalent to a general waging an unjust war. He can't claim that just because he was asked or hired to do something, that makes it legal and just for him. The one hiring/asking has no call or authority to tell him to kill.


I'm not convinced.  Or, at least, I'm not convinced this is an adequate argument.

If, as you said earlier, there are "secular vocations" (including medicine), then it is not up to you as a Lutheran pastor to declare what is included in the definition of that secular vocation; it is up to the vocational community of practice itself.  If the medical community determines that the physician's calling includes, where legal, discretionary killing, then that becomes normative for that community of practitioners.  If you think that killing as an activity that is part of a vocational role is always wrong (perhaps from a natural law perspective, for instance), that's fine.  But then it would apply to all vocations, including the military and those involved in capital punishment.  You can't selectively exempt medicine (for instance) simply by imposing a definition ("their calling is to heal, not to kill") that the medical community itself would not accept.

It is true that nearly all the various updated versions of the Hippocratic Oath contain the words that physicians are to "do no harm."  But it is universally recognized within the medical community that there are routinely cases where there are conflicting "harms," and that in those cases, it is both unintentional and unavoidable that a medical decision will produce harm for some human person.  Over time, the medical community has produced a number of rough protocols for how to work through such cases; in the end, it is always the medical community itself that has to establish and manage those protocols.  Nothing in those cases is ever reducible to "their calling is to heal, not to kill."  I am opposed to abortion -- I do think it is a form of murder -- but if physicians who perform abortions really do belong to a "secular vocation," then none of us outside of that vocation is in any position to lecture them that "their calling is to heal, not to kill" (and that would go for any other "secular vocation," such as the military, or those involved in capital punishment).

I confess that I am uncertain how to handle these questions.  Maybe medicine and the military aren't really "secular vocations" after all.  Perhaps we all need to do more thoughtful exploring as to what counts as a "vocation," what the dynamic of "vocation" might be, and where the moral parameters for "vocations" are located.  I don't know.  So I guess I'm asking for help.  But I do know that I find segregating medicine from the other "secular vocations," and informing them from a distance that they are not allowed to kill while other "secular vocations" are given such allowance, to be an inadequate argument.

Tom Pearson 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 02, 2016, 10:31:08 PM
Secular vocations are not exempt from God's law. That is why there are just wars and unjust wars. We can't argue that if the general says it is just, or if the military community in general says it is just, then it is by definition so. Same with the medical community. Because God gives it to the secular authority to protect the people and to punish criminals, secular rulers are sometimes (not all the time) justified in waging war or punishing criminals. But God has not given it to mothers to kill their young. Therefore an abortion is mere murder. God gets to define the roles He gives, not the recipients of a particular vocation. God, not doctors themselves, determines what doctors are allowed to do.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 03, 2016, 08:07:28 AM

Because his calling is to heal, not to kill. A doctor killing is equivalent to a general waging an unjust war. He can't claim that just because he was asked or hired to do something, that makes it legal and just for him. The one hiring/asking has no call or authority to tell him to kill.


I'm not convinced.  Or, at least, I'm not convinced this is an adequate argument.

If, as you said earlier, there are "secular vocations" (including medicine), then it is not up to you as a Lutheran pastor to declare what is included in the definition of that secular vocation; it is up to the vocational community of practice itself.  If the medical community determines that the physician's calling includes, where legal, discretionary killing, then that becomes normative for that community of practitioners.  If you think that killing as an activity that is part of a vocational role is always wrong (perhaps from a natural law perspective, for instance), that's fine.  But then it would apply to all vocations, including the military and those involved in capital punishment.  You can't selectively exempt medicine (for instance) simply by imposing a definition ("their calling is to heal, not to kill") that the medical community itself would not accept.

It is true that nearly all the various updated versions of the Hippocratic Oath contain the words that physicians are to "do no harm."  But it is universally recognized within the medical community that there are routinely cases where there are conflicting "harms," and that in those cases, it is both unintentional and unavoidable that a medical decision will produce harm for some human person.  Over time, the medical community has produced a number of rough protocols for how to work through such cases; in the end, it is always the medical community itself that has to establish and manage those protocols.  Nothing in those cases is ever reducible to "their calling is to heal, not to kill."  I am opposed to abortion -- I do think it is a form of murder -- but if physicians who perform abortions really do belong to a "secular vocation," then none of us outside of that vocation is in any position to lecture them that "their calling is to heal, not to kill" (and that would go for any other "secular vocation," such as the military, or those involved in capital punishment).

I confess that I am uncertain how to handle these questions.  Maybe medicine and the military aren't really "secular vocations" after all.  Perhaps we all need to do more thoughtful exploring as to what counts as a "vocation," what the dynamic of "vocation" might be, and where the moral parameters for "vocations" are located.  I don't know.  So I guess I'm asking for help.  But I do know that I find segregating medicine from the other "secular vocations," and informing them from a distance that they are not allowed to kill while other "secular vocations" are given such allowance, to be an inadequate argument.

Tom Pearson


I think "secular vocation" is a mixing of terms. Not sure I believe there is such a thing. A vocation outside the parameters of the reign of God is, to my mind, no vocation at all. "Drug dealer", as I remind my organist, is a fine vocation of service to her fellow creatures as she functions as a licensed and employed pharmacist. Elsewhere, not so much.


A Doctor who performs abortions outside the very narrow parameters within the reign of God (ectopic pregnancy, life of the mother is threatened) is unworthy of the respect due a doctor at all.


Lou
 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: pearson on February 03, 2016, 08:17:41 AM

I think "secular vocation" is a mixing of terms. Not sure I believe there is such a thing. A vocation outside the parameters of the reign of God is, to my mind, no vocation at all.


Thanks, Lou.  This is one part of my concern, expressed last night.  If there really are "secular vocations," then I can't see in what way they would be subject to God's Law, as Pr. Speckhard asserted.  Of course, like everything else, "secular vocations" are subject to God's judgment.  But I'm trying to figure out how those embedded in a "secular vocation" would make appropriate moral judgments in real time, often in ethically congested situations; and I can't see that invoking God's Law would adequately inform those judgments, as they occur within a "secular vocation."

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 03, 2016, 08:48:01 AM
The Anabaptist Reformer, Menno Simons, once wrote a piece under the genre of "mirrors to the Prince" on the appropriate role of Christians as people who must engage in violence to perform their vocation, ie. policeman or soldier. His conclusion was that no Christian could perform those tasks, but since the tasks were necessary in every society it was the duty of the prince to obtain, train, and maintain discipline among the non-christians who would of necessity need to perform those functions for the sake of christian community. Because of the "we/they" dichotomy the argument insists on, I found the arguments incoherent for a christian, as I do for the people who embrace the idealism of pure pacifism.


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 03, 2016, 08:55:35 AM
By "secular vocation" I don't mean something outside the reign of God, but a vocation to serve in His left hand kingdom. When the catechism says, "Consider your place in life..." it begins to list various vocations and applies God's Law directly to them. In terms of AC XVI I'm simply using the term to describe all the various vocations listed there that Lutherans and Catholics agree are fit for Christians to serve in in good conscience. And Christian rulers may wage just wars or execute criminals according to their vocation, and Christians may serve as soldiers in those wars, also in good conscience. That does not mean every war is just.

Abortion is a completely different matter. It is not the civil ruler, it is a private citizen demanding it, and killing one's young is not part of the vocation of motherhood. The civil ruler has a duty to protect people and therefore must prohibit killing among the citizens.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 03, 2016, 10:00:54 AM
The Anabaptist Reformer, Menno Simons, once wrote a piece under the genre of "mirrors to the Prince" on the appropriate role of Christians as people who must engage in violence to perform their vocation, ie. policeman or soldier. His conclusion was that no Christian could perform those tasks, but since the tasks were necessary in every society it was the duty of the prince to obtain, train, and maintain discipline among the non-christians who would of necessity need to perform those functions for the sake of christian community. Because of the "we/they" dichotomy the argument insists on, I found the arguments incoherent for a christian, as I do for the people who embrace the idealism of pure pacifism.


Lou
This echoes the practice of some Orthodox Jews of hiring Gentiles to work for them on the Sabbath. Makes sense, in a way, for Jews, but not so much for Christians, which is why AC XVI specifically rejects the Anabaptist position. This is also why I get fed up with people who lump abortion and euthanasia in with wars and capital punishment when considering what makes for a good civil authority from a Christian voter's perspective, as though those issues were all of a piece. And to throw "pro-gun" in there simply muddies the water further.

It is fine to consider Bonhoeffer's dilemma, and also to read MLK's often profound theological considerations of some of the same issues. But we ought not lose sight of the confessional distinctions in play. There is a big difference between arguing that a particular war is unjust and arguing that all war is unjust or that no Christian may participate in war. In discussions of the merits of current candidates as they relate to current issues, there are good, sound Christian arguments on both sides of the debate over whether to defeat ISIS militarily, not as a church going to war but as a nation tasked with the duties of a nation. To say that favoring military intervention on behalf of oppressed Syrians in order to avoid the global catastrophe of genocide and massive population displacements caused by the growth of ISIS somehow is part of a culture of death and out of step with a pro-life position on abortion makes no sense from a confessional standpoint. Our civil authority may or may not ultimately have to deal with ISIS militarily. But our civil authority with absolute certainty is tasked with defending the right to life in general among the people.   
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: pearson on February 03, 2016, 12:53:50 PM

By "secular vocation" I don't mean something outside the reign of God, but a vocation to serve in His left hand kingdom. When the catechism says, "Consider your place in life..." it begins to list various vocations and applies God's Law directly to them. In terms of AC XVI I'm simply using the term to describe all the various vocations listed there that Lutherans and Catholics agree are fit for Christians to serve in in good conscience. And Christian rulers may wage just wars or execute criminals according to their vocation, and Christians may serve as soldiers in those wars, also in good conscience. That does not mean every war is just.

Abortion is a completely different matter. It is not the civil ruler, it is a private citizen demanding it, and killing one's young is not part of the vocation of motherhood. The civil ruler has a duty to protect people and therefore must prohibit killing among the citizens.



This is also why I get fed up with people who lump abortion and euthanasia in with wars and capital punishment when considering what makes for a good civil authority from a Christian voter's perspective, as though those issues were all of a piece. And to throw "pro-gun" in there simply muddies the water further.

. . . .

Our civil authority may or may not ultimately have to deal with ISIS militarily. But our civil authority with absolute certainty is tasked with defending the right to life in general among the people.


I wonder, Pr. Speckhard if we are not coming at the "secular vocation" question from opposite ends.  Your observations are good (and timely).  But, in this discussion, I am not primarily interested in "what makes for a good civil authority," or in civil authority at all.  I am interested in what an individual practitioner involved in a vocational community of practice does -- if such communities of practice are indeed "secular vocations" -- when confronted by an ethically congested situation within the conduct of her practice.  How do they make a judgment call on what would be appropriate to do in that situation?  This is not up to the civil authorities to determine.  In fact, I don't see how any civil authority that is not a dictatorship can even properly determine which vocations belong within a healthy civil society, much less how the practitioners within that vocation should make specific decisions about moral issues.  I do not believe civil authorities are competent to do either of those things.

What troubles me is the question of how participants in a "secular vocation" rightly go about making good ethical judgments in complex circumstances.  A "secular vocation" may not be outside the reign of God, but it will certainly have to function outside the revealed Law of God when it comes to making moral decisions.  For one thing, the moral dimension of the Law of God is typically expressed in very general terms (sometimes called first-order precepts).  But vocational ethical judgments are invariably based on very specific applications of those first-order precepts (those would be the second-order precepts).  Those second-order precepts are too seldom revealed by God's Law.  So how is an individual practitioner to know how to deploy those second-order precepts when making a moral decision?  Where are the standards located that allow her to translate first-order precepts into second-order precepts, so that she will understand what is morally required in an immediate given situation -- in other words, what "norms" the norm?

Here's an example.  Should physicians, those who belong to the medical vocation, be involved in supervising capital punishment executions legally sanctioned by the civil authority?  Their vocation, as previously described, is to heal and not to kill.  But many states require physicians be on site at an execution to help ensure the execution is handled in a humane fashion.  It would appear that those physicians are engaged in an act of killing, not of healing.  How are those physicians to make a judgment as to the ethical rectitude of such participation at executions?  Simply invoking "God's Law" will be inadequate, I believe.  What to do you believe?  This is the sort of question that is driving my involvement in this particular discussion.

Tom Pearson       
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on February 03, 2016, 01:05:04 PM
Here's an example.  Should physicians, those who belong to the medical vocation, be involved in supervising capital punishment executions legally sanctioned by the civil authority?  Their vocation, as previously described, is to heal and not to kill.  But many states require physicians be on site at an execution to help ensure the execution is handled in a humane fashion.  It would appear that those physicians are engaged in an act of killing, not of healing.  How are those physicians to make a judgment as to the ethical rectitude of such participation at executions?  Simply invoking "God's Law" will be inadequate, I believe.  What to do you believe?  This is the sort of question that is driving my involvement in this particular discussion.


Another example that arises in our aging community is the conflict between Hospice, where nothing can be done that might prolong life, and the hospital that seeks to heal the sick. For example, someone with terminal pancreatic cancer comes down with pneumonia. I don't believe that under hospice rules, the pneumonia can be treated, because it is prolonging their life. However, I had a member on hospice care who fell and broke his leg. That could be treated, because it doesn't prolong his life.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 03, 2016, 01:06:10 PM

By "secular vocation" I don't mean something outside the reign of God, but a vocation to serve in His left hand kingdom. When the catechism says, "Consider your place in life..." it begins to list various vocations and applies God's Law directly to them. In terms of AC XVI I'm simply using the term to describe all the various vocations listed there that Lutherans and Catholics agree are fit for Christians to serve in in good conscience. And Christian rulers may wage just wars or execute criminals according to their vocation, and Christians may serve as soldiers in those wars, also in good conscience. That does not mean every war is just.

Abortion is a completely different matter. It is not the civil ruler, it is a private citizen demanding it, and killing one's young is not part of the vocation of motherhood. The civil ruler has a duty to protect people and therefore must prohibit killing among the citizens.



This is also why I get fed up with people who lump abortion and euthanasia in with wars and capital punishment when considering what makes for a good civil authority from a Christian voter's perspective, as though those issues were all of a piece. And to throw "pro-gun" in there simply muddies the water further.

. . . .

Our civil authority may or may not ultimately have to deal with ISIS militarily. But our civil authority with absolute certainty is tasked with defending the right to life in general among the people.


I wonder, Pr. Speckhard if we are not coming at the "secular vocation" question from opposite ends.  Your observations are good (and timely).  But, in this discussion, I am not primarily interested in "what makes for a good civil authority," or in civil authority at all.  I am interested in what an individual practitioner involved in a vocational community of practice does -- if such communities of practice are indeed "secular vocations" -- when confronted by an ethically congested situation within the conduct of her practice.  How do they make a judgment call on what would be appropriate to do in that situation?  This is not up to the civil authorities to determine.  In fact, I don't see how any civil authority that is not a dictatorship can even properly determine which vocations belong within a healthy civil society, much less how the practitioners within that vocation should make specific decisions about moral issues.  I do not believe civil authorities are competent to do either of those things.

What troubles me is the question of how participants in a "secular vocation" rightly go about making good ethical judgments in complex circumstances.  A "secular vocation" may not be outside the reign of God, but it will certainly have to function outside the revealed Law of God when it comes to making moral decisions.  For one thing, the moral dimension of the Law of God is typically expressed in very general terms (sometimes called first-order precepts).  But vocational ethical judgments are invariably based on very specific applications of those first-order precepts (those would be the second-order precepts).  Those second-order precepts are too seldom revealed by God's Law.  So how is an individual practitioner to know how to deploy those second-order precepts when making a moral decision?  Where are the standards located that allow her to translate first-order precepts into second-order precepts, so that she will understand what is morally required in an immediate given situation -- in other words, what "norms" the norm?

Here's an example.  Should physicians, those who belong to the medical vocation, be involved in supervising capital punishment executions legally sanctioned by the civil authority?  Their vocation, as previously described, is to heal and not to kill.  But many states require physicians be on site at an execution to help ensure the execution is handled in a humane fashion.  It would appear that those physicians are engaged in an act of killing, not of healing.  How are those physicians to make a judgment as to the ethical rectitude of such participation at executions?  Simply invoking "God's Law" will be inadequate, I believe.  What to do you believe?  This is the sort of question that is driving my involvement in this particular discussion.

Tom Pearson     
I believe there is difference between having a physician present at an execution to ensure humane conditions and having a physician execute someone. The Red Cross nurses are in a way enabling warfare, but they are not waging it directly. Similarly, doctor and execitioner are separate and unrelated roles. I would certainly respect the right of any doctor to disagree and refuse to assist in any way in an execution just as I would respect the right of a doctor or nurse not be attached to a miliatry campaign if they could not do it in good conscience. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 03, 2016, 02:48:12 PM
Are we coming to a place in our society where it would be illegal for an Ob/Gyn to refuse to perform an abortion because of moral objections to the procedure?  An Ob/Gyn is a doctor in the business of performing Ob/Gyn procedures, activities and functions.  Abortions are one such Ob/Gyn procedure.  As such does he or she have a right to have moral scruples about performing a legal abortion or should such a doctor be legally forced to perform any and all such abortions or get out of the Ob/Gyn business?  Pharmacists must dispense drugs to anyone with a valid right to receive the drug (like a prescription or in the case of certain birth control or "Morning After" pills the desire to obtain and use it) no matter their own personal moral opinion.  Bakers who make cakes to order must perform for any and all comers who are willing to pay for a cake, photographers must take photographs from any and all occasions.  If one conscientiously objects one can simply get out of the business.  No one, apparently has the right to be a baker, photographer, or pharmacist unless they are willing to set aside any scruples that they might have.  So why not demand that Ob/Gyn doctors all perform abortions since they are a legal service and if unwilling they can stop being a doctor and find another way to earn a living?  Concerns have been expressed that the availability of abortions has been decreasing and the right to obtain an abortion at will has become a very precious right.  By forcing all Ob/Gyns to also perform abortions, all Ob/Gyn offices and clinics would become abortion clinics.  Have a baby, kill a baby, it becomes a one stop shop.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Mike in Pennsylvania on February 03, 2016, 04:21:01 PM
Are we coming to a place in our society where it would be illegal for an Ob/Gyn to refuse to perform an abortion because of moral objections to the procedure?  An Ob/Gyn is a doctor in the business of performing Ob/Gyn procedures, activities and functions.  Abortions are one such Ob/Gyn procedure.  As such does he or she have a right to have moral scruples about performing a legal abortion or should such a doctor be legally forced to perform any and all such abortions or get out of the Ob/Gyn business?  Pharmacists must dispense drugs to anyone with a valid right to receive the drug (like a prescription or in the case of certain birth control or "Morning After" pills the desire to obtain and use it) no matter their own personal moral opinion.  Bakers who make cakes to order must perform for any and all comers who are willing to pay for a cake, photographers must take photographs from any and all occasions.  If one conscientiously objects one can simply get out of the business.  No one, apparently has the right to be a baker, photographer, or pharmacist unless they are willing to set aside any scruples that they might have.  So why not demand that Ob/Gyn doctors all perform abortions since they are a legal service and if unwilling they can stop being a doctor and find another way to earn a living?  Concerns have been expressed that the availability of abortions has been decreasing and the right to obtain an abortion at will has become a very precious right.  By forcing all Ob/Gyns to also perform abortions, all Ob/Gyn offices and clinics would become abortion clinics.  Have a baby, kill a baby, it becomes a one stop shop.

As I understand it, it has been mandatory (by the accrediting associations) for many years that medical schools instruct students in the methodology of abortions -- something that makes a large number of students uncomfortable, but has not been changed on that account.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RPG on February 03, 2016, 05:07:04 PM
FWIW, I didn't read Pr. Speckhard's use of the Confessions as an attempt to stunt conversation.  It appears he was passionately presenting an argument and referencing the Confessions to support his point. Didn't strike me as proof-texting either, especially considering his allowance for the fact that whether a war is just or not can be a matter for debate for those who affirm the Confessions.

If a topic or discussion is too frustrating, then stepping back or walking away is always a fine choice.  But it's hard for me to take someone seriously when they choose to throw out a parting volley, drop the mic, and *then* walk away.   :(

Maybe it's just me, though.  No one's ever accused me of being normal.  ;)

RPG+
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 03, 2016, 05:16:20 PM
FWIW, I didn't read Pr. Speckhard's use of the Confessions as an attempt to stunt conversation.  It appears he was passionately presenting an argument and referencing the Confessions to support his point. Didn't strike me as proof-texting either, especially considering his allowance for the fact that whether a war is just or not can be a matter for debate for those who affirm the Confessions.

If a topic or discussion is too frustrating, then stepping back or walking away is always a fine choice.  But it's hard for me to take someone seriously when they choose to throw out a parting volley, drop the mic, and *then* walk away.   :(

Maybe it's just me, though.  No one's ever accused me of being normal.  ;)

RPG+

Fair enough, post deleted.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 10, 2016, 10:50:06 AM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 10, 2016, 03:07:09 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RPG on February 10, 2016, 03:19:42 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.

What qualifies a candidate as "legitimate"?

RPG+
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 10, 2016, 03:42:08 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.
What the specific criteria you use to determine whether a candidate is legitimate and someone a Christian ought to consider?

Pro-choice candidates don't even meet the basic threshhold for me; they are excluded from the get-go as not being equipped to lead a government of the people, by the people, and for the people by the mere fact that they don't even know what a person is.

Once candidates meet that basic threshhold (a group which in recent times has been exclusively Republican-- this is the poison pill issue for the Dems, and no genuinely, seriously pro-life Democrat as any shot of being taken seriously) I look at a variety of other issue, mostly considered social issues like gay marriage rather than foreign policy or economic issues, though there is some overlap in all of them. Then I look at the candidates themselves apart fromt the issues, focusing on things like experience, competence, and the mere fact that I have to teach children to respect this person. We have portraits of all the presidents in one of the hallways of our school. Could I hang a portrait of this person there next year with a sense of national pride? Trump fails on that test alone.

So, for me in the primaries-- Bush? No. Political dynasties are not a good thing. I don't care how great he would be, it would be bad for America to have three people from the same immediate family serve as president. Christie? No. I find him obnoxious and don't believe him when he talks like a conservative on social issues. Trump? Out of the question. Fiorina? Had high hopes early but would need to see a lot more.  Carson? I would vote for in the general election against either Democrat but don't think he has sufficient executive experience. Kasich? No. He's good on paper but in the vein of the typical candidate the GOP settles on every time-- moderate, establishment guy who manages to make winning election amount to the same thing as losing them. That leaves Rubio and Cruz, between whom I remain torn. Luckily the primary in Indiana is never relevant and anyway I don't think the GOP has ever gone with the candidate I voted for in the primary.   

Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 10, 2016, 06:49:21 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.
What the specific criteria you use to determine whether a candidate is legitimate and someone a Christian ought to consider?

Pro-choice candidates don't even meet the basic threshhold for me; they are excluded from the get-go as not being equipped to lead a government of the people, by the people, and for the people by the mere fact that they don't even know what a person is.

Once candidates meet that basic threshhold (a group which in recent times has been exclusively Republican-- this is the poison pill issue for the Dems, and no genuinely, seriously pro-life Democrat as any shot of being taken seriously) I look at a variety of other issue, mostly considered social issues like gay marriage rather than foreign policy or economic issues, though there is some overlap in all of them. Then I look at the candidates themselves apart fromt the issues, focusing on things like experience, competence, and the mere fact that I have to teach children to respect this person. We have portraits of all the presidents in one of the hallways of our school. Could I hang a portrait of this person there next year with a sense of national pride? Trump fails on that test alone.

So, for me in the primaries-- Bush? No. Political dynasties are not a good thing. I don't care how great he would be, it would be bad for America to have three people from the same immediate family serve as president. Christie? No. I find him obnoxious and don't believe him when he talks like a conservative on social issues. Trump? Out of the question. Fiorina? Had high hopes early but would need to see a lot more.  Carson? I would vote for in the general election against either Democrat but don't think he has sufficient executive experience. Kasich? No. He's good on paper but in the vein of the typical candidate the GOP settles on every time-- moderate, establishment guy who manages to make winning election amount to the same thing as losing them. That leaves Rubio and Cruz, between whom I remain torn. Luckily the primary in Indiana is never relevant and anyway I don't think the GOP has ever gone with the candidate I voted for in the primary.   

Maybe this will help you come to Cruz's side:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 10, 2016, 07:06:17 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.
What the specific criteria you use to determine whether a candidate is legitimate and someone a Christian ought to consider?

Pro-choice candidates don't even meet the basic threshhold for me; they are excluded from the get-go as not being equipped to lead a government of the people, by the people, and for the people by the mere fact that they don't even know what a person is.

Once candidates meet that basic threshhold (a group which in recent times has been exclusively Republican-- this is the poison pill issue for the Dems, and no genuinely, seriously pro-life Democrat as any shot of being taken seriously) I look at a variety of other issue, mostly considered social issues like gay marriage rather than foreign policy or economic issues, though there is some overlap in all of them. Then I look at the candidates themselves apart fromt the issues, focusing on things like experience, competence, and the mere fact that I have to teach children to respect this person. We have portraits of all the presidents in one of the hallways of our school. Could I hang a portrait of this person there next year with a sense of national pride? Trump fails on that test alone.

So, for me in the primaries-- Bush? No. Political dynasties are not a good thing. I don't care how great he would be, it would be bad for America to have three people from the same immediate family serve as president. Christie? No. I find him obnoxious and don't believe him when he talks like a conservative on social issues. Trump? Out of the question. Fiorina? Had high hopes early but would need to see a lot more.  Carson? I would vote for in the general election against either Democrat but don't think he has sufficient executive experience. Kasich? No. He's good on paper but in the vein of the typical candidate the GOP settles on every time-- moderate, establishment guy who manages to make winning election amount to the same thing as losing them. That leaves Rubio and Cruz, between whom I remain torn. Luckily the primary in Indiana is never relevant and anyway I don't think the GOP has ever gone with the candidate I voted for in the primary.   

Maybe this will help you come to Cruz's side:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8)
It is a clever idea. And good for the environment since it recycles all the heat from the barrel.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 10, 2016, 07:38:35 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.

What qualifies a candidate as "legitimate"?

RPG+

Liberals can stand him.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 10, 2016, 08:43:22 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.
What the specific criteria you use to determine whether a candidate is legitimate and someone a Christian ought to consider?

Pro-choice candidates don't even meet the basic threshhold for me; they are excluded from the get-go as not being equipped to lead a government of the people, by the people, and for the people by the mere fact that they don't even know what a person is.

Once candidates meet that basic threshhold (a group which in recent times has been exclusively Republican-- this is the poison pill issue for the Dems, and no genuinely, seriously pro-life Democrat as any shot of being taken seriously) I look at a variety of other issue, mostly considered social issues like gay marriage rather than foreign policy or economic issues, though there is some overlap in all of them. Then I look at the candidates themselves apart fromt the issues, focusing on things like experience, competence, and the mere fact that I have to teach children to respect this person. We have portraits of all the presidents in one of the hallways of our school. Could I hang a portrait of this person there next year with a sense of national pride? Trump fails on that test alone.

So, for me in the primaries-- Bush? No. Political dynasties are not a good thing. I don't care how great he would be, it would be bad for America to have three people from the same immediate family serve as president. Christie? No. I find him obnoxious and don't believe him when he talks like a conservative on social issues. Trump? Out of the question. Fiorina? Had high hopes early but would need to see a lot more.  Carson? I would vote for in the general election against either Democrat but don't think he has sufficient executive experience. Kasich? No. He's good on paper but in the vein of the typical candidate the GOP settles on every time-- moderate, establishment guy who manages to make winning election amount to the same thing as losing them. That leaves Rubio and Cruz, between whom I remain torn. Luckily the primary in Indiana is never relevant and anyway I don't think the GOP has ever gone with the candidate I voted for in the primary.   

Maybe this will help you come to Cruz's side:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaZGaJrd3x8)
It is a clever idea. And good for the environment since it recycles all the heat from the barrel.

Exactly, very eco-friendly.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 16, 2016, 02:22:33 PM
Reality Check for Democrats:

If Bernie Sanders defeats Hillary Clinton in the Nevada and South Carolina
Presidential primaries, then are we witnessing her political obituary?

Eight years ago Hillary lost to a rookie U.S. Senator from Illinois.  Now she
 is starting to look like a loser to a greying U.S. Senator from the Northeast.
Is the Clinton legacy of Bill and Hill over?   Does she have too much baggage
with the Server investigation by the FBI, and the contributions  to the Clinton
Foundation?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 16, 2016, 02:26:17 PM
If Mrs. Clinton loses, one of the reasons will be the persistence and the lies of those who have hated the Clinton family for years.  The Vicious attacks on the Clinton family over the years have had their impact.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: dkeener on February 16, 2016, 03:17:23 PM
If Mrs. Clinton loses, one of the reasons will be the persistence and the lies of those who have hated the Clinton family for years.  The Vicious attacks on the Clinton family over the years have had their impact.

Charles you are from New Jersey, you can't possibly be that naive. Did Bill lie under oath?  Was he a womanizer?  Do you really believe that Hillary has been totally forthright about Bengazi and what was on her e-mail server? Do you really believe she didn't use her influence as Sec of State to pad the Clinton Foundation with millions in speaking fees?  Do you really believe that she has no ties to Wall Street after receiving millions in contributions?  Do you really think that a couple who has made personal politics into a hugely profitable business will always have the interests of others in mind?  There are legitimate questions being raised about Hillary's judgement, integrity, honesty and competence. To write it off as simply "hatred" for the Clintons is slanderous of those who are asking appropriate questions about a persons fitness for office. Perhaps the greatest threat to our political system are those who blindly follow any candidate.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 16, 2016, 03:18:23 PM
Can we say the same, that if Jeb Bush fails to win the nomination (as seems likely) it will be in part because of the many years of rumors, lies and calumny against the Bush family?  Opposition to the Bushes has approached if not at times surpassed that of the Clinton's in its viciousness.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 16, 2016, 03:29:15 PM
If Mrs. Clinton loses, one of the reasons will be the persistence and the lies of those who have hated the Clinton family for years.  The Vicious attacks on the Clinton family over the years have had their impact.
What, specifically, are the lies that have been persistently told about Hillary Clinton?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: jmiller on February 16, 2016, 03:39:23 PM
That she turned a $1,000 investment in cattle futures (a bargain price for the contracts which should have cost $12K) into $100,000 in ten months.  Oh... wait.. that one is true. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 16, 2016, 05:43:03 PM
You might start with Blinded by the Right by David Brock where he recounts how he helped created lies and misunderstandings concerning the Clinton family. These were later - in the pop hate-the-Clintons culture fed by the round mound of sound Rush Limbaugh - expanded into worse lies that, having been pumped into the conservative sludge pot, were taken as truth.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 16, 2016, 07:14:58 PM
You might start with Blinded by the Right by David Brock where he recounts how he helped created lies and misunderstandings concerning the Clinton family. These were later - in the pop hate-the-Clintons culture fed by the round mound of sound Rush Limbaugh - expanded into worse lies that, having been pumped into the conservative sludge pot, were taken as truth.
Can you name one of the lies?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 16, 2016, 07:26:50 PM
You might start with Blinded by the Right by David Brock where he recounts how he helped created lies and misunderstandings concerning the Clinton family. These were later - in the pop hate-the-Clintons culture fed by the round mound of sound Rush Limbaugh - expanded into worse lies that, having been pumped into the conservative sludge pot, were taken as truth.
Can you name one of the lies?

He won't. He'll call you a name, call it whimsy if you object and engage in his usual ADD behavior when challenged. Why do so many threads end up bogged down with his BS?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 16, 2016, 07:30:16 PM
You might start with Blinded by the Right by David Brock where he recounts how he helped created lies and misunderstandings concerning the Clinton family. These were later - in the pop hate-the-Clintons culture fed by the round mound of sound Rush Limbaugh - expanded into worse lies that, having been pumped into the conservative sludge pot, were taken as truth.
Can you name one of the lies?

He won't. He'll call you a name, call it whimsy if you object and engage in his usual ADD behavior when challenged. Why do so many threads end up bogged down with his BS?
Surely if lies have been told persistently for years, so much so that those lies would be in large part responsible should Hillary lose, it would be fairly easy just to name one or two of the widely believed lies.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Keith Falk on February 16, 2016, 07:36:58 PM
If Mrs. Clinton loses, one of the reasons will be the persistence and the lies of those who have hated the Clinton family for years.  The Vicious attacks on the Clinton family over the years have had their impact.


If she loses to Senator Sanders, it is because he is able to garner the youth - people who aren't old enough to have "hated the Clinton family for years."
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Matt Hummel on February 16, 2016, 07:44:22 PM
If Mrs. Clinton loses, one of the reasons will be the persistence and the lies of those who have hated the Clinton family for years.  The Vicious attacks on the Clinton family over the years have had their impact.


If she loses to Senator Sanders, it is because he is able to garner the youth - people who aren't old enough to have "hated the Clinton family for years."

Actually, she is losing a fair percentage of the young female vote because, when they do find out about the past, are turned off by her enabling of her husband's sexual predation. They see you that she does not walk the walk while she talks the talk.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: RevG on February 16, 2016, 09:59:05 PM
If Mrs. Clinton loses, one of the reasons will be the persistence and the lies of those who have hated the Clinton family for years.  The Vicious attacks on the Clinton family over the years have had their impact.


If she loses to Senator Sanders, it is because he is able to garner the youth - people who aren't old enough to have "hated the Clinton family for years."

Actually, she is losing a fair percentage of the young female vote because, when they do find out about the past, are turned off by her enabling of her husband's sexual predation. They see you that she does not walk the walk while she talks the talk.

Are you sure about that?  I'd be interested to see some data on that.  From what I've learned if Hillary loses to Bernie it's due to a change in demographics in the Democratic Party.  Bernie would not have had such an appeal 8 years ago or 20 years ago because the group that finds him most appealing wasn't old enough to vote yet or wasn't even born yet.  The idea of electing a woman to the presidency isn't seen as as big of a deal to them because they assume it'll eventually happen anyway.  Hillary has a high level of appeal when it comes to voters above the age of 50, namely baby boomers.  This really is the last shot for the Clintons because of this shift. 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 16, 2016, 10:15:32 PM
Mr. Hummell writes:
He won't. He'll call you a name, call it whimsy if you object and engage in his usual ADD behavior when challenged. Why do so many threads end up bogged down with his BS?

I comment:
Tell me what name I have called anyone. Tell me your "competence" to fling about psychological "diagnoses" at great distance an online. And let me tell you bogged down with BS is: It is the self-righteous, intolerant crap of the so-called "pro-life" rhetoric and the BS squeezed out by those who turn every thread of discussion into something about abortion, homosexuality, creationism, or ordination for women.
And someone tell me why I get chided for strong language but Mr. Hummel and others can spread their venom about people like this humble correspondent and Pastor Stoffregen and no one shakes a finger at them.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Fletch on February 17, 2016, 06:35:05 AM
Stephen Covey in his book "7 Habits of Highly Effective People" discusses the concept of Emotional Bank Account.  Polite, thoughtful statements about a topic or another person tend to increase the balance.  Crude, rude, arrogant, condescending, self-centered comments usually make a withdrawal.  When the Account goes below zero, future comments are likely perceived as BS and not worth paying attention to.  In my career, this concept was usually talked about as "One Aw Shxx wipes out a thousand attaboys".

... F
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: dkeener on February 17, 2016, 06:47:20 AM
Mr. Hummell writes:
He won't. He'll call you a name, call it whimsy if you object and engage in his usual ADD behavior when challenged. Why do so many threads end up bogged down with his BS?

I comment:
Tell me what name I have called anyone. Tell me your "competence" to fling about psychological "diagnoses" at great distance an online. And let me tell you bogged down with BS is: It is the self-righteous, intolerant crap of the so-called "pro-life" rhetoric and the BS squeezed out by those who turn every thread of discussion into something about abortion, homosexuality, creationism, or ordination for women.
And someone tell me why I get chided for strong language but Mr. Hummel and others can spread their venom about people like this humble correspondent and Pastor Stoffregen and no one shakes a finger at them.

You do realize that you just proved him right? 
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 17, 2016, 08:23:59 AM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.

What qualifies a candidate as "legitimate"?

RPG+

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 17, 2016, 08:38:14 AM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.

What qualifies a candidate as "legitimate"?

RPG+

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 17, 2016, 08:43:04 AM

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou

That conclusion underscores what our founders understood - we are an ungovernable people.  Moreover, regardless of how vigorously we wave the flag or how frequently we reference the Constitution, we the people really do not buy into the principles upon which our government is founded.

Edit.  fwiw, I think both Jimmy Carter and George Bush I had some sense of public service as a public trust.  Note that both were one-term presidents.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 17, 2016, 08:56:30 AM

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou

That conclusion underscores what our founders understood - we are an ungovernable people.  Moreover, regardless of how vigorously we wave the flag or how frequently we reference the Constitution, we the people really do not buy into the principles upon which our government is founded.
Again, why does that matter?  You keep talking like this gives people who believe as you do the freedom to remake the world in your own image.

Like the parallel discussion going on right now on another thread about Antonin Scalia's jurisprudence, such "legislative history" and intent of the founders is irrelevant.  What matters, as first principle, is the law committed to writing.  Our laws do not and cannot reflect your view that the wealth of certain people was unjustly obtained.  That's the opposite of the rule of law.

And no, you are simply wrong to suggest that the founders thought us an ungovernable people.  You're just making stuff up again.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 17, 2016, 09:06:56 AM

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou

That conclusion underscores what our founders understood - we are an ungovernable people.  Moreover, regardless of how vigorously we wave the flag or how frequently we reference the Constitution, we the people really do not buy into the principles upon which our government is founded.
Again, why does that matter?  You keep talking like this gives people who believe as you do the freedom to remake the world in your own image.

I happen to think that it is significant that we, the people, do not really embrace the principles that we claim make us exceptional.

And no, you are simply wrong to suggest that the founders thought us an ungovernable people.  You're just making stuff up again.

Read a little more history, Sterling.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 17, 2016, 09:18:08 AM
Mr. Hummell writes:
He won't. He'll call you a name, call it whimsy if you object and engage in his usual ADD behavior when challenged. Why do so many threads end up bogged down with his BS?

I comment:
Tell me what name I have called anyone. Tell me your "competence" to fling about psychological "diagnoses" at great distance an online. And let me tell you bogged down with BS is: It is the self-righteous, intolerant crap of the so-called "pro-life" rhetoric and the BS squeezed out by those who turn every thread of discussion into something about abortion, homosexuality, creationism, or ordination for women.
And someone tell me why I get chided for strong language but Mr. Hummel and others can spread their venom about people like this humble correspondent and Pastor Stoffregen and no one shakes a finger at them.

You do realize that you just proved him right?
Odd, especially when so many lies so persistently told over the course of decades would be so easy to tick off in a sentence or two. I honestly have no idea what lies, specifically, have been widely believed about Hillary Clinton. I've seen goofy rags claim she is a robot or have a love child with an alien, but I've never met anyone who believed those things, or if they did, were likely to vote (or less likely to vote for Hillary because of them). The fact is we have a declaration, forcefully made, that the only way Hillary loses is if the years and years of persistent lies about her take hold in voters' minds, yet zero evidence of any such lies despite repeated requests.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 17, 2016, 09:25:02 AM
  Moreover, regardless of how vigorously we wave the flag or how frequently we reference the Constitution, we the people really do not buy into the principles upon which our government is founded.




Fwiw... it is clear that at least you do not buy into at least one of the principles of our founders..... that government needed to be limited with a host of checks and balances less it become tyrannical running roughshod over persons and property.


So I agree with you in this...we do not honor the founding principles of our constitution---checks and balances and the limiting of the exercise of power. We haven't for quite some time. And I will agree that G H W Bush came as close as any in modern times to upholding founding principles.


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 17, 2016, 09:41:56 AM
Fwiw... it is clear that at least you do not buy into at least one of the principles of our founders..... that government needed to be limited with a host of checks and balances less it become tyrannical running roughshod over persons and property.

Note that the checks and balances were also intended to prevent oligarchs from running roughshod over persons and property and our system has never functioned well in that capacity.  Moreover, the neocon agenda to establish one party would permanently dismantle the checks and balances were it to succeed.

And I will agree that G H W Bush came as close as any in modern times to upholding founding principles.

Note, also, that he broke with his base and raised taxes.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 17, 2016, 10:00:44 AM
Fwiw... it is clear that at least you do not buy into at least one of the principles of our founders..... that government needed to be limited with a host of checks and balances less it become tyrannical running roughshod over persons and property.

Note that the checks and balances were also intended to prevent oligarchs from running roughshod over persons and property and our system has never functioned well in that capacity.  Moreover, the neocon agenda to establish one party would permanently dismantle the checks and balances were it to succeed.




Uhh...., FDR was a Neocon? Who would have thought. Most scholars opine that his attempt to "reform" (literally) the Supreme Court was the most blatant attempt to establish permanent one party rule.


Oligarchs under the veneer of "public servant" are no improvement on just plain, open oligarchs. Really interesting how po white folks and po black folks leave the White House years behind as wealthy folks....


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: MaddogLutheran on February 17, 2016, 10:14:02 AM

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou

That conclusion underscores what our founders understood - we are an ungovernable people.  Moreover, regardless of how vigorously we wave the flag or how frequently we reference the Constitution, we the people really do not buy into the principles upon which our government is founded.
Again, why does that matter?  You keep talking like this gives people who believe as you do the freedom to remake the world in your own image.

I happen to think that it is significant that we, the people, do not really embrace the principles that we claim make us exceptional.

Again, why?  Why does it matter whether you claim ourselves exceptional?  You're projecting your own animus.  My inalienable rights are not effected one way or the other by such claims.

And no, you are simply wrong to suggest that the founders thought us an ungovernable people.  You're just making stuff up again.

Read a little more history, Sterling.
Oh I have, John.  Which is why I find your version of it so objectionable.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.   -- Publius, Federalist No. 51

UPDATE:  This is why I find your utopian ideal of government so troubling.  The founders clearly understood that personal and collective ambition (what you are fond of calling "greed" and "selfishness") could carry over into government service.  A man does not become an angel by serving in government.  Government is not exempt from the consequences of our sinfulness.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: George Erdner on February 17, 2016, 01:44:19 PM
The Democrat voters in New Hampshire had a tough choice yesterday.
The had to either vote for Old or Older.  They had to vote for someone
who dressed like Chairman Mao or someone who worships Chairman Mao.
The outcome has forced former New York City mayor Michael Blomberg
to consider a run as an Independent.  Even Joe Biden is starting to warm
up in the bullpen.

I was gratified that the R's still have one (barely) viable legitimate candidate in the race.

What qualifies a candidate as "legitimate"?

RPG+

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou

I wonder how pandering to large blocs of voters with the promise of free stuff applies. Where does promising free college, free healthcare, and a $15 minimum wage paid for by increased taxes on "the rich" fall into the issue of "legitimacy"? What's the difference between accepting campaign contributions to pay for media advertising, and flat-out bribing voters with money that doesn't even exist?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: John Mundinger on February 18, 2016, 08:59:04 AM

In my opinion, legitimacy begins with a basic understanding that public service is a public trust.  With that understanding comes a commitment to work on behalf of all citizens, not just those who contributed to the candidates campaign and the political base.


A concept which has been gone from the American political reality for close to 200 years now....


Lou

That conclusion underscores what our founders understood - we are an ungovernable people.  Moreover, regardless of how vigorously we wave the flag or how frequently we reference the Constitution, we the people really do not buy into the principles upon which our government is founded.
Again, why does that matter?  You keep talking like this gives people who believe as you do the freedom to remake the world in your own image.

I happen to think that it is significant that we, the people, do not really embrace the principles that we claim make us exceptional.

Again, why?  Why does it matter whether you claim ourselves exceptional?  You're projecting your own animus.  My inalienable rights are not effected one way or the other by such claims.

And no, you are simply wrong to suggest that the founders thought us an ungovernable people.  You're just making stuff up again.

Read a little more history, Sterling.
Oh I have, John.  Which is why I find your version of it so objectionable.

But the great security against a gradual concentration of the several powers in the same department, consists in giving to those who administer each department the necessary constitutional means and personal motives to resist encroachments of the others. The provision for defense must in this, as in all other cases, be made commensurate to the danger of attack. Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions.

This policy of supplying, by opposite and rival interests, the defect of better motives, might be traced through the whole system of human affairs, private as well as public. We see it particularly displayed in all the subordinate distributions of power, where the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other -- that the private interest of every individual may be a sentinel over the public rights. These inventions of prudence cannot be less requisite in the distribution of the supreme powers of the State.   -- Publius, Federalist No. 51

UPDATE:  This is why I find your utopian ideal of government so troubling.  The founders clearly understood that personal and collective ambition (what you are fond of calling "greed" and "selfishness") could carry over into government service.  A man does not become an angel by serving in government.  Government is not exempt from the consequences of our sinfulness.

Sterling - your post only serves to confirm the post I made and to which you found objectionable, i.e. the founders understood that humans are ungovernable and all of the checks and balances in the Constitution reflect that understanding.  Moreover, some of the founders expected the "experiment" with democracy to fail, again reflecting their understanding that we are ungovernable.

Yes, some of the things I post sound like advocating "utopia".  I also understand that utopia is not achievable.  I also understand that our founding documents embrace lofty ideals.  Moreover, we, as Christians, have some basic understanding of the ideals, on this side of the escathon, that our Lord intended.  In many ways our society functions - at times, intentionally - in ways that are clearly contradictory with our stated ideals.  That should not be so.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: DCharlton on February 21, 2016, 02:53:00 PM
And someone tell me why I get chided for strong language but Mr. Hummel and others can spread their venom about people like this humble correspondent and Pastor Stoffregen and no one shakes a finger at them.

I don't really think you and Pastor Stoffregen belong in the same category.  He can be frustrating to many, but he does not engage in innuendo, name calling, and frequent thinly veiled references to various bodily functions.  You on the other hand do all of the above. 

The moderators have admonished people for rude comments about Pastor Stoffregen, and rightly so.  On the other hand, anyone else who was as consistently rude as you would have been banned a long time ago.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 02:57:49 PM
I will ask for the 57th time, please show me what name I have called any individual here. It also remains unclear to me what "bodily functions" have been cited in inappropriate ways. But we digress. I do know that Pastor Stoffregen has been called (several times) a heretic and/or a fool, that I have been called unfit to be a pastor and other things. But we digress.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 04:05:02 PM
I will ask for the 57th time, please show me what name I have called any individual here. It also remains unclear to me what "bodily functions" have been cited in inappropriate ways. But we digress. I do know that Pastor Stoffregen has been called (several times) a heretic and/or a fool, that I have been called unfit to be a pastor and other things. But we digress.
Being called a heretic or "un-Lutheran" or unfit to be a pastor is part of serious disagreements on theological matters. The same could be said of an ecumenical council. "That's heresy!" is not a rude thing to say, it is a theological judgment. It is far from name-calling. Your incessant put-downs of the others on this board are not at all the same thing.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 04:19:19 PM
Still don't hear what "names" I have called anyone. And are put-downs because of "theological judgment" one thing and sharply-worded criticisms for general stupidity something else? But we digress.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 21, 2016, 04:46:47 PM
Brother Charles Austin wrote in reply #401 (Feb. 16, 2016)
concerning the thread entitled "Religion and The Republican
Candidates"

"Mr. Hummell, you sink lower than a snake's belly to the vitriol
and insults perpetuated  by the ignorant and foolish Mr.Erdner"

That quote would qualify as name calling.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 04:52:00 PM
Still don't hear what "names" I have called anyone. And are put-downs because of "theological judgment" one thing and sharply-worded criticisms for general stupidity something else? But we digress.
Your insults are usually in the verbs. You don't say, "You are an ass," you say, "Your braying about taxes..." which amounts to the same thing. A school kids is mature enough to know this. Tell a girl she hasn't been called a name if someone refers to her words as mooing. Just in your very recent posts you have said things like

"You might do well to read an entire conversation before bleating out your snarky remarks."

"Howling about free trade..."

"do not demean yourself or go intentionally nutso..."

"...the things you wail about upstream..."

But you would never dream about calling someone names. You have more interesting ways to demean them.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 04:59:24 PM
 Actually, my remarks to Craig were not directed at him.  And how is it "demeaning" to say someone howls or wails? (I'll give you "bleat," but I think that was my first time using the ovine reference.)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 21, 2016, 05:16:38 PM
I was going to stay out of this one but I have been fed up for years with the constant comment of "idiocy" directed towards views I have and continue to hold. The thinly veiled "cows jumping over the moon" insult in another thread is another example of the same genre. When I first started posting here I made a comment about "smells and bells" preachers and was promptly rebuked for making an allusion which some might find offensive. I have not used that phrase since here...until now. I have yet to figure out why the voice from NJ gets a free pass.


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dave Likeness on February 21, 2016, 05:26:25 PM
Brother Austin was banned several years ago.   Then in the Year of Jubilee,
the moderators released two prisoners from jail:  Rev. Paul McCain and
Brother Austin were released from their ban.

McCain lasted less than 2 months after his return to this Forum.   He simply
suspended his campaign among us and devoted himself full-time to C.P.H.
On the other hand, Austin has stretched the limits of decency and decorum
since his return to these threads.   
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: James_Gale on February 21, 2016, 05:35:46 PM
I was going to stay out of this one but I have been fed up for years with the constant comment of "idiocy" directed towards views I have and continue to hold. The thinly veiled "cows jumping over the moon" insult in another thread is another example of the same genre. When I first started posting here I made a comment about "smells and bells" preachers and was promptly rebuked for making an allusion which some might find offensive. I have not used that phrase since here...until now. I have yet to figure out why the voice from NJ gets a free pass.


Lou


He's the Donald Trump of this forum.  He rarely says anything substantive.  But he is highly skilled at using cleverly timed, (sometimes) thinly veiled insults.  These usually inspire angry responses, ultimately reducing every thread to a conversation about, well, him.     
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 21, 2016, 05:49:48 PM
I wonder if some of the misunderstanding about what is and is not proper for discussion is linguistic.  Perhaps for some the term "heretic" has long since ceased to be a theological term or have theological meaning and has simply become a term of invective.  So when some talk about positions being heresy, or people being heretics that is taken not as a comment about the position (what is heresy, nothing is heresy) but rather invective.  Like calling someone a L'bral or Fundy.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Charles Austin on February 21, 2016, 06:09:05 PM
Lou, I meant linking church attendance to welfare programs is a big leap, using the lunar leaping bovine reference just for fun. You were insulted? If i had said, "Lou, that's a big leap!" would that be insulting?
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Norman Teigen on February 21, 2016, 06:53:06 PM
And the craziness continues.  I first met Pastor Austin on line and then I have since visited with him on several occasions, in New Jersey and here in Minnesota.  I have attended one of his singing group concerts in New Jersey.  He is a brilliant and witty man who is extremely personable.  Lighten up, people.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: DCharlton on February 21, 2016, 07:48:04 PM
And the craziness continues.  I first met Pastor Austin on line and then I have since visited with him on several occasions, in New Jersey and here in Minnesota.  I have attended one of his singing group concerts in New Jersey.  He is a brilliant and witty man who is extremely personable.  Lighten up, people.

Others, have said the same, while wondering why he can't be witty and personable on this forum.  (Before you reply that only rabid LCMSers dislike him, you might ask yourself why there are so few moderate ELCAers on this forum anymore.)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: mariemeyer on February 21, 2016, 08:20:36 PM
I sat next to Charles at the ALPB Anniversary dinner and experienced him as a delightful dinner companion.

Marie
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Boris on February 21, 2016, 08:53:55 PM
I would love to meet Pastor Austin in person someday.  I think I would enjoy his wit and humor.  Plus, even when I disagree with him, he always makes me think.  I appreciate people that challenge my thinking and my presuppositions. What a boring universe it would be if everyone agreed with me.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 21, 2016, 09:32:41 PM
And the craziness continues.  I first met Pastor Austin on line and then I have since visited with him on several occasions, in New Jersey and here in Minnesota.  I have attended one of his singing group concerts in New Jersey.  He is a brilliant and witty man who is extremely personable.  Lighten up, people.

Others, have said the same, while wondering why he can't be witty and personable on this forum.  (Before you reply that only rabid LCMSers dislike him, you might ask yourself why there are so few moderate ELCAers on this forum anymore.)

I met Pr. Austin when he did supply at our congregation.  He is engaging - both in his style of leading worship and an excellent sermon - as well as in personal conversation.

Some of us more moderate ELCA folk need to take breaks from time to time as we grow weary of being harangued as an apostate church body.   
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Keith Falk on February 21, 2016, 09:44:39 PM
The behavior of an individual in person is no guarantor of online behavior.  IOW - Pastor Austin may be an absolutely charming gentleman of the first order in person, but that does not (or at least should not) excuse boorish and rude behavior on these forums.


I may be perfectly delightful online and an insufferable jerk in person... you just never know!   ;D   (well, some of you do... you can decide for yourself whether you agree or not)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: DCharlton on February 21, 2016, 09:48:31 PM
And the craziness continues.  I first met Pastor Austin on line and then I have since visited with him on several occasions, in New Jersey and here in Minnesota.  I have attended one of his singing group concerts in New Jersey.  He is a brilliant and witty man who is extremely personable.  Lighten up, people.

Others, have said the same, while wondering why he can't be witty and personable on this forum.  (Before you reply that only rabid LCMSers dislike him, you might ask yourself why there are so few moderate ELCAers on this forum anymore.)

I met Pr. Austin when he did supply at our congregation.  He is engaging - both in his style of leading worship and an excellent sermon - as well as in personal conversation.

Some of us more moderate ELCA folk need to take breaks from time to time as we grow weary of being harangued as an apostate church body.

And some of us more moderate ELCA folk have experienced the rudeness and insults.  Just to give a few examples.  Charles has posted things about me that he found on the internet as a way to question my integrity.  He has insulted me in numerous ways, including intentionally misspelling my name so that it comes out Charlatan.  He insists that those who have left the ELCA have no right to criticize the ELCA, but then insists that those of us who remain have no right to criticize our own church body, responding to any criticism with shrill charges of disloyalty. 

I have no doubt that he can be a swell guy.  Another ELCA pastor who is a frequent target of his contempt admits that Charles is a pleasant fellow in person.  But as a person who has been a frequent target of his churlish behavior, it doesn't change my opinion of his online persona.

   
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 21, 2016, 09:53:14 PM
I wish that we could meet on line the witty, charming and personable Charles that some of you know.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 21, 2016, 10:21:44 PM
I've met Charles twice, albeit fairly briefly both times. But I concur that I think he would be an enjoyable dinner companion.
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Richard Johnson on February 21, 2016, 10:38:18 PM
The behavior a person in person is no guarantor of online behavior.  IOW - Pastor Austin may be an absolutely charming gentleman of the first order in person, but that does not (or at least should not) excuse boorish and rude behavior on these forums.


I may be perfectly delightful online and an insufferable jerk in person... you just never know!   ;D   (well, some of you do... you can decide for yourself whether you agree or not)

Amen.  8)
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: Team Hesse on February 21, 2016, 10:56:47 PM
I would love to meet Pastor Austin in person someday.  I think I would enjoy his wit and humor.  Plus, even when I disagree with him, he always makes me think.  I appreciate people that challenge my thinking and my presuppositions. What a boring universe it would be if everyone agreed with me.


I have always said I learn more from people I disagree with. My favorite instructor in High school was/ is a quite virulent atheist. We had some fascinating discussions about theological and social issues. We live in completely different thought worlds. He believes in a fully free will, I believe we are in bondage to sin and unable to free ourselves. That differential alone put us on completely different playing fields on social issues. But our discussions were always respectful with no need to refer to lunacy, idiocy, moonbeams, or the like. YMMV.


Lou
Title: Re: Democrats: the Persons, the Myths
Post by: James_Gale on February 21, 2016, 11:05:06 PM
The behavior a person in person is no guarantor of online behavior.  IOW - Pastor Austin may be an absolutely charming gentleman of the first order in person, but that does not (or at least should not) excuse boorish and rude behavior on these forums.


I may be perfectly delightful online and an insufferable jerk in person... you just never know!   ;D   (well, some of you do... you can decide for yourself whether you agree or not)


I can assure you all that aside from one enormous character flaw*, Keith is a great guy in person. 


*  I don't want to get into too much detail.  Let's just say that the character flaw relates to Keith's Ohio roots.  If Oklahoma ever joins the Big Ten, things could get tough for him!  :)