advertisement

J. KARL MILLER: Who defines Republican and Conservative?

Wednesday, February 15, 2012 | 6:00 a.m. CST; updated 10:45 p.m. CST, Wednesday, February 15, 2012

As one who has been a Republican all of my life and have so voted, beginning with my ballot cast for Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1956, I am becoming increasingly concerned at the utterly inane and destructive food fight between "Establishment Republicans" and "True Conservatives," which threatens to divide us into modern day "Hatfields and McCoys."

Webster defines a conservative as one who tends to adhere to and maintain traditional and existing views, methods, conditions and institutions. This portrait conforms to the more cynical Ambrose Bierce's entry in The Devil's Dictionary: "Conservative, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wants to replace them with others."

Today's liberal or progressive Democrats would have you believe that Conservatives/Republicans are not only out of touch with the voters but also cater to the wealthiest among us at the expense of the poor, the older adults, the children, minorities and, recently, the middle class.

Conversely, Republicans/Conservatives advertise themselves as limited government capitalists, Constitution-strict constructionists and individual freedom adherents who believe in low taxes and private enterprise.

In my father's and my lifetimes, Republicans have been deemed the standard bearers of conservatism while the Democrats have embodied the more liberal and bigger government style of exercise of authority. Most often, the party leadership from both sides of the aisle has been able to strike an agreement which, while not entirely satisfactory to either faction, resolves the issue.

Sadly, since about 1992, in today's political arena, the widening gap between Republicans and Conservatives has been aggravated by none other than self-appointed conservative pundits and radio hosts. Republican presidential candidate Bob Dole was attacked as insufficiently conservative to face the obviously more liberal Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush was twice elected despite vilification by the same cabal.

Current Republican candidates are forced to run the gauntlet of radio talk hosts such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity and other self-appointed critics who toss out derogatory terms like "RINO"  (Republican in Name Only), Establishment Elite and Republican Light, to show their disdain for those who don't measure up to their ideal as true conservatives. Along with at least one of the candidates, they invoke the late President Ronald Reagan as their model.

A simple reality check would prove these critics so far out in left field that like Elvis, "they have left the building."  Ronald Reagan, a true conservative and a gentleman, espoused two values regarding Republicans: (1) "an 11th Commandment that thou shalt not speak evil of any Republican" and (2) that a Republican who supports the party position 80 percent of the time is worthy of the name and nurturing.

They also ignore the "Buckley Rule," which is named after William F. Buckley Jr., conservative author, commentator and founder of National Review magazine. The rule states to vote for the most electable conservative option — the Republican/Conservative who can win. Otherwise, you invoke the late Walt Kelly's Pogo Standard: "We have met the enemy and he is us."

The 2012 presidential election is arguably the most important of our lifetime as those of us who expect to support the Republican ticket see the country as barreling pell-mell toward statism and national insolvency without a serious effort to contain the growth of bankrupting entitlements. This is no time for Republicans and Conservatives to be fighting among ourselves as to who is the "most conservative."

The November ballot will not have a Conservative Party choice instead, for those not interested in re-electing President Barack Obama, the sole reasonable option will be to vote Republican. The last time I looked, the Republican Party did not grant to Rush, to Hannity, to South Carolina's Senator Jim DeMint nor even to Sarah Palin the political responsibility of determining the electability of the party's candidate — the decision is yours.

J. Karl Miller retired as a colonel in the Marine Corps. He is a Columbia resident and can be reached via email at JKarlUSMC@aol.com.


Like what you see here? Become a member.


Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Comments

Ellis Smith February 15, 2012 | 7:06 a.m.

"Republican" is the name of a political party; "Conservative" is a far more generic term, denoting political and/or economic philosophy. Another way of stating it: "Republican" typically denotes a group (party) of people whereas "Conservative" can be applied to either a single person or a group.

Do you remember your United States history? The name of the political party which Thomas Jefferson headed at the time he was a two term President was the "Democratic Republicans." How's THAT for covering all the bases?

It's possible to be either Liberal or Conservative within a political party, although not so much these days. Our former Senator, John Danforth, was a Republican who was socially Liberal and fiscally Conservative. A good example for a Democrat Senator would be Proxmire of Wisconsin, who made a career of exposing financial waste in the federal government (he even issued "Golden Fleece" awards).

In the 1930s most Southern Senators were Democrats who were both socially and fiscally Conservative. They gave FDR more fits than Senate Republicans did.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 15, 2012 | 9:03 a.m.

Thank You, Karl !!!

Too bad these kind of reasonable views and arguments have a hard time making their way to air on tv or radio via the "pundits".

United We Stand !!!

or the updated 21 century version...

We are the 80%ers !!!

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 15, 2012 | 11:39 a.m.

Col.,I must for once disagree. Not with your stance that only Republicans can, or have any intent, to stop the plunge of our country into obscurity, but that pundits, etc. erroneously propagate the conservative side of the R' party.

In 1992 we got B. Clinton from the Democratic Leadership Council, a group just formed to promote "conservative" or "to the right" sounding candidates. Clinton was president and the choice of that group. An R' controlled Congress is the only reason Billy did anything looking "conservative". Since then, every D' candidate tries to appear as tho they now "get it" and will rule at least "center right". They never do! Our "war" today is between liberals and conservatives, with liberals intent to always sound conservative. Those you have mentioned, have a big job imo, trying to identify one from the other for us.

Our American people, imo are like the young artist in the sense that they can't pay attention to our government and our politics, because they have, "not yet suffered enough".

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders February 15, 2012 | 12:34 p.m.

Who defines? Why the listener/reader, that's who.

Besides, the liberal/conservative labels (like all politicized words) have been hollowed out by the sophists seeking office, and have been rendered wholly incoherent.

A true conservative used to be known as a classical liberal, but that label no longer fits either, as most conservatives support the warfare state, while most liberals support the welfare state, with neither recognizing that one cannot exist without the other.

Of course, given that most sophists are professionals (lawyers), it is little surprise that they remove the only value of language in order to gain power over others.

Well, other than giving columnists something to write about in between elections.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 15, 2012 | 2:53 p.m.

R. Saunders - Here then, is the intellectual observation (yours) concerning the liberal/conservative division in our political arena.

Anyone trying to identify one or the other is "hollowing" out each word and now neither means anything. The liberal intellectual (usually the case) always it seems, places conservatives willing to defend the people against loss of life and country with war when Necessary, in a "warfare state" and his own into a "welfare state", which he reluctantly deems a necessary evil (yeah,right!).

The obvious differences are to be ignored and no attention should be given to either conservative or liberal, because they are so much alike that nothing can be achieved by any debate.

Who wins when this lackadaisical attitude is achieved at any point in time? Liberal Democrats! They have no chance when people recognize them and their intent.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 15, 2012 | 4:54 p.m.

I think you guys are missing the point here. If Frank and I agree that the welfare state we are becoming (have become) is the single greatest threat to our nation, let's work together to stop it. Who cares if somewhere down the list of priorities that we disagree whether we can display the ten commandments in a courthouse. Why let that take our eye of the ball. Let's not let that tree keep us from seeing the forest! We need to remember that we are on the same team even if we don't always agree. Bill Belichick remembers this when he makes sure any disagreements stay in house with his football team and they have done pretty well as a franchise. If we kept our bickering to a minimum and could unite under the largest and most important issues, we would have more success at keeping the libs in their place...

That would be the peanut gallery...

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 15, 2012 | 5:53 p.m.

The most insightful
Yet. Though, I can't conjure up
Any sympathy.

Missing Roger Ailes,
Lee Atwater, and GOPAC.
You've made your bed, folks.

Give her twenty years
And I'd go GOP for
Megan McCain. True.

But if you insist
On purity, you get what
You deserve - this field.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller February 15, 2012 | 9:00 p.m.

Frank, my point is a simple one--that anyone on the right who pits "Conservatives" against "Republicans" is giving aid and comfort to the other side and may well cause President Obama's re election. I consider myself a "conservative Republican," one who sides with President Reagan's principle of refusing to sit in judgment of other Republicans.

The State of Missouri's motto--"United We Stand, Divided We Fall" is highly relevant. I have seen a divisive ideology elect LBJ and Bill Clinton--I don't relish a third tactical error.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 15, 2012 | 9:01 p.m.

mike m. - Have you ever tried to connect the dots? Liberal condemnation of Christianity (display the ten commandments in a courthouse.)is as big a part of the liberal agenda to make a welfare state of the U.S. as is taxation to prevent global warming,universal healthcare, unionism and isolationism as our foreign policy.

"We need to remember that we are on the same team even if we don't always agree." That, Mike, was my stated opinion when first I began this marvelous means of communication (remember I wrote that, Joy), but until you, a professed libertarian, my comments have more often been criticized by those of your persuasion. Imo, there are no "largest and most important issues". Liberal Democrats will use any issue they can conceive to degrade our unique system of government. We cannot "pick and choose" as with Ron Paul in his refusal to support J. McCain against Obama, because John supported "the wars". The necessary wars are about over. We've still got Obama.

The liberal Democrats now control 2/3s of our government, they are not in the "peanut gallery".

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 15, 2012 | 9:49 p.m.

JKM - Today an anchor for Fox Business Net Work,Gerri W., unloaded on her guest: Why doesn't the Republican party do something to provide a leading candidate blah blah the polls, blah blah! He told her to take a deep breath and consider that this is the primary season. He didn't believe the American people want any party to promote a particular over another etc. (A pole indicated people wish there were more R' candidates). Have you not noticed that possibly the most honestly conservative candidate of the bunch, Santorum is now leading the pack?

I can't recall how R' squabbling gave LBJ the win. Clinton got the office due to third party candidate Ross Perot, who professed his endeavor to change our politics for the better. Many backed him, but after creating Clinton wins in both elections he somehow disappeared.

It's only Feb. In my stated opinion, "Americans have not yet suffered enough" and when they start thinking about elections in Oct., few will be able to remember what one R' said to the other in January.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 16, 2012 | 12:40 a.m.

I'm going to part ways a bit with Colonel Miller also. If you are served a nice dish of ice cream with a small dollop of fresh bovine feces on top, it still makes the whole unpalatable and unsafe to consume. If for 364 days of the year you contribute to charity, work at the local food pantry, help little old ladies across the street, and donate blood, but on the 365th day you rob a bank, you are a bank robber. Those other things you are supposed to do. You are not supposed to rob banks.

By the same token, if you are conservative 80% of the time, and you believe those policies promote that which is good for all citizens, and 20% of the time you vote liberal, believing that it is harmful to the nation as a whole, then you have defeated the very meaning of the other 80% of your voting, and you have an obligation to oppose it. If you fail to do so, then your 80% of doing the right thing is meaningless and you've harmed the nation. Voting that 20% to get the 80% means that instead of hemorrhaging all at once, you're just going to let the nation die slowly. At what point should the office holder have said, STOP, enough is enough?

Whether it's spending, free enterprise, our liberties, or invented rights not actually in the Constitution, we depend on conservative legislatures to stick to the principles that not only work, but stand up to the test of doing the right thing, every time, all the time.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith February 16, 2012 | 5:14 a.m.

I agree with Mentor. Forget titles, stop the growth of the welfare state. As I suggested above, we are now being treated (Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy) to the bankruptcy -both figurative and LITERAL - of so-called democratic welfare states.

If someone enters your house and confiscates your possessions, that's called theft.

If someone accosts you outside your house and takes your wallet at gun point, that's called armed robbery.

If the federal government confiscates your money through taxes and then arbitrary gives it to someone they deem more "worthy," that's called "social justice."

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 16, 2012 | 5:13 p.m.

@Frank and Don
You are certainly entitled to your opinions, but your beliefs are isolationist in nature and you have no one but yourselves to blame if Obama is re-elected. The idea that you can not prioritize your political wants and needs for this country makes you part of the problem and not part of the solution. You are literally insane if you think you are going to find enough people in a free country that think exactly the way you do on every issue in order to get anyone elected. IMHO, you are acting like stubborn people who can not make any kind of mutual decisions at all.

I hope you are just commenting for the sake of argument and that when the rubber meets the road and there is a republican on the ticket with religious or moral beliefs that are different from your own that they get your vote rather than the Dem.

@Don
If I were in the proverbial rats maze and I had two choices, push the green button for 80% ice cream / 20% bovine or push the red button for 99% bovine and 1% ice cream, guess which button I am pushing...

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 16, 2012 | 6:35 p.m.

The lesser of two evils. Few people really understand it.

Having been pretty far down the rabbit hole of the Liberal Democratic movement in the past, I can bear witness that infighting among the control freaks destroyed it.

Perhaps contrary to my own agenda, I must recommend the Conservative Republicans listen to Mike and the Colonel on this one.

My personal preference would be to break the two-party system entirely. From a fundamental point of view, I believe more options - even if they are all basically evil options in one way or another - is almost always better than fewer options.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 16, 2012 | 7:20 p.m.

@Don
If I were in the proverbial rats maze and I had two choices, push the green button for 80% ice cream / 20% bovine or push the red button for 99% bovine and 1% ice cream, guess which button I am pushing...

Mike, either one you eat, you're going to end up on your back, four feet in the air, and not moving. We need a new rat that can break out of the box and find a diet that is not going to kill you. You can point to history, but it doesn't apply. The Dems of 1950 are not the Dems of today.

From Walter Williams of the George Mason University Department of Economics:

James Madison is the acknowledged father of the constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 16, 2012 | 7:44 p.m.

I've been reading articles on presidential polling for reelections, and also for the 1980 campaign in general. These articles are by Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/poll/152486/Electi...)
and by Ken Burns for PBS in their series, American Experience (http://www.gallup.com/poll/152486/Electi...).

Carter led in the polls most of the way, in spite of the Iran hostage crisis. The October surprise of the failed hostage rescue was the final straw. Carter also failed to actively campaign and did most of his reelection speaking in the Rose Garden.

This is a quote from the latter article:

That fact is hard to believe, given Reagan's strengths and all the problems Carter was facing. The economy was in bad shape, with inflation and interest rates climbing at alarming rates. Tensions between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were high in the wake of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, which had forced Carter to table one of his hardest-won achievements, the SALT II arms control agreement.

The president had even been forced to fight for control of his own party. A bitter primary battle in the winter and spring against Senator Ted Kennedy, the candidate of the strong liberal wing of the Democratic party, left the party divided and Carter without a strong base going into the general election. "It was a bloodbath," recounts Carter pollster Patrick Caddell. "We have had a civil war in the party, and civil wars do not mend nicely. And that's what we had. A civil war between the northern and the southern wings of the Democratic Party."

further:

"Without a strong record to run on, the Carter team decided its only chance was to go after Ronald Reagan, painting him as a wild-eyed conservative ideologue who could not be trusted to maintain the peace. With the help of several gaffes from Reagan, the strategy worked, and by October the race was too close to call."

Without the rescue and debate fiascoes for Carter, he might well have won. What a disaster that would have been for our nation. We are now faced with very similar circumstances. Will President Obama try to pull a rabbit out of the hat with Iran in a raid to destroy their nuclear capabilities? We are facing a mounting financial crisis and our system will soon begin crumbling from the very weight of governmental spending. If that occurs, we will wish we'd never entered Mike's maze.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 16, 2012 | 7:48 p.m.

Sorry, this was the Ken Burns article (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperien...)

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 16, 2012 | 8:32 p.m.

Don
Sounds like we agree on the biggest threat to our republic, which is the ever growing fed gov't. My guess is we agree pretty much on immigration/border security. The need to maintain military superiority...

When discussing potential leaders that also agree on these issues and you get to an issue you don't agree on, maybe refer to them as if they were fellow marines offering battlefield opinions you don't fully agree with instead of as you would a "jody" that would dare offer those same opinions...

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 16, 2012 | 8:41 p.m.

If you only list
"Welfare states" that failed, then your
Bad at keeping score.

Norway, Germany,
Finland, Sweden, Netherlands,
Belgium - still solvent.

Or we can be like
Saipan and step over the
People in the street.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 16, 2012 | 9:10 p.m.

Gregg, Marines at Saipan rescued thousands of Japanese from committing suicide. Perhaps you should watch the movie, Hell to Eternity, based on the true story of the late Guy Gabaldon, credited with saving 1,500 by himself.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 16, 2012 | 9:52 p.m.

I waited for Don's answer to Mike M. Had begun to believe he was on the beach or en route. (would that I, again could).

"your beliefs are isolationist in nature and you have no one but yourselves to blame if Obama is re-elected." I will speak for myself and hope, Don and every other conservative able to read it, will agree.

We believe that right or wrong, we are able to determine "right from wrong". These beliefs come from the beginning, particularly the beginning of our country, not from teachings to our youth in public schools Beginning around 1960. Then, tolerance, diversification became the subject, not right or wrong. I think 80% of Americans believe there must be a God. Where did you find out, there is not?

". You are literally insane if you think you are going to find enough people in a free country that think exactly the way you do on every issue in order to get anyone elected." I submit that You are insane if you believe that to reach out to those whose only intent is to control our country and it's people will somehow insure their freedom. Conservatives, imo know what is right and wrong and only argue about which candidate will produce the first result best for our people.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 16, 2012 | 10:40 p.m.

MM - Incidentally, an Obama defeat is only a battle in the war for our country. He is now (knowing his position is lost) trying for every item on the agenda. If not able to achieve it, setting legal precedent for every one of the socialist goals. If he loses, if Congress is taken from liberal Democrats, they will hunker down until the day another election cycle can con enough "independent, moderate, voters to put them back in the seat from which they can drive. Obama's economy devastating regulations, removed by the defeated
R' Administration will be replaced by the liberals (as were W. Bush attempts to cure our energy etc. problems) and the trip down the rocky road to obscurity will continue. Do not believe that majority conservatives will desert an R' candidate because they are not "conservative enough". Except for folks like R. Paul, who are in it only for themselves and do not seem to care who is elected if they are not.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 16, 2012 | 11:26 p.m.

Perhaps you should watch
"Behind the Labels" - not "based"
On a true story.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson February 16, 2012 | 11:44 p.m.

Was Saipan the place
The Dem thought would tip over?
No, that place was Guam.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 12:42 a.m.

I think that admiral who was testifying before Hank Johnson should have won an academy award for keeping a straight face.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 3:47 a.m.

@Don
If I were in the proverbial rats maze and I had two choices, push the green button for 80% ice cream / 20% bovine or push the red button for 99% bovine and 1% ice cream, guess which button I am pushing...

Mike, been thinking more about this statement. Would you force the other rats to eat from the green button's supply, or would you get rid of the feces after it popped out in front of you? Either way, eating feces is BAD BAD BAD.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith February 17, 2012 | 4:47 a.m.

Regarding Welfare States (mentioned above):

"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." - Margaret Thatcher

Another way of stating the case is that at some point the populous discovers - to their abject horror - that their free lunch WASN'T free. It never is, and it continues to be amazing that people who are otherwise bright can be so monumentally stupid! Maybe it's a communicable disease.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 17, 2012 | 8:48 a.m.

@Ellis
Be careful, I am also sure there must be some kind of mental defect present for libs to live in denial as they do. However, if they ever become aware, it won't be long before they legislate themselves as a protected segment of society and get some kind of "free" disability benefits for their defects...

P.S. Message me your contact info in case I need your help to devise a device that will eliminate excrement from ice cream... ;-)

@Frank
I guess the point is your are chopping off your nose to spite your face when you call a potential republican nominee a heathan that is unfit for office because he does not share the same religious beliefs that you do. Even if you end up voting for him over a D you might have damaged your "teammate" to such a degree that he doesn't come out on top in that election. Or, if our "teammates" do end up winning the elections their ability to work together might be hampered by leftover bad feelings from brutal infighting at the primary stage... I am certain that methuselah did not live to 969 years the same way I am certain that "God" did not create all the animals in the first six days. Does that make me a heathan in your eyes? Would you support a candidate that agreed with you 100% on economic and social issues and believed that there must be some kind of God, but didn't believe that Jesus was his/her son and rose from the dead to absolve us? I would never think to demean or judge you for your religious beliefs, but I would ask that you do the same when commenting on fellow conservatives. Our religion should be a private personal matter and not a federal gov't issue...

I respect santorum as a man, but he is not electable if he is seen as a religious zealot. You can not win an election by appealing to the religious right if those appeals put you at odds with the larger middle.

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith February 17, 2012 | 9:05 a.m.

According to an article in this week's "The Economist" (Brit.) on February 5th Finland elected a new president, Sauli Niimisto, a CONSERVATIVE, by 67% of the votes cast. He is a former finance minister, so he should know something about government finance.

The Finns are very unhappy about the EU bailout situation and governments that didn't play by the rules, getting themselves deeply into debt. Finland is famous for paying off debts, including reparations to the former Soviet Union for being on the losing side in WWII. (Finland fought from 1941 to 1944 on the side of Nazi Germany. Part of the troops surrounding Leningrad were Finnish.)

The article concludes, "This election has confirmed that, as in Sweden, the center-left in much of Europe is weak and it is the conservatives who are running on policy. Finns are more concerned with boosting jobs and growth than in protecting welfare..."

Geez! Not protecting welfare? Finns must be the most cruel and heartless people on earth! That could be: Using a patched-together army, Finland stopped the Soviet army in the 1939-1940 winter war.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 17, 2012 | 9:17 a.m.

"Libs are evil dumb!
They're mentally ill! They are
Like bovine feces!"

I feel better. Can
I be in your club, now? Am
I doing it right?

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith February 17, 2012 | 9:24 a.m.

Mike M.:

That's a nice engineering problem. I am toying with reverse osmosis; however, regardless of the separation/"purification" method employed I cannot guarantee what the end product will LOOK like. It might be preferable to consume it while blindfolded. :)

I'd like to take this opportunity to amend my previous post. While "monumentally stupid" is accurate, "breathtakingly stupid" would be more apt.

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 17, 2012 | 9:33 a.m.

Ellis and the engineering problem:

I have an LC/MS sitting in my basement....reel cheep.

It might help.

(Report Comment)
mike mentor February 17, 2012 | 10:43 a.m.

As much fun as we are having with this subject matter, I can't help but to think that we are only slightly more evolved than our liberal brethren. Looking at the glass half full, that means they aren't that far behind. Maybe there is hope after all...

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 17, 2012 | 12:45 p.m.

M. Mentor - I searched but have not found any post that remotely suggests, calling one "a heathan that is unfit for office because he does not share the same religious beliefs that you do." You on the other hand proclaim "I respect santorum as a man, but he is not electable if he is seen as a religious zealot." First post, "we disagree whether we can display the ten commandments in a courthouse." If religious zealots are so sure to lose elections why does not every liberal D' decry religion in their first speech and every one thereafter, rather than denounce their minister (Obama's) for being too secular? Why can you not see yourself among those who concern you, when you denounce Santorum for his espousing his religious beliefs?

I do not attend church (except for funerals) and am not sure how Jesus of Nazareth arrived on earth, but I didn't think there was doubt about his continuous teaching of the people that they might learn to live peacefully and prosperously while on earth under the commandments he said came from God. Or that his works earned him a horrible death. As you stated "Who cares if somewhere down the list of priorities" some admit a belief that Jesus is son of God, do not his efforts to do good earn him some respect, rather than the ridicule and scorn that is heaped upon his memory mainly by the progressive liberals now living among us? My intent is not to ridicule you, but to show that "the larger middle" you believe wins elections for all candidates, contains the "Christian Right".

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 3:50 p.m.

Seems I remember liberals, the press, and GOP establishment saying that Reagan was an ideologue, a zealot, unelectable, would deprive women of their rights, and start World War III. He got elected anyway, and the nation did well. Saying Santorum can't be elected is just a repeat of Reagan.
Independents also want a president who means what he says, doesn't flip flop on any issue at any time, and has a principled moral foundation. I see Santorum as a far better candidate and leader than Romney or Obama. I would not trust Romney for one moment to stick to any campaign promises. I don't trust him on abortion issues. I don't trust him on second amendment issues. I don't trust him on tax issues. I don't trust him on spending issues. And I don't trust him to provide the strong leadership in congress to stop what they've been doing for the last 40 years.

Neither do most conservatives, and the majority of the party. That's why Romney has a difficult time getting over 40 percent.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 3:53 p.m.

mike mentor February 17, 2012 | 10:43 a.m.
"Looking at the glass half full, that means that"

Some people look at the glass as half full. Some look at the glass as half empty. Marines look at it as an opportunity to assault the enemy, destroy them, and take their water.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 3:57 p.m.

I believe a very small part of Nazi troops were Finnish, just as they were Norwegian and Belgiums. They were recruited. The Norwegians were very bad as Nazi troops. The Belgiums fought incredibly well as Nazis. But to say that Finland or Norway fought as Nazi's as a whole is wrong. Finns fought as Finns because Russia invaded Finland.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 4:04 p.m.

I spend a lot of time in conservative political chat rooms. I've seen exactly one person out of hundreds of room regulars who has said derogatory things about Mormons. The vast majority has said that Romney's religion has had absolutely no bearing at all on their feelings toward him, either for or against. And that one person was attacked from every direction about their position on Mormons. Likewise, most people aren't going to care about Santorum's political beliefs. They're smart enough to know that Santorum by himself can't change laws dealing with this issue. And it is very doubtful that a Santorum cabinet would try to dictate these things by edict such as we have seen from the present administration. You won't have to pass a Santorum bill to find out what's in the bill.

But for any fool that thinks Mormons aren't Christians, I invite them to listen to Christmas music by the Mormon Tabernacle Choir.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller February 17, 2012 | 4:19 p.m.

In the understandable zeal to elect a "true conservative" some of you overlook the lead in of my last paragraph "The November ballot will not have a Conservative Party choice instead, for those not interested in re-electing President Barack Obama, the sole reasonable option will be to vote Republican."

Not all conservatives fit a predetremined mold and the majority of Republican voters are far more "Tory" oriented than the most conservative Democratic Party voter. For example, I am a Conservative Republican whose role model is as near Ronald Reagan as one can be--I also resent being painted "not a true conservative because I do not toe the Limbaugh/Hannity/TeaParty line re who is worthy of being called conservative.

The bottom line objective is to WIN--intramural food fights cloud the issue.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 4:46 p.m.

Colonel, in my time in the conservative chat rooms, the consensus is ABO...anybody but Obama. Republicans are going to vote republican regardless. From looking at the polling data on Gallup, Sabato's, RCP, and others as of January/early Feb, it appears that the truth remains, Red states vote red, Blue states vote blue, and the swing states will strongly go Red. That means Obama loses.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 17, 2012 | 6:36 p.m.

Col. M. - I seem to be mixed up (some would add Again), but what are primaries for? Aren't they to discern every quality about the candidate so that one might decide which quality, thus which candidate is best suited to each individuals idea of the best candidate? You surely will agree that our candidate in 2008 was not "conservative enough". Do we want another nominee that promises a "robust cap and trade program"?

Neither do I understand your concern for toeing the "Limbaugh/Hannity/TeaParty line". I spend little time with Hannity, but do not regard his program as objectionable concerning any successes of the Republican party.

I listen to Rush 10-15 minutes per day (lunch), but know that from first he has identified himself as conservative first and Republican next. He has continually praised Reagan and would not be surprised if his broadcast hours, providing truth over the history revisionism concerning Reagan, totaled, could be expressed in Days.

I wonder who may have had more to do with the gains in U.S. Senate and the takeover of the House than those of the TeaParty "line". I'm mixed up but I'll still try to understand.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 17, 2012 | 7:18 p.m.

One of the base values I enjoy about conservatives is that they do not seek to crush the open debate as liberals do. To the contrary, conservatives want the opposition to be heard so that all might know who stands for what, then let the chips fall where they may via the ballot box. The ballot box is the only place where conservatives seek to establish a "fairness doctrine". For in the ballot box the voice of the people is heard. Well, except for courts who decide the people aren't smart enough to decide by elections and wish to make up rights not specifically given in the constitution.

(Report Comment)
J Karl Miller February 18, 2012 | 7:44 p.m.

Frank...I have no problem with primaries; however, I do have objections to the number, conduct and lack of relevance of the debates. Limbaugh is at best an entertainer whose schtick is getting under the skins of liberals--a tactic at which he excels. When he first appeared on scene, I enoyed his wit and wisdom but, in the last few years, he has designated himself the Grand Guru of Conservatism, attacking all who don't measure up to "his standards." Hannity is repetitive and boring, one who rarely has an original thought.

Again--there will be no Conservative Party listed on the ballot. This may very well be the most important election of our lifetime--we cannot afford anything less than a united front.

Forget who is the most conservative--back the most conservative candidate WHO CAN WIN.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 18, 2012 | 11:07 p.m.

J. Karl M. - Sorry, we may have turned the hinge that opens or closes the literary door between us. I have heard your description of Rush Limbaugh and his offerings from such sage pundits as Chris Matthews, Ed Schultz, Keith Olbermann etc., but never from Brit Hume, Chas. Krauthammer, or even Geo. Will. I want the most conservative candidate to be nominated, because the most conservative candidate, Will Win.

If you are concerned that Romney may not be the nominee, shouldn't you just say so?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking February 19, 2012 | 5:33 a.m.

Americans don't elect fringe candidates. Sarah Palin is not electable - neither is Ron Paul. Romney is probably the most electable of the Republican candidates, because he is a centrist, like Obama. Karl is right - if you want a conservative candidate to be elected, support one that can be elected, avan if s/he's not a perfect ideeological match for you. Otherwise, the other side will win.

Actually, the economy may well improve enough by next November to re-elect Obama no matter who the Republicans run. And it won't matter anyway.

DK

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith February 19, 2012 | 8:42 a.m.

J. Karl & Mark Foecking:

I agree with Karl: it's just blowing smoke if you can't get elected. Ask President Dewey!

[A joke at the time stated that Dewey, confident he had the election sewed up, sent Mrs. Dewey out to buy an expensive negligee for their first night in the White House. After Dewey's defeat, Mrs. Dewey showed up modeling the negligee and asked Dewey if he thought Harry Truman would approve of it.]

But I am given to think of a former President, Warren G. Harding. When Republican movers and shakers were casting around for a candidate to run in the 1920 election someone pointed out that Harding LOOKED like a President. So they ran him, and he won by a wide margin (in 1920 the Republicans probably could have run anyone and that person would have been elected, because the populous was fed up with the Democrats).

Warren G. Harding was one worst Presidents in United States history. But not where I grew up: we had Harding streets and Harding schools...

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 19, 2012 | 11:36 a.m.

Mark Foeking - Barak Obama is, was, a "finge" candidate. No one I ever talked to thought BO could win in 2008. I kept mouthing about the future state of our nation if he did and remember a friendly phone call admonishing me for my concerns. His determination was that "this guy can't win!" My only answer was, "he better not". While biased, I believe my thoughts were the most accurate in that conversation.

"if you want a conservative candidate to be elected, support one that can be elected," This should read, if you want a Republican candidate.... In 2008 Republicans passed over R. Giuliani, A. Keyes, Fred Thompson,etc. for the very electable McCain. Voters, conservative or not, imo, saw how very little difference existed between the two and just stayed home.

The economy is not going to improve until the direction dictated by D' controlled Congress is changed. Though you always surmise that government never has anything to do with our economy or way of life and are thus, content with Democrats because "it won't matter anyway.", imo this attitude is defeatist. Our country can be returned to prosperous prominence among nations, it will be conservatives that do it and the thought that the moderate candidate deemed "most electable" (by whom?), is best nominee, is in error.

Could not such a candidate so like Obama, not produce another McCain result? Or if successful just slow our rate of decline 'til the next liberal can con the electorate, then finish the job begun with our government in the '60s?

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 19, 2012 | 11:52 a.m.

The voices you hear
From the TV are talking
At you - not to you.

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson February 19, 2012 | 12:42 p.m.

MSNBC
Carries water for the Dems
Very few tune in.

No offense, Gregg Bush
These haikus laugh toward you,
And not just at you.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 19, 2012 | 1:38 p.m.

search hard as one might
elusive, that handle is
to pull gregg's door shut

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 19, 2012 | 2:15 p.m.

I'm trying to recall what Gregg B. has ever written, "sideways" or "up and down" that has not said, liberalism good and right, anything, anyone opposing, bad and wrong.

He, imo, has never opened a door.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 19, 2012 | 2:28 p.m.

Make no mistake: liberals, democrats, and many independents, are horrified by the extreme positions of the conservative republican candidates; so horrified they will gladly hold their nose to unite behind BHO, as the lesser of two evils.

And as DK says, it won't matter much anyway. He's already explained why.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 19, 2012 | 2:40 p.m.

The more you tighten
Your grip, the more star systems
Slip through your fingers.

If you're talking my
Language, then I've already
Set the agenda.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 19, 2012 | 2:44 p.m.

Faux News is a sham
Rich people blaming the poor
For their malfeasance.

Middle class people.
Hoping to one day be rich.
Tune in like lemmings.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 19, 2012 | 3:05 p.m.

Derrick: Extreme positions indeed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWqls5KE5...

The fact that this guy is still in the running is friggin' scary.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 19, 2012 | 4:07 p.m.

"And as DK says, it won't matter much anyway. He's already explained why."

DK's arguments in this regard have always been so shallow that if they were water, one could not get feet wet. Why don't you 'splain it for us?

Santorun explained the danger he was referring to and gave an example of how and when it has happened. Ones that can't or won't understand are the "friggin' scary". Thanks, however, for the additional airing. I had not actually heard his comments.

(Report Comment)
Mike Martin February 19, 2012 | 4:16 p.m.

Last I checked, Derrick's Hack Man vs. Preacher video has that Santorum video beat for views 3:1, and it even has a social issues undertone (the preacher).

Question is: Is the US ready for a Hack Man President?

It would give a whole new meaning to the term "punt on that Health Care bill" or "kick that legislation up to the Senate."

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 19, 2012 | 5:49 p.m.

Make no mistake, most independents know that social positions by conservatives don't impact their wallets nearly as much as social positions by liberals. The President doesn't change law dealing with abortions. And you won't have a conservative standing before Congress or Americans telling them you have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill. Look at the polls in swing states. Dems are going to take a rear end kicking.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 19, 2012 | 6:15 p.m.

For the last three years I have been following political news stories by various media sources on Yahoo, and watching the reader commentary. That commentary per story has ranged from a few hundred to well over 10,000 responses. Generally, the pro conservative responses have averaged over 2 to 1 against the liberal viewpoint. While not scientific, it is an excellent indicator on the general mood of the public, which was proven in November, 2010.

We tried the more liberal conservative approach in November, 2008. That didn't get us anywhere. I don't believe American voters are more inclined to vote against a Christian conservative and support a left wing President who attended a racist, anti American gathering for 20 years that supposedly was Christian church, and then professed to be totally unaware of their doctrine and message. Whenever the so-called Rev. Wright made those inflammatory statements, that congregation cheered and clapped. The attitude was endemic to Obama's fellow "worshipers", and he was a part of it. Nor does a Christian accidentally say "my Muslim faith".

In 2008, the liberal press didn't vet President Obama at all other than talk radio and FOX. This time they'll be forced to because the GOP campaign will openly challenge them in public.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 19, 2012 | 7:45 p.m.

frank: "Santorun explained the danger he was referring to and gave an example of how and when it has happened. Ones that can't or won't understand are the "friggin' scary". Thanks, however, for the additional airing. I had not actually heard his comments."

His explanation is what makes it scary as hell that he's in the running for president. He's clearly delusional, nevermind that the theocracy he wants the US to be is precisely the kind of society where people end up getting slaughtered for imaginary crimes.

Trust me, it's a really good thing that we don't take religion as seriously as we used to.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 19, 2012 | 8:39 p.m.

Jonathan, the liberal theocracy has been butchering 3,000 unborn babies every single day of the year for the last 38 years. Your exaggerated, unwarranted, and irrational diatribe is what we expect. Kind of right up there with global warming. I'm still waiting for the global warming enthusiasts to explain why global warming is occurring at a much faster rate on other planets in our solar system. Perhaps the explanation was lost when the Hadley Climate Research Unit destroyed their own data rather than let it fall into the hands of the public for a true peer review.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 19, 2012 | 11:09 p.m.

Don, your God is the most prolific abortionist out there, so let's not get too carried away with the sensationalist accusations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage...

It's estimated that 50% of pregnancies end in miscarriage (estimated because it's kinda tough to report a miscarriage when the woman didn't even know she was pregnant). Among women who know they were pregnant, the miscarriage rate is 15-20%.

And you know that Santorum also doesn't like birth control, right? If you think abortion rates are bad now, imagine what'll happen when he and his ilk get around to trying to ban contraception.

Either way, there's always something amusing about pro-life men. Pretty convenient to have strong opinions on an issue you'll never have to face yourself, isn't it?

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 19, 2012 | 11:40 p.m.

@ Jonathan

Also once they are born, the cons see them as tax burdens.

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 19, 2012 | 11:51 p.m.

Not only that, there's a more recent discussion thread about the abortion / contraception issue:

http://www.columbiamissourian.com/storie...

...not that staying on-topic is a virtue of many people who post here.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 20, 2012 | 9:36 a.m.

J.H. - "His explanation is what makes it scary as hell that he's in the running for president. He's clearly delusional, nevermind that the theocracy he wants the US to be is precisely the kind of society where people end up getting slaughtered for imaginary crimes."
His explanation included his beliefs, Ours since birth of our nation and a perfectly logical, feasible progression of results if our present Progressive-in-Chief is allowed to continue the wanton destruction of our economy and assault on our values.

The theocracy (your dream, not mine) will hold sanctity of life high but will not be imposed on or paid for by the populace as is the obvious case today.

That pseudo-intellectuals of the left, whom will spend their time trying to label "what makes it scary as hell" on references to the roots and structure of our country for over 200 years is why They can be noted as "delusional".

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 20, 2012 | 4:48 p.m.

Just 15 months ago those same conservatives handed the liberals their worst defeat in congress in 72 years. Not only that, Dems lost 5 governorships and TWENTY state legislatures. When the social conservative majority of this nation decides to, they will had the liberal minority a defeat every time. But when the GOP puts up moderate Republicans like Ford, Dole, and McCain, we get trashed.
That's why Romney can't break out, and Santorum is gaining strength. The cult of liberal beliefs scares alot more Americans than a conservative Christian ever will. Seems too we did pretty well under Christian conservatives correcting the wrongs in this country. How did JFK put it?

"we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago." and...

"our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God."

and finally, and I'm sure liberals are appalled at this:

" Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 20, 2012 | 5:04 p.m.

Don....post of the day.

congrats.......

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 20, 2012 | 6:00 p.m.

Michael, liberals are loathe to speak against JFK. But thank you.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 20, 2012 | 6:04 p.m.

The theocracy of the left from Russian, eastern Europe, Communist China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Planned Parenthood slaughter houses is what needs to be feared. Oppressors of free speech, destroyers of free enterprise, controlling tyrants of every aspect of life. A free people will not go silently into the night. Not now, not ever.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 20, 2012 | 6:31 p.m.

A free people will not go silently into the night; they'll just regard themselves as slaves to an invisible, all-powerful tyrant who apparently thinks that the only way to forgive people is through blood sacrifices.

"10 When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace. 11 If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you. 12 If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city. 13 When the LORD your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it. 14 As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves. And you may use the plunder the LORD your God gives you from your enemies." -- Deuteronomy 20:10-14

I sure feel the love.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 20, 2012 | 11:38 p.m.

Jonathan, since the year 1939, can you think of a single instance of Christians invading a city, sacking it, making slaves of anybody, and plundering it? If not, grow up and try to find something relevant to the last 100 years at least.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 20, 2012 | 11:45 p.m.

Jonathan, Derrick, have you been able to explain yet why Jesus Christ is directly refered to in the Constitution?

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 21, 2012 | 7:29 a.m.

Where is Jesus Christ directly referred to in the Constitution?

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking February 21, 2012 | 7:41 a.m.

frank christian wrote:

"The economy is not going to improve until the direction dictated by D' controlled Congress is changed."

Hm. Then why do a lot of economists say the economy is improving? Maybe it has less to do with Congress, or Obama, then you're willing to admit? And more to do with consumer confidence, and the regular business cycle?

"Our country can be returned to prosperous prominence among nations,"

We are a prosperously prominent nation. We have the largest economy and the highest wages in the world. The poorest among us live better than probably 3/4 of the people on earth. I don't think we're doing that badly, and no, I don't think it matters who our next President is or who controls Congress. For everything that changes when parties swap control, a hundred things stay the same.

DK

(Report Comment)
Derrick Fogle February 21, 2012 | 8:41 a.m.

Full text search of the constitution yields the following results:

"Jesus" - 0
"Christ" - 0
"God" - 0
"Holy" - 0
"Father" - 0
"Son" - 87, but only as subtext of another word; the single most common word which "son" appears in the US constitution is "Person."

The text "relig" appears twice, in the following passages:

Article VI, Clause 3: "...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Amendment I: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I used these versions:
http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitutio...
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/...
http://www.house.gov/house/Constitution/...
http://constitutionus.com/

Don: If you can find another version that does return results on full text searches for those words, please let me know. Otherwise, please retract your statement as completely and absolutely false.

(Report Comment)
Mark Foecking February 21, 2012 | 8:46 a.m.

The only incidence of the word "Lord" is where the Constitution is signed, and the phrase "Year of our Lord" is used. However, that is how dates were commonly referred to then (and even now sometimes).

The Constitution is a very secular document, as they well wanted it to be.

DK

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 21, 2012 | 10:26 a.m.

Mark F. - "Then why do a lot of economists say the economy is improving?"
"The U.S. economy will grow about 2.3% in 2012, a bit faster than the 1.7% pace in 2011." Kiplinger. For one whose concern is for health of our government and the health of the people, only in relation to cost to government, you will consider this a satisfactory improvement to our economy as I'm sure we'll hear BO spout in coming months.

This rate of growth will do nothing to improve our rate of unemployment or to stop the growth of chronically unemployed in the country. Why will you not recognize, when reading our economists, how often All of them point to actions by our Federal government as a great influence upon their predictions. All of the offshore drilling sites that Bush opened up, assuring revenues to the nearby States, have been closed by Obama. My personal thoughts have increasingly turned to summer when I planned many trips to "the water". Gas, $4. by April, $5. by summer. My trips will be few. I fear your opinion will be one of approval as long as our U.S. economy keeps us "better than probably 3/4 of the people on earth.'

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 21, 2012 | 1:57 p.m.

Year of our Lord is the correct reference. L is capitalized, which refers to Jesus Christ, and the words
"Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven" refer directly to the birth of Jesus Christ. And yes, that IS how dates were and are commonly refered to. Measured from the date of the birth of Jesus Christ.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 21, 2012 | 6:23 p.m.

Don: "Jonathan, since the year 1939, can you think of a single instance of Christians invading a city, sacking it, making slaves of anybody, and plundering it? If not, grow up and try to find something relevant to the last 100 years at least."

What, are God's commands to humanity not relevant anymore? Either way:

Uganda:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_...
"The group is based on a number of different beliefs including local religious rituals, mysticism, traditional religion, Acholi nationalism and Christianity and claims to be establishing a theocratic state based on the Ten Commandments and local Acholi tradition. The LRA is accused of widespread human rights violations, including murder, abduction, mutilation, sexual enslavement of women and children and forcing children to participate in hostilities."

Philippines
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ilaga
"The group committed its bloodiest act in June 1971 when it massacred 65 civilians in a mosque."

Northern Ireland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trouble...

There's plenty more. I don't assume you keep up with international news if you're not aware of the countless religious conflicts around the world, a lot of the times between Christians and Muslims.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 21, 2012 | 7:08 p.m.

In the year of our Lord refers to the Gregorian calender. It is the translation of the Latin term "Anno Domini" (A.D.) It certainly does directly refer to Christ in a quantitative or intimate way. Using your conservative reasoning, the government should provide "welfare" to all since the word welfare appears in the Constitution. You gave my a good laugh today.

(Report Comment)
Tim Dance February 21, 2012 | 7:10 p.m.

@Jonathan

If Faux News doesn't show it, it didn't exist.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 21, 2012 | 7:38 p.m.

The term general welfare did not mean giving away the coffers to the poor. It meant was was good for the entire nation. I will again go back to James Madison, the acknowledged father of the constitution. In 1794, when Congress appropriated $15,000 for relief of French refugees who fled from insurrection in San Domingo to Baltimore and Philadelphia. James Madison wrote disapprovingly, "I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents."

I guess I have to repeat what has already been posted, since reader comprehension is difficult for the opposition.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 21, 2012 | 7:43 p.m.

Jesus did not help people out of Caasar's coffers. Nor did he ask Caesar to contribute to those who are hungry, jobless, or for any other purpose.

Jonathan, I said, since the year 1939, can you think of a single instance of Christians invading a city, sacking it, making slaves of anybody, and plundering it?

None of the examples you gave show that. Work on it. Picking a really obscure sect does not come anywhere near the barbarity of those left wing groups from Stalin to Pol Pot that I mentioned above.

(Report Comment)
Don Milsop February 21, 2012 | 7:47 p.m.

Long story short, Christians have done more to alleviate pain, suffering, and poverty throughout the world since 1939 than have any other group on earth.

(Report Comment)
Gregg Bush February 21, 2012 | 7:59 p.m.

If I close my eyes
Really tight, the world appears
Like I want it to.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 21, 2012 | 8:20 p.m.

"If I close my eyes
Really tight, the world appears
Like I want it to."

I believe it gregg. Please, open your eyes!

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 21, 2012 | 8:56 p.m.

"Don Milsop February 21, 2012 | 7:47 p.m.

Long story short, Christians have done more to alleviate pain, suffering, and poverty throughout the world since 1939 than have any other group on earth."

Sorry, Don, Jon will produce more "ado about nothing" and Tim may laugh himself to sleep, but neither will consider that your post is true. It doesn't work within their progressive agenda. The best that they can hope for is that D. Fogle will remain silent and not deepen their embarrassment.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 21, 2012 | 9:00 p.m.

Don: "Jonathan, I said, since the year 1939, can you think of a single instance of Christians invading a city, sacking it, making slaves of anybody, and plundering it?"

I gave you three examples of groups that regularly do this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord's_...
-"In January, 1997 the LRA attacked Lamwo, in northern Uganda. More than 400 people were killed, and approximately 100,000 people were displaced."
-"In May, 2002 the LRA attacked Eastern Equatoria in Sudan. An estimated 450 people were killed, and witnesses state some villagers were forced to walk off a cliff."
-"In November 2002, in a border village in Southern Sudan, LRA members encountered a procession of some sixty mourners carrying a deceased member of their village. At gunpoint, the LRA forced the mourners to boil and eat the deceased. The mourners complied. After the corpse had been cooked and eaten all of the mourners were shot dead."

"None of the examples you gave show that. Work on it. Picking a really obscure sect does not come anywhere near the barbarity of those left wing groups from Stalin to Pol Pot that I mentioned above."

A really obscure sect? lol. From Forbes' World's Most Wanted Fugitive list (a list that used to include Osama bin Laden until he was killed):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_World%2...

"Joseph Kony, Ugandan. Leader of the Lord's Resistance Army."

And I wonder if your list of evil leftists includes Hitler:

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord." -- Mein Kampf

Here's Spain's Francisco Franco, an ultra right-wing dictator who imprisoned and killed anyone remotely involved with anything "left," in addition to establishing the Catholic Church as the official church of the country, making laws requiring government officials to be Catholic and prohibiting women from becoming professors, judges, or from testifying in court.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_F...

"Long story short, Christians have done more to alleviate pain, suffering, and poverty throughout the world since 1939 than have any other group on earth."

Like the Catholic Church in Africa spreading the word about the evils of condom use in a continent being devastated by AIDS?

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson February 21, 2012 | 9:30 p.m.

In no way is this observation intended as absolution for the past sins committed in the name of Christianity. But in most, if not all, of the present global flashpoints of conflict between Islam and Christianity, the former is both aggressor and persecutor. The most recent examples of the shoes being on the other feet were in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the big, nominally Christian countries provided aid, assistance, and even air power to help Muslims who were being attacked and persecuted by Serbs.

How do Christophobes know what year it is?

(Report Comment)
Michael Williams February 21, 2012 | 9:41 p.m.

Tony asks, "How do Christophobes know what year it is?"
_______________________

Gee, way to go. Someone will get the idea to introduce legislation that this year is actually 63.

Since Al Gore was born on March 31, 1948.

It's almost New Years!

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 21, 2012 | 10:59 p.m.

Tony: "But in most, if not all, of the present global flashpoints of conflict between Islam and Christianity, the former is both aggressor and persecutor. The most recent examples of the shoes being on the other feet were in Bosnia and Kosovo, where the big, nominally Christian countries provided aid, assistance, and even air power to help Muslims who were being attacked and persecuted by Serbs."

1. If Muslims were being targeted for their religious affiliation, what was the religion of those doing the targeting?
2. A phobia is an irrational fear. There is nothing irrational about noticing that someone with the intelligence and technology to build nuclear weapons can believe (and act on) the idea that some invisible man in the sky really cares about who is praying for him and who isn't. The term Christophobia is just as bogus as Islamophobia.
3. I already mentioned this on another thread, but I agree that Islam is way more dangerous than Christianity these days. This doesn't make Christianity a good religion, however.

"How do Christophobes know what year it is?"

By using a calendar we didn't get to decide on, much like anyone else. Were you particularly bothered when the definition of a second changed from "1⁄86 400 of the mean solar day" to "the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom."? I wasn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second

(Report Comment)
Tony Robertson February 21, 2012 | 11:32 p.m.

Jonathan: I like the way you "Dowd-ified" my comment, by cutting off my disclaimer at the beginning. Every word of which, was true and accurate, by the way. Sadly, for so many Christians in the MidEast, Africa, Asia, etc.

As for your question as to whether or not I was bothered when they definition of a second changed, well, I must admit, I missed it. And I'll never get back the last few seconds I've spent reading and pondering it.

I hope you had a happy Festivus, as well.

(Report Comment)
Jonathan Hopfenblatt February 21, 2012 | 11:44 p.m.

I didn't cut off the disclaimer to misrepresent your argument; sorry if it seemed that way. I was just addressing the parts I thought were worth addressing.

I probably could've worded it better, but I agree that Islam is usually the bad guy these days, as evidenced by point #3 in my post. However, even if Christianity is better by comparison, this doesn't make Christianity good.

(Report Comment)
frank christian February 22, 2012 | 7:06 a.m.

The game of Dueling Intellects has turned my screen blue again.

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.

advertisements