As conservatives, we need to be wary of reading too much into the 11% approval rating for Congress. First, the Framers carefully crafted a bicameral legislature which would be adversarial by design, slow to accomplish anything and unable to wield the power of a parliament. Americans misread that as a weakness of congress. Second, the current congress is the target of both the left and the right, whose ire springs from diametrically opposed aims. While conservatives fume at the socialist, anti-war, pro-illegal-immigrant efforts of Reid and Pelosi, leftist liberals are furious that they have not stopped the war, impeached Bush, dissolved our borders completely and made us into The People's Republic of North America. Hence the 89% disapproval rating for congress may be the only issue on the planet over which conservatives and the left agree. Finally, Americans of all stripes routinely condemn congress, EXCEPT for their own Representative. In my AP Government classes, I refer to it the BNMC factor: "But Not My Congressman." Thus, the same old familiar faces return to Washington election after election. Oh, well....
WOOF
· 2 years ago
Evaluating their chances for re-election incumbent Republican faces are retiring. Of 22 Republican Senate seats in play, five have announced retirement. [quote] "The race may not always be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet". [/quote]Damon Runyon
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
The Democrat Party is governed by the"America must be punished for its success" mentality. The Environzi wing of the party deeply steeped in this moronacy(word of the day), as are the socialist healthcare nutjobs.
And yet there is no one in the center countering this, and no one on the right even accepts that this is an issue that can be used to club the nannystaters with.
We are in the DC area for the holiday, and the profusion of"Impeach Them" signs scattered about is quite entertaining, and heartening. Nothing would warm my heat more than watching the Democrats piss away what little political capital they have on long, drawn out impeachment proceedings. Nothing dreamed up by political hack for TV ads would be as effective at scuttling Democrat aspirations than that.
ND in MD
· 2 years ago
"Americans like lower taxes. Who, seriously, votes to have their taxes raised?"
Who votes to have their taxes raised? Those who who pay either no or next to no taxes and depend on government to redistribute the wealth in this country; those epmloyed by governemnt; those misguided few who really believe government can actually solve problems.
The 2008 election poses some problems for the Repubs/conservatives--many seats are up for grabs and several retirements and "not going to run" announcements. Probabilities say that the Dem's will do well in the house and senate--that said, they will find some different candidates in their party--people who do not go for the Move-on and radical left agenda--more on the Leiberman kind of person. That will set the radical left into a self destruct mode and the Dem's party will start their downhill slide. Internal warfare and it will be ugly. I say there will be no Hillary in the White House even as a visitor.
Rev. Ray Dubuque
· 2 years ago
You think that All G O P Corruption means is "Old news: Jack Abramoff, Bernard Kerick, Duke Cunningham" See http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/ where all of these REPUBLICANS in the U.S. Congress are highlighed : Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Philip Giordano, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Bob Ney, Tom Noe, Richard Pombo, Bill Thomas, Charles Canady, Dick Armey, John Peterson, Helen Chenoweth, Katherine Harris, Wild Bill, Janklow, J.C. Watts, Connie Mack, John Schmitz, Donald, Buz, Lukens, Ken Calvert, Dan Crane, Jim Bunn, Sue Myrick, Robert Bauman, Ed Schrock, Roy Blunt, Rick Renzi, Charles Taylor, Duke, Cunningham, Don Sherwood, Roy Blunt, Tom Feeney, Mark Foley, Marilyn Musgrave, but there's tons MORE on Corrupt REPUBLICANS in state govewnment at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/.
So what makes this sleazy party to attractive to you? Are you on the RECEIVING end of some of that corruption? Or are you delighted to see your taxes going to so many crooks so long as they are REPUBLICAN crooks and that tax money won't be going go help colored people, or people with accents?
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
And yet again the fake religionist vomits more Democrat propaganda. How uniquely original!
docdave
· 2 years ago
[quote]that tax money won't be going go help colored people, or people with accents? [/quote]And what have these people done to deserve MY money that I have honestly earned?
Neiman
· 2 years ago
Rev. Ray Dubuque: Ah, first of all I notice that your deliberately, consciously omitted listing all the Democrat Party crooks, like people that have tens of thousands of dollars in their regrigerators. Very fair minded and balanced presentation I mujst say.
Further, you apparently have no problem with the Democrats, the party of death, the party behind all the hostility to Christ in our federal legislation and judicial decisions, and the death of Judeo-Christian values in America.
This reminds me of Hoffa. He dealt with the mob and had less that a saintly character, but he fought with his fists and risked his life on many occasions, all to benefit the Teamsters, to make their lives better. While the GOP has its number of less than honest human beings, about equal in number to the Democrat Party - it is the GOP that fights for economic opportunity and liberty for all Americans and has gone abroad to help others advance that same dream. While the Democrats would deny liberty to everyone here and abrioad, they would rather people be dependent upon them for everything in life and they would rather socialist dictators rule other nations with a cruel, iron hand over their people, as they dream for such power for themselves.
You made a lovely choice in being a liberal REVEREND!
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
hal, many of the RINOS are dropping out, and it is damn well time for them to take their ill gotten gains and hit the bricks. Another point you hit is the new crop of Democrat candidates at state and Congressional level are not '60s throwbacks and hippie wannabes. A sea change is enveloping all of the political world, and things are not going to remain as they have been for the last 40 odd years.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Nman, this fake religionist is no more a Reverend than Sharpton and Jackson are. Go checkout its little hate site. Probably directly linked to Fred Phelps' Church of the Eternal Lawsuit.
Neiman
· 2 years ago
2hotel9: You have been coming up with some great lines lately like "Captain Obvious' and now the "Fred Phelps' Church of the Eternal Lawsuit."
Yes, I suspected he was an intolerant fake reverend, but I wanted to counter his idiotic accusations anyway.
Bat One
· 2 years ago
Apparently, Ray DuBuque is a retired Methodist minister based in Connecticut. His breathtakingly partisan view of the confluence of politics and what he purports to be Christianity was exquisitely dismembered with skill and precision by writer Noel Sheppard at [url=http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/01/would_jesus_be_a_democrat_or_a.html]The American Thinker[/url]:
[quote]As one delves further, it becomes apparent that the Reverend's guiding tenet is that religion and conservatism are mutually exclusive concepts that could not possibly co--exist in the same soul:
[i]For Jesus, as for many other great prophets of the Bible, the pursuit of riches and the pursuit of salvation are so incompatible that one cannot choose one without turning away from the other. And the more riches one possesses the harder it is to choose salvation, because it requires the repudiation of those riches. Any true follower of Christ who sees today's "Religious Right" inviting the wealthy to come into their churches, to bring all their money in with them, to share it generously ---- not with the poor, but ---- with the churches and their clergy, knows that there is something very wrong with this picture.[/i]
So, I guess, using this logic, liberals can't be interested in money. Of course, if this is indeed the case, why are the wealthiest members of Congress liberals? I guess the Reverend didn't know that the top five richest senators in our nation are Democrats, or that John Kerry who sits at the very top of this list is considered to be the most liberal member. Isn't this somewhat incongruous?
Conversely, with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican--controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats. This obviously leads one to wonder how Jesus would look upon those who voted against a bill that for the first time in American history would pay some of the costs for the medicines that senior citizens take every day, and how the Reverend might reconcile this peculiar historical divergence in liberalism and social spending.
I further wonder how Jesus would feel about the huge reduction in tax burden on the poor orchestrated by the current administration and Republican--controlled Congress...
...the average wage earner in this bottom quintile is paying roughly 22% less in federal income taxes as a result of these legislative changes than under Clinton. Would Jesus disapprove of this tax reduction on our nation's poor? Would Reverend Dubuque?
I also wonder how Jesus would view the charitable donation habits of the members of both of our political parties. For instance, the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non--profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.
According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama ---- all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts) which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin.
Given these statistics, what would Jesus think of liberals if he were alive today? Is the Reverend correct in his assertions that Jesus would actually want to be one? Or, is this quite missing the point? Would Jesus be so myopic? Would he view charity in terms of numbers and percentages? Or, would he instead be pleased by the generosity of all souls, and not make such inane comparisons?
In fact, wouldn't Jesus look at the poor in our nation, and how they live compared to anywhere else on the planet ---- with television sets, DVD players, satellite dishes, and, maybe most important, the freedom to worship whomever, whenever, and wherever they want, and conclude that Americans ---- Democrats and Republicans alike ---- are by far the most charitable and generous of souls regardless of political leaning?[/quote]
So much for the Democrats' latest version of Rev. Ike. Game...Set... Match!
Proof
· 2 years ago
Unfortunately, at some point, Ray DuBuque began believing that the "social" gospel was more important than [b]the real thing![/b]
HG
· 2 years ago
Nman,
It appears crooked liberal democrat officials are omitted because after they take their cut, the give other peoples hard earned monies to minorities.
Rev.,
How much envy and resentment does one have to live with before they twist Christianity into socialism?
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]Unfortunately, at some point, Ray DuBuque began believing that the "social" gospel was more important than the real thing! [/quote]
Exactly Proof, you nailed it!
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Damn, Bravo1, I just did a quick lrrp through, and hastily pulled back, dropping off claymores and boobys as I went to forestall this piece of crap attempting to backtrack and hack me. Noel is a braver man than I! Soon as I saw what its bag was I DiDi Maued the hell out of there.
Nman, I thought I was going to get some face time with the Phelpsites this weekend but they were a no show, and everybody, yesterday I promised to get some pics of codepink and their comrades. No dice! They were nowhere to be seen at Walter Reed or the Mall. Talked to a couple of the gate guards at the south Georgia Ave entrance, they said leftards only show anymore when they know the press is going to be there. Typical asshats.
Rev. Ray Dubuque
· 2 years ago
2Hotel9, Your writing "this fake religionist is no more a Reverend than Sharpton and Jackson are. Go checkout its little hate site. Probably directly linked to Fred Phelps' Church of the Eternal Lawsuit." certainly shows what an expert you are on religion. Now Ann Coulter is your idea of an expert on Christianity. Nobody was stupid enough to ask her what expertise she had, so they merely asked her what church she attended. When she replied "Holy Redeemer Presbyterian" in Manhattan, somebody actually went there to find out how often she attended, and the membership secretary of the church didn't know that she had EVER attended. But when a clergyman whose order have been recognized by two of the largest mainline Christian denomination in the country doesn't reflect your Ann Coulter theology, you dare to question my credentials !
And comparing me to Fred Phelps is the height of stupidity, as their is no more CONSERVATIVE clergyman in the country! You can try to distance yourself all you want, but there's no rational way in the world that you can hang the liberal tag on that conservative nutcase!!!!
Rev. Ray Dubuque
· 2 years ago
Bat One, I debated Noel Sheppard on the Colmes radio show and would have debated him again on his own blog, where he attacked me without giving me any opportunity to defend MY position. Real COURAGE that! As for his points: "[i]why are the wealthiest members of Congress liberals? I guess the Reverend didn't know that the top five richest senators in our nation are Democrats, or that John Kerry who sits at the very top of this list is considered to be the most liberal member. Isn't this somewhat incongruous?[/i]"
Democrats used to run lowly working class people for office, but figured out along the way that the only way they could win elections against Greedy Old Party fat cats was to run with generous rich people like the Kennedy's who had the money to GET ELECTED and then would work on behalf of working class people, as opposed to Republican fat cats who work constantly to make themselves ever richer.
As for Kerry being the most liberal, that's absurd. I have a complete listing of the Senate rankings in 2002 on my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/demvsgo... page which shows him tied with Joe Lieberman as 28th most liberal.
"[i]Conversely, with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican--controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats. This obviously leads one to wonder how Jesus would look upon those who voted against a bill that for the first time in American history would pay some of the costs for the medicines that senior citizens take every day, and how the Reverend might reconcile this peculiar historical divergence in liberalism and social spending.[/i]" Why is Sheppard so reluctant to NAME the bill in question, the infamous Medicare Part D bill, which only passed because its promoters LIED about its true cost, most of which DOESN'T go to buy healthcare, but goes to enrich the drug companies. This is the bill which also makes it ILLEGAL for the government to negotiate for lower prices, and makes it illegal for medicare patients to get lower priced medications from Canada (even if they were made in the U.S.A.!) You are damned right that UNLIKE Republicans, Democrats - who have been pushing for a GOOD Medicare Drug plan for decades - opposed this boondoggle. By the way, the former Democrat, turned Republican Congressman quit his seat as soon as he had pushed through this boondoggle in order to take one of the leading highest paying lobbyist job the pharmaceutical industry had to offer.
Rev. Ray Dubuque
· 2 years ago
Neiman, You say : "[i]you apparently have no problem with the Democrats, the party behind all the hostility to Christ in our federal legislation and judicial decisions, and the death of Judeo-Christian values in America.[/i]" After Hillary Clinton has moved into the White House and there is a solid majority of liberal Democrats in both houses of Congress in 2009, how would you and your conservative friends like to join me in promoting the "Liberals Like Christ" view of Christianity in all of the public schools and other public places in America? What's that you say? Oh, I didn't think you would like that idea. You only want religion in our public life if it's YOUR IDEA of religion. I'm afraid that you people would have despised our LIBERAL founding fathers for keeping God out of our Constitution and religion out of the public functions of the United State of America. It's silly for conservatives today to claim ANY of the founding fathers as their own, as the conservatives of that time were the ones who sided WITH "THE CROWN". They were called "Loyalists" or "Tories".
spartacus
· 2 years ago
[quote]And yet again the fake religionist vomits more Democrat propaganda.[/quote]
I was wondering if it would bust some rock-a-billy tunes the likes of the Reverend Horton Heat.
2Hotel9
· 2 years ago
Fake assed religionist, I pavement smacked Phelps and I will pavement smack your socialist ass, too. Your god Marx has been cast down, your continued worship of him is an affront to God and to Humanity. You are just another child molesting liar, just like Freddie Phelps.
HG
· 2 years ago
[quote]I'm afraid that you people would have despised our LIBERAL founding fathers for keeping God out of our Constitution and religion out of the public functions of the United State of America.[/quote]
Rev,
The Declaration of Independence declares the source (Creator) of the unalienable rights of individuals, and the constitution acknowledges, secures and protects those rights. Just because the Creator is not directly mentioned does not mean He was "left out".
Religion out of the public functions does not mean the Creator was left out. A simple scan of our historic documents proves this to be true. Thanksgiving is a national holiday established to give thanks to the Creator for the blessing of liberty.
Acknowledging the existence of a Creator does not require religion or religious belief.
All Comments
Of 22 Republican Senate seats in play, five have announced retirement.
[quote]
"The race may not always be to the swift nor the victory to the strong, but that's how you bet". [/quote]Damon Runyon
And yet there is no one in the center countering this, and no one on the right even accepts that this is an issue that can be used to club the nannystaters with.
We are in the DC area for the holiday, and the profusion of"Impeach Them" signs scattered about is quite entertaining, and heartening. Nothing would warm my heat more than watching the Democrats piss away what little political capital they have on long, drawn out impeachment proceedings. Nothing dreamed up by political hack for TV ads would be as effective at scuttling Democrat aspirations than that.
Who votes to have their taxes raised?
Those who who pay either no or next to no taxes and depend on government to redistribute the wealth in this country; those epmloyed by governemnt; those misguided few who really believe government can actually solve problems.
See http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/ & http://JesusDemocrat.Org/
"Old news: Jack Abramoff, Bernard Kerick, Duke Cunningham"
See http://JesusNoRepublican.Org/ where all of these REPUBLICANS in the U.S. Congress are highlighed :
Conrad Burns, Rick Santorum, Ted Stevens, Larry Craig, Philip Giordano, Tom DeLay, Newt Gingrich, Henry Hyde, Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Bob Ney, Tom Noe, Richard Pombo, Bill Thomas, Charles Canady, Dick Armey, John Peterson, Helen Chenoweth, Katherine Harris, Wild Bill, Janklow, J.C. Watts, Connie Mack, John Schmitz, Donald, Buz, Lukens, Ken Calvert, Dan Crane, Jim Bunn, Sue Myrick, Robert Bauman, Ed Schrock, Roy Blunt, Rick Renzi, Charles Taylor, Duke, Cunningham, Don Sherwood, Roy Blunt, Tom Feeney, Mark Foley, Marilyn Musgrave,
but there's tons MORE on Corrupt REPUBLICANS in state govewnment at http://LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/.
So what makes this sleazy party to attractive to you? Are you on the RECEIVING end of some of that corruption? Or are you delighted to see your taxes going to so many crooks so long as they are REPUBLICAN crooks and that tax money won't be going go help colored people, or people with accents?
Further, you apparently have no problem with the Democrats, the party of death, the party behind all the hostility to Christ in our federal legislation and judicial decisions, and the death of Judeo-Christian values in America.
This reminds me of Hoffa. He dealt with the mob and had less that a saintly character, but he fought with his fists and risked his life on many occasions, all to benefit the Teamsters, to make their lives better. While the GOP has its number of less than honest human beings, about equal in number to the Democrat Party - it is the GOP that fights for economic opportunity and liberty for all Americans and has gone abroad to help others advance that same dream. While the Democrats would deny liberty to everyone here and abrioad, they would rather people be dependent upon them for everything in life and they would rather socialist dictators rule other nations with a cruel, iron hand over their people, as they dream for such power for themselves.
You made a lovely choice in being a liberal REVEREND!
Yes, I suspected he was an intolerant fake reverend, but I wanted to counter his idiotic accusations anyway.
[quote]As one delves further, it becomes apparent that the Reverend's guiding tenet is that religion and conservatism are mutually exclusive concepts that could not possibly co--exist in the same soul:
[i]For Jesus, as for many other great prophets of the Bible, the pursuit of riches and the pursuit of salvation are so incompatible that one cannot choose one without turning away from the other. And the more riches one possesses the harder it is to choose salvation, because it requires the repudiation of those riches. Any true follower of Christ who sees today's "Religious Right" inviting the wealthy to come into their churches, to bring all their money in with them, to share it generously ---- not with the poor, but ---- with the churches and their clergy, knows that there is something very wrong with this picture.[/i]
So, I guess, using this logic, liberals can't be interested in money. Of course, if this is indeed the case, why are the wealthiest members of Congress liberals? I guess the Reverend didn't know that the top five richest senators in our nation are Democrats, or that John Kerry who sits at the very top of this list is considered to be the most liberal member. Isn't this somewhat incongruous?
Conversely, with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican--controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats.
This obviously leads one to wonder how Jesus would look upon those who voted against a bill that for the first time in American history would pay some of the costs for the medicines that senior citizens take every day, and how the Reverend might reconcile this peculiar historical divergence in liberalism and social spending.
I further wonder how Jesus would feel about the huge reduction in tax burden on the poor orchestrated by the current administration and Republican--controlled Congress...
...the average wage earner in this bottom quintile is paying roughly 22% less in federal income taxes as a result of these legislative changes than under Clinton. Would Jesus disapprove of this tax reduction on our nation's poor? Would Reverend Dubuque?
I also wonder how Jesus would view the charitable donation habits of the members of both of our political parties. For instance, the Catalogue For Philanthropy recently released their 2004 Generosity Index with some rather stunning findings. What this directory of non--profit organizations does every year is compare the average adjusted gross income of each state to the average itemized charitable deduction, and derive a ranking based upon the differences in these statistics.
According to their calculations, for the eighth year in a row, Mississippi is the most generous state in our nation, followed by Arkansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana, and Alabama ---- all red states that Mr. Bush won by an average margin of 25%. In fact, the top 25 most philanthropic states according to this study all voted for Mr. Bush. This means that all the states that Mr. Kerry won in November fall into the bottom half of charitable contributions as related to income in our nation. Moreover, the worst seven states in this study also all voted for Mr. Kerry, including number 49 (Massachusetts) which Mr. Kerry won by a comfortable 25% margin.
Given these statistics, what would Jesus think of liberals if he were alive today? Is the Reverend correct in his assertions that Jesus would actually want to be one? Or, is this quite missing the point? Would Jesus be so myopic? Would he view charity in terms of numbers and percentages? Or, would he instead be pleased by the generosity of all souls, and not make such inane comparisons?
In fact, wouldn't Jesus look at the poor in our nation, and how they live compared to anywhere else on the planet ---- with television sets, DVD players, satellite dishes, and, maybe most important, the freedom to worship whomever, whenever, and wherever they want, and conclude that Americans ---- Democrats and Republicans alike ---- are by far the most charitable and generous of souls regardless of political leaning?[/quote]
So much for the Democrats' latest version of Rev. Ike. Game...Set... Match!
It appears crooked liberal democrat officials are omitted because after they take their cut, the give other peoples hard earned monies to minorities.
Rev.,
How much envy and resentment does one have to live with before they twist Christianity into socialism?
Exactly Proof, you nailed it!
Nman, I thought I was going to get some face time with the Phelpsites this weekend but they were a no show, and everybody, yesterday I promised to get some pics of codepink and their comrades. No dice! They were nowhere to be seen at Walter Reed or the Mall. Talked to a couple of the gate guards at the south Georgia Ave entrance, they said leftards only show anymore when they know the press is going to be there. Typical asshats.
But when a clergyman whose order have been recognized by two of the largest mainline Christian denomination in the country doesn't reflect your Ann Coulter theology, you dare to question my credentials !
And comparing me to Fred Phelps is the height of stupidity, as their is no more CONSERVATIVE clergyman in the country! You can try to distance yourself all you want, but there's no rational way in the world that you can hang the liberal tag on that conservative nutcase!!!!
I debated Noel Sheppard on the Colmes radio show and would have debated him again on his own blog, where he attacked me without giving me any opportunity to defend MY position. Real COURAGE that!
As for his points:
"[i]why are the wealthiest members of Congress liberals? I guess the Reverend didn't know that the top five richest senators in our nation are Democrats, or that John Kerry who sits at the very top of this list is considered to be the most liberal member. Isn't this somewhat incongruous?[/i]"
Democrats used to run lowly working class people for office, but figured out along the way that the only way they could win elections against Greedy Old Party fat cats was to run with generous rich people like the Kennedy's who had the money to GET ELECTED and then would work on behalf of working class people, as opposed to Republican fat cats who work constantly to make themselves ever richer.
As for Kerry being the most liberal, that's absurd.
I have a complete listing of the Senate rankings in 2002 on my http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/about/demvsgo...
page which shows him tied with Joe Lieberman as 28th most liberal.
"[i]Conversely, with regard to the inherent greed of conservatives, in 2003, a Republican--controlled Congress, along with a Republican president, passed and enacted the largest expansion of an entitlement program since 1965. Strangely, only eleven Democratic senators voted for this huge social spending increase, as compared to 43 Republicans. Even more bizarre, in the House, only sixteen of the 220 votes in favor of this bill came from Democrats.
This obviously leads one to wonder how Jesus would look upon those who voted against a bill that for the first time in American history would pay some of the costs for the medicines that senior citizens take every day, and how the Reverend might reconcile this peculiar historical divergence in liberalism and social spending.[/i]"
Why is Sheppard so reluctant to NAME the bill in question, the infamous Medicare Part D bill, which only passed because its promoters LIED about its true cost, most of which DOESN'T go to buy healthcare, but goes to enrich the drug companies. This is the bill which also makes it ILLEGAL for the government to negotiate for lower prices, and makes it illegal for medicare patients to get lower priced medications from Canada (even if they were made in the U.S.A.!)
You are damned right that UNLIKE Republicans, Democrats - who have been pushing for a GOOD Medicare Drug plan for decades - opposed this boondoggle.
By the way, the former Democrat, turned Republican Congressman quit his seat as soon as he had pushed through this boondoggle in order to take one of the leading highest paying lobbyist job the pharmaceutical industry had to offer.
"[i]you apparently have no problem with the Democrats, the party behind all the hostility to Christ in our federal legislation and judicial decisions, and the death of Judeo-Christian values in America.[/i]"
After Hillary Clinton has moved into the White House and there is a solid majority of liberal Democrats in both houses of Congress in 2009, how would you and your conservative friends like to join me in promoting the "Liberals Like Christ" view of Christianity in all of the public schools and other public places in America?
What's that you say? Oh, I didn't think you would like that idea. You only want religion in our public life if it's YOUR IDEA of religion. I'm afraid that you people would have despised our LIBERAL founding fathers for keeping God out of our Constitution and religion out of the public functions of the United State of America.
It's silly for conservatives today to claim ANY of the founding fathers as their own, as the conservatives of that time were the ones who sided WITH "THE CROWN". They were called "Loyalists" or "Tories".
I was wondering if it would bust some rock-a-billy tunes the likes of the Reverend Horton Heat.
Rev,
The Declaration of Independence declares the source (Creator) of the unalienable rights of individuals, and the constitution acknowledges, secures and protects those rights. Just because the Creator is not directly mentioned does not mean He was "left out".
Religion out of the public functions does not mean the Creator was left out. A simple scan of our historic documents proves this to be true. Thanksgiving is a national holiday established to give thanks to the Creator for the blessing of liberty.
Acknowledging the existence of a Creator does not require religion or religious belief.