The New Road

Let me preface my comments by saying I was once a die-hard democrat just like you and not just a democratic voter, but someone from a long line of elected democratic senators and representatives from Tennessee as well as I being a FOB & elected a National Delegate for Bill Clinton in 92&96 and Tennessee's Young Democrat of the Year for 92-93 & 93-94. However, I have always been true to a somewhat conservative leaning idealology and consider myself a moderate republican now which is about the same as being a Southern/Conservative democrat. I am a strong Bush supporter now and do not believe that everyone can be saved from hardships and unfairness in the world, especially at the cost of those who sacrifice time & time again for the benefit of the have-nots in the America or the world! As Reagan said, you do not strenghten the weak by weakening the strong! Most all of us conservatives beleive in the teaching a man to fish principal and not the give a man a fish practice I so read on your site.

To address your issues as best I can:
* Seems a GOP Congress did not hold Bill Clinton in contempt when time and time again documents failed to be turned over, memo's never read, billing records suddenly lost & suddenly found, Executive priviledge invoked, etc. from 1993-2000. Took an illegal act of lying to a Grand Jury in order to bring impeachment proceedings against him which had you & I lied to a grand jury would surely have brought some jail time regardless of the issue in question.
* The big difference between Bush & Clinton's management of White House affairs is EVERYTHING went through Bill & Hillary which implies they actually see the memo's, but Bush, like most all other Presidents delegate the duties as he should so when he said he did not see "memo's" you can pretty much accept he never saw them.
* Who cares about prisoner torture or abuse anyway. I wish those prisoners would never have been prisoners in the first place, but rather killed in the battlefield saving us much time and money. Remember now, we just did not "detain" these prisoners, but they are prisoners that were trying to kill our soldiers and other innocent Iraqi's but quickly ran up the white flag when they saw their doom flash before their faces via an M16 or M-1 Abrams tank. However, I guess you would rather we let these prisoners free for our inhumane treatment of them even though they are ruthless killers just as we(I mean Bill Clinton) DEMANDED the Isreali's release Mohamed Atta who later flew a plane into the World Trade Center. At least the administration is investigating when every other country would never have allowed the press to manipulate an investigation. Mark my word - after June 30th, the Iraqi govt will say the hell with the press and order them out of the country and you will not see the negative reporting you do now from a US controlled environment.
* Ashcroft - seems you forget Reno and her Waco memo's. Additionally, the Justice Dept has no control over the Pentagon so that would be Rumsfeld and not Ashcroft. Authorizing torture: well, embarrassment is not torture you & the media seem to suggest. Torture is "physical" abuse and when all the evidence is finally provided, you will see that any physical abuse was minimal. However, can you claim the same from Iraqi's who "physically" tortured US Soldiers? Seem Jessica Lynch and her counterparts came out completely unscathed and without a scratch. Nick Berg never had a hand laid on his lower body afte they cut his head off so I have to give them credit for not physically abusing him. If sleep deprivation, nude exposure, religious disrespect gets the Iraqi's to talk then I say lets get more torture and get less media in our military prisons.
*The 3 Star General was pressured to recuse himself for being seen as a Pentagon stooge by the democrats - I figured you would be jumping for joy with his replacement.
* cry all you want about Bush but at least he stands his ground rather than allowing polls to dictate his beleifes. Bill Clinton never met a poll he didn't like and I can assure you the polls are totally media manipulated. The only poll that will matter is the one on election day and that is one everyone should be able to live with win or lose.

From what I read here, you:

* Advocate torture.

* Really advocate torture without accountability.

* Think Ashcroft is innocent because his memos wouldn't have impacted anything anyway because he is in a different department.

* Everything is ok, because it least it wasn't Clinton.

* The Clinton impeachment (in hindsight) was a great thing to do because he was obviously a horrible President.

Am I getting the messgae clearly enough?

Here are some questions for you.

* Whatever that was in those prisons, be it abuse, or torture, or what have you. Would you like that to be done to you?

* Can you come up with anything positive to say about what Bush has done other than to say that 'at least he is better than Clinton and crew'.

* I understand that Republican's tend to view people by the 'kind of people they are' as opposed to what the do. But don't you think it's important to actually judge someones performance in Government based on what they do? And on that criteria, the 'what he has done' criteria, how does your man Bush come out?

I am leaving for the day and will reply in detail later, but if I am trying to kill someone, let say - the enemy, then if I am caught alive I accept any and all consequences brought on to my demise from the person I just tried to kill, and kill, and kill, etc. So, yes, torture is fine with me, but I am smart enough to go down fighting if at all possible, but knowing America is filled with liberal, compassionate, no one is at fault citizens, then I know my chances are much better being an enemy of America than an American being an enemy of mine. More later.

In addition, I fought over there in 1990-91 so I am no dummy as to the Iraqi/Muslim torture tactics, especially the slap on the hand tactics Saddam usually provides his own people much less the enemy. However, I am sure you know all about serving your country and personal sacrifice at the benefits of your American breathren.

Not sure quite what to say about your first reply, besides that it is really scary. Was that your intention?

As to your second reply, am I to understand that my opinion doesn't count because I haven't served my country in the military?

Looking through this conversation I am struck by several things.

First, Democrat of the Year? What happened?

Second, I'm not sure about the whole teaching people to fish thing. Education is an important part of my job. I wrote a book on new programming techniques. I don't think I'm a fish giver type guy. But hey, I would love to see where you think I am giving fish. If it's not about teaching, if it's about Christianity, yeah, I'm not a fish type guy.

Third, on to your views on torture. Are you sure you really mean that? That torture and abuse is ok? Was the Bataan death march ok? How about the Hanoi Hilton? Were those ok? Because if it really is all is fair in love and war, and torture is ok, then why are those incidents considered bad? And why does Bush say that he is appalled by the actions, and that they were not indicative of American values. Don't you support your President? Don't you believe in what he is saying?

As for the military service. I volunteered for the draft just like everyone else and I would have served if I had been called up. I have no connections. No outs. Unlike Cheney, Bush, Rummy, Wolfowitz, Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and all of the Chickenhawk crew. I, like probably 90+% of American's haven't served. At least I'm not arguing for a war that I would not personally serve in.

You left Clinton off your list of Chickenhawks, Jack. I'll step out now and let you two gentlemen continue . . .

True. Clinton did not serve.

But it does bring up an interesting point. Which is Rush's attitude towards Clinton during the Bosnian war. Rush's has a firm Christian value-based moral absolutist view that it is the duty of every patriotic American to support the President in war time. Rush of course supported Clinton's war in Bosnia, right? Wrong. He attacked him daily on every possible angle able the war. So absolute, might not be so absolute after all.

As for my opinion on the Bosnian war, I actually never completely formulated one. All I can recall from that time is helping a friend get his young daughter out of the country to safety in the U.S.

I will try and make some sense of the comments you had questions on from my postings, but I probably have little sense for spending way too much time & effort on this!:

first of all, you assumed so many things I never said - do I advocate torture? Of course not, i would prefer everyone treat each others prisoners humanely, but I also know that humiliating prisoners is not torture. The media calls it torture because they have a democratic party agenda to push, but these prisoners are so different than the typical ones in Iraq. Did you know there is over 14 prisoner camps in Iraq at this moment being ran by US troops? why is there not all this other eveidence of abuse - it goes back to one prison where the worst of the worst are and using "mental" tactics to get information is ok with me. If we happen to overstep our boundries ONCE, then I can accept that considering I have yet to find another country that has played as fair as we have for the last 200 years. In the end, as a prisoner I can only hope I am treated as I would treat others, but if I am tortured by the enemy then I accept that as my fate - I would not do the same. however, from the vantage point of a prisoner, i really don't have a say as to what happens to me. I can assure you, there is not any torture going on in those prisons unless you call humiliation torture!

Serving your country - you assume even more. Your opinion counts highly and that is why I chose to serve so you could have that right, but when your (or basically the ones crying foul on the American troops service for their country) opinion becomes more of an agenda to defeat the American cause rather than an opinion on the issue, then I guess that I have to say that you would understand and see things differently had you served in the military. I have yet to see any Iraqi War detractor comment on all the good going on in Iraq. If you actually read or investigated more, you would see that there is at least a 20-1 ratio of positive results coming out of Iraq than negative issues related around an Islamic Radical and the City of Bagdad. This tells me you are getting all your info from the TV media. How many reports are coming from anywhere but Bagdad and its suburbs - places where all the Saddam loyalist and radical Muslims are living. the funny thing is if we Americans were not there, the rest of Iraq would have already destroyed these Muslim & Saddam loyalist through civil war! Maybe we should have pulled out of Japan and Europe after WW2 and let them rebuilt on their own. Would you not say those regions are better off now because we stayed and help. We never started those wars, but as with them, Iraq & the World will be much better off in 10 years because Bush didn't give a crap what the left & compassionates were saying and stayed the course with the American presence there.

Clinton - you assume again! Clinton was a fantastic politician and knew how to manage the short term issues in the White House very well. if Bush had any of Clinton's political ability, you would not be seeing so much negative press. I supported Clinton (twice) remember - never said he was horrible - you assumed. I never said the impeachment was because I did not like him, I said it was because HE BROKE THE LAW IN FRONT OF YOU & I AS 'THE PEOPLE" HE SWORE TO TELL THE TRUTH & NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH SO HELP HIM GOD". Though his White House was filled with scandal, Bush is not even to be compared to Clinton's White House when it comes to Exec priveledges, etc. Every President has those rights. The humorous thing is what is it he is suppose to be hiding? Memo's left over from Clinton years telling of a possible attack on the US? Maybe the memo saying that WMD could not be verified in Iraq because the left/democratic leadership (by using the United Nations) had stalled the invasion long enough for Saddam to ship them to Syria. Better yet, the memo's telling Clinton for 8 years that Saddam had WMD and was aiding Al Queda was obviously fake even though Clinton made 7 speeches saying the opposite. No, I do not like Clinton as a person, but he was one great politician and Governor.

clinton part 2 - Clinton went into Bosnia war without UN support as well. My uncle, who bleew the place up as a Colonel went there as a retiree with Haliburton (just as he is in Iraq now it HB). No one ever accused Clinton of being in Haliburtons pocket from 1992-2000.

young democrat - I finally gave up when for 20 years only one voice of the party was represented - the far left. I found that it would be better for me to spend the next 30 years of my life trying to make the Republicans more moderate rather than fighting a losing battle trying to make the democrats a few degrees right of "far left". time will tell who the real "peoples party" is, but all the Red on the electoral map sure looked like "The People" to me rather than isolated inner city areas covered in blue.

Republicans beleive in the "teach a man to fish" and if for some reason that person has (temporary) hard times until he gets back on his feet, then lets give him a fish during that hardship. Democrats beleive in giving the man a fish and then "teaching" him how to manipulate the system to get even more fish then blame the republicans for making him dependent upon the giving.

Listen Jack, I was somewhat like you in really being "addicted" to politics. I tried 8+ years to get Reagan beat, 4+ years to get Bush 1 beat, and much more - I finally got away from politics because elections were ruining my optimism and probably mental health! I am sure you would agree on the mental health! I focused on family, church, and community beginning in 1997 and when I sort of looked back after a few years - I had changed dramatically - for the good! I still harbor some liberal viewpoints,or at least I would say "open minded viewpoints", but overall I lean just right of Moderate which is what I feel is best for the country and our government. I like your passion - I had it once and I still have it - just under more control. My advice to you would be to harness that passion into solutions. once you have a plan - sell it! convince me and I will be your biggest promoter, but liberals can't keep complaining without offering sound solutions that work. Somewhere, the solutions of the New Deal and Great Society have overrun their purpose (in my opinion).

lets move onto another argument now, but do reply! I say we need to argue on whether kerry is the best choice, or whether Bush should drop Cheney for someone else!

*Sorry for the typo's and tirade!

yours truly,
Brett

Ah, where to start. Should I debate the assumptive assumptions? Or just the conclusions.

Actually, I'm going to take a different tack and let me see where it gets us. I was listening to Hannity today. Another broadcaster on the show said that this was no longer a battle between Democrat and Republican. It was a battle between those that believe in God (Republicans) and those that don't (Democrats.) (Which is wrong on it's face because there are a lot more Democrats than atheists.) Another broadcaster went on to say that it was a battle between those that recognize evil and those that don't.

So I ask you. Is this what you believe? And, in particular, is this what you believe about me?

I ask this because, I, like you, at one time believed in absolutes. That there were good people and bad people. And that people were lazy or productive. Everything was an absolute. It wasn't based on the Bible. It was just my twelve year old take on the world. it was when I started to meet people. To talk with them. To experience other opinions and viewpoints. To see that the world isn't absolute, that it is many shades of gray. That there are many ways of thinking and expressing universal truths (like electrifying peoples genitals is bad). And it was then that I became a liberal. Because I embrace difference. I embrace the basic idea that my view on the world is no better or worse than your view, and that I shouldn't ever impose my view on you.

So why all of the exposition. I think it's easy to think of absolutes when it comes to populations. "Liberals are all idiots". "Democrats are subhumans". But these generalizations fall down when it comes to a particular individual.

I asked Jacqueline if she was morally superior to me. She never responded. My sincere hope is that she didn't respond because she knows me, knows that I am not a drug addict, that I love my kid and would never lay a hand on her, that I have never cheated on my wife, that I give to the poor and needy, and that I am a moral man, even if I am not a Christian. But that this personal reality doesn't jibe with the generalization that all Liberals are degenerates.

I think this is at the core of what enrages me about talk radio. Hannity accuses me, a very moral, very upright, person of being no better than a degenerate animal because I have the audacity not to believe in his party and his God. And that there are millions of people out there that suck in this crap daily and nod their heads scares me. Because, and I really mean this, all this rhetoric sounds like machete sharpening to me.

Hannity is wrong first of all, if he in fact said it so bluntly. I would have said that democrats, in their attempt to show compassion where i would disagree compassion needs to be shown in cases, do more to enhance and further the counter-productive causes of those whom have no respect for faith & morality (regardless of religion) that our country is desperately needing. I mean, have we over-compensated or over-emphasized the de-moralization/religion our our founding fathers & countries 200 years of moral existence? Maybe so, but I will say that I beleive there has been a tremendous moral decline in our country and one party makes a concerted attempt to at least correct the slide and one party is doing more to continue the slide. I know you are moral and good and caring and would make a great republican, but you also make a great democrat.

I do not tolerate difference to the point where it goes against basic american values and morality. I am not tolerate and compassionate any more of people who beleive we should change rather than themselves. There are plenty of societies out there that accept their viewpoints - why can't we have one society that lives by the principles of the founding fathers?

do you owe allegiance to your faith, country or political party first? I just see one party emphasizing faith and American founding principles more than the other and I switched to that party. However, had I remained democrat, I would still be advocating more pro-life platforms, more less govt platforms, more moral platforms, etc. and I wonder if you do the same. Maybe you are simply guilty by association as I was and someday you will realize that your party really does not advocate your beliefs. I could go on and on and provide actual point by point proof for I was a political operative from 1970 to 1996 and have a darn good memory, but all I can say is keep an open mind over the next 10 years.

You are a good person and a good husband and a good father as I beleive I am. In time, as you get a little older and the experiences of life with family you will see the democratic party differences in your values and it will literally be like a slap on the face. I am not saying the GOP is the answer, just an alternative, but an alternative that I felt was better for me than libertarian. There is a need for a liberal party just as there is a conservative party - it allows good debate and choice, but I sort of wished the democratic party would have been the one to remain the "people's party" by adopting more conservative stances in certian areas, but McGovern I beleived changed the direction forever. Anyhow - Jacqueline has done nothing but speak highly of you and I really like the debate - it does more to educate, inform, and promote goodwill and cooperation than anything in existence. The big difference is with extreme liberals and conservatives - they beleive opposing viewpoints has to mean they view the other as an enemy. I, probably like you, view opposing viewpoints as just a disagreement of opinions.

Lets move on! Who is Kerry picking for VP - or who would you like him to pick?

I may be more extreme than you think. Because I really doubt that as I grow older I will forsake my friends, whom I love, who happen to live (very happily) in a way that conflicts with an all-too-powerful religion that has all of the factual basis of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy.

Nor will I ever sympathise with people who believe that torture is ok if the person is a "non-believer", or that blowing the heads off of doctors who happen to practice abortion is ok.

Nor will I ever turn my life over to the teachings of a single inherintely contradictory book written and re-written by a bunch a recluses thousands of years ago. Whose believers, if they follow the golden rule, apprently would enjoy having electric leads attached to their genitalia.

Nor will I ever forsake the seperation of church and state. Because, after all, what would the official religion be? Christianity? Really? What about the Unitarians? What about the Waco nuts?

Nor will I allow prayer in schools.

Nor will I say "under God" when I recite the pledge.

If you think those views are extreme, then that's fine. I am a happy proud extremist. Me and my nutty friend will live a happy rainbow filled life to the end of our days. (Which, may, of course, be cut short by the sharp edge of a neo-con machete.)

Straight but not narrow. Darwin fish. Linux. Religion is the opiate of the masses. These are what I live by. Age will not temper that. Only sharpen it.

What you call the moral decline of the country I see as the country growing up and joining a world community which long ago shed the shackels of a puritanical lifestyle. I do not think of the 50s as the golden age, because I look at those days and think to myself that my current best friend and I would be at opposite ends of a race war, and my other friends would miserably be in the closet.

Borrowing from another religion I will pass on a story of a young man who set out to change the world. But he found that changing the world was too difficult, so he started with his town. But that was too difficult as well. So he started with himself, and he found he had a lot of fixing to do there before he could fix anyone else. Does that apply to you? I don't know. But I know enough about me to understand that I am not perfect, and that my own happiness has to start from within. And only when I am happy can I help to make others around me happy. I've also learned that happiness is all that matters. And when I try to force my ideals of happiness on someone else, I am not happy and they are not happy.

Please read me loud and clear on this. I DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN A BACKWARDS ASS 50's RETRO SITCOM LEAVE IT TO BEAVER WORLD. I would not be happy there. I neither need nor want Christianity. I understand it and I DISCARD IT COMPLETELY.

My wife can believe in it if she wants. My daughter can choose to believe in it if she wants. That's fine. That is there own business. If they take happiness in it, I am glad for them. But it doesn't work for me, and you have no right to enforce it on me. That is freedom. That is the principle upon which I would sacrifice my life.

Saying that we have similar viewpoints around this is completely dicounting my entire philosophy of life. There was a movement a couple years back by the Christian groups to co-opt new age thinkers by saying that "You may call it something else, but we all believe in God." Which is insane. The essence of Western Philosophy is that happiness can only be found inside yourself. While Christian thought is that happiness comes from a higher power, and then is enforced on your neighbours.

It's been said that Liberals hate Christians and the right wing. That's not true. I don't hate Christians. I think there is some good, often overlooked, stuff in that book (and, yes, Jacqueline, I know what the golden rule is). You can believe whatever you want to believe. I will not stop you. And more importantly I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU BELIEVE IN.

The problem that I have is when you believe that the government is an extension of your belief system and that it should be enforced on me. That somehow the security and economic infrastructure mechanism that we call the 'federal government' is also a dispenser of little blue Christian morality pills that we all have to swallow twice a day. It's not. It never has been. The founding fathers created a framework where we could work and live together in harmony and where you and I could choose to believe in whatever we want to. There is a basic set of security and economic laws and that's it. In fact, there are laws that specifically prohibit the intrusion of religion into that framework. They are there for a very good reason. To protect people like me, from people, well, like you. Who for some strange reason, believe that I am misguided, and are in some dire need of morality re-education.

I also can't believe in something that is so obviously inherintly self-contradictory. For example, how can someone be for prayer in schools, and against the people in Fallujah who are now enforicing Sharia law (the future judicial system of the entire country of Iraq)? Prayer in the schools is just the first step to a wide spread Christian version of Sharia law. This is why the seperation of church and state is a good thing, for both you and me. It means I can be me. And you can be free to choose whatever congrigation you want. Seriously, come on, this is Civics 101 stuff.

As to Hannity, I have never once heard him, or any of his neo-con crew say they were wrong about anything.

As you walk up the steps to the building which houses the U.S. Supreme Court you can see near the top of the building a row of the world's law givers and each one is facing one in the middle who is facing forward with a full frontal view ...
it is Moses and he is holding the Ten Commandments

As you enter the Supreme Court courtroom, the two huge oak doors have the Ten Commandments engraved on each lower portion of each door.

As you sit inside the courtroom, you can see the wall, right above where the Supreme Court judges sit,a display of the Ten Commandments

There are Bible verses etched in stone all over
the Federal Buildings and Monuments in Washington, D.C.

James Madison, the fourth president, known as "The Father of Our Constitution" made the following statement:

"We have staked the whole of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Patrick Henry, that patriot and Founding Father of our country said:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ".

Every session of Congress begins with a prayer by a paid preacher, whose salary has been paid by the taxpayer since 1777.

Fifty-two of the 55 founders of the Constitution were members of the established orthodox churches in the colonies.

Thomas Jefferson worried that the Courts would overstep their authority and instead of interpreting the law would begin making law ...
an oligarchy ... the rule of few over many.

The very first Supreme Court Justice, John Jay, said:

"Americans should select and prefer Christians as their rulers."

I'm not saying Christianity is for everyone. I'm certainly not trying to convert anyone. I don't care what you believe either, as long as you don't try take my rights away. But let us be clear that this country was founded by deeply religious, Christian people. (You know, the ones who killed all of the native americans they could and forced the rest to live in swamps).

AS for my not responding to your question of moral superiority, I'm sorry. That must have been an oversight. I don't even remember which conversation it was in, but you're probably right. I probably took it as a rhetorical question or responded to a different point. I do know you and have nothing but the utmost respect and love for you. I just don't agree with you on a lot of things - but that is nothing new. I don't recall us ever really totally agreeing on anything except that Lori is a treasure.

You are right about Lori. She is indeed a treasure.

Now at the same time what you have talked about was created and said, the value of a black slave was 2/3s of a man. Things change. You can't go from a religious monarchy to a capitalist democracy in one step. You have to take small steps. Jefferson fought hard for the separation of church and state but he couldn't win everything.

As to Christians. Yes, there were a lot of Christians and a lot of Gnostics. And what they all agreed on was that nobody wanted the other guy sticking his nose in anyone else's business. If I cheat you, or steal, or kill, yes, I should be prosecuted. But I should not be prosecuted for what I believe.

You say you don't want me taking away your rights. What rights am I trying to take away? Your churches right to federal funding? There was no such right. Your right to have creationism taught in the public schools? You have no such right. Your right to tell another woman what she can do to her own body? You have no such right. Your right to persecute homosexuals? Certainly not a right. Your right to display the ten commandments in a courthouse? Never a right. Just as I don't have the right, and I've never claimed to have the right, to tell you what you should teach your kids or where you should send them to school.

I'm the one looking to lose my rights. My right to the privacy about what I read in the library. My right to protection from unreasonable search and seizure. My right to the sanctity of my home from invasion from the government without my knowledge. These are rights I gave up on the pressuring of your beloved Ashcroft's USA Patriot Act. And no, I don't "feel comforted" when Bush tells me that he has instructed the government to obey laws. I certainly don't feel comforted when I have abdicated these rights in vain as the terrorism rate has spiked dramatically since 9/11.

You are in the majority. What do you have to fear from me? Laws protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I'm pretty certain that under any administration the government will not be shutting down churches. Certainly not when the Catholic church can finally be outed in a massive pedophilia scandal and yet suffer only minor prosecution.

I'm not fighting against your rights. I'm fighting to retain the rights of myself and my friends.

I worked with a great guy in Miami. He was gay. We all knew he was gay. But he stayed in the closet because he was afraid. When Clinton came into office and the country swung away from the radical right he came out and we all had a laugh because we knew already. He was so much happier. He was himself. And that was great. Everything was better. Why would you want it to go back to the old days of repression and hate? Can't Christians just be happy with themselves and leave the rest of us alone?

Lori and I recently celebrated our 12th wedding anniversary and we wanted some time together without Megan. So we left Megan in the charge of our married lesbian friends (and their daughter) and another lesbian/transgender couple (with a child on the way) while we went out for lunch. Of course Megan was fine and everyone had a great time. And what's even better is that they are close by, so we will be trading babysitting duties often. Even when Megan can talk and she will ask them were the daddy is and all that. And I don't have a problem with that, in fact, I encourage it because acceptance of diversity is a good thing. These are good people. Really good people. Big hearts. Big smiles. Really good people. Who care and love just like we all do.

So when I hear Christians saying that "those people" are evil wicked sinners I look at my friends and say, "Not them. You must mean someone else." And when they talk about the good old days of repression and hate I think about what that would do to my friends and it really hits home. These people can't go back. They can't go back into the closet. They won't. I won't let that happen.

It's easy to hate groups. It's hard to hate individuals. So when I think about the things that Michael Savage said, the killing of 1,000 people, I don't think of that group. I think about just one of those people. The one guy that would have been wrongly accused, that would be shot in cold blood, unarmed and helpless, and how his family would feel that their father had been gunned down in such a horrible and meaningless way.

Looking at this another way. Where could my friends and I live without fear of persecution; San Francisco, Key West, Portland, Seattle, New York, L.A., Honolulu, Boulder, Toronto, Philidelphia (somewhat), Boston (somewhat), Chicago (somewhat), and then stretching, Austin and New Orleans. The rest of the country is firmly yours. And believe me, your views are well represented in all of the cities that I mentioned.

So why is it that the Christian right believes it has the right to stick their noses into my friends business? Why can't they just leave them alone? I mean, my god, Falwell blamed 9/11 on gays and atheists. A recent article I read blamed the abuse in the Iraqi prisons on "don't ask, don't tell" because the abuse was obviously homosexual and deviant in nature.

Ok Jack I guess this will be my last email for I do not want you to have a stroke, but here it goes:

this is a predominantly CHRISTIAN country FOUNDED (or since you will say the indians were here first I will defer to ESTABLISHED) SOLELY BY CHRISTIANS! I view it as MY country since i am a Christian and the only reason there are people of other faiths or no faiths is because "We did unto others as we would have them do unto us". Show me a non-Christian country that allows that freedom. However - you others have not played honorably due to your lack of faith and moral principles and have done nothing but try to undermine the moral fabric of the country the last 50+ years. If you had 1/2 a brain, you would understand that GOVERNMENT IS AN EXTENSION OF A BELIEF SYSTEM! IT StARTED OUT AS CHRISTIAN HAD HAS GONE DOWNHILL EVER SINCE WE ALLOWED NON-CHRISTIANS TO HAVE MORE SAY SO THAN THE MAJORITY. Show me one country that allows minority viewpoints over the majority? Well jack, you are a tremendous minority in the US and where everything went awry is when the liberals fooled a democratic congress enough to begin allowing the interest of 3-9% of the populus to control what was best for the other 93-97%. I like my government,especially when good conservative, christian people are at the helm. There are hundreds of other govt's outside the US that incorporate your beliefs, but that is not enough for you. No, we in the US should be like them even though we created a Christian principled govt to get away from "them & you" 200+ years ago!

Do not confuse moralilty with Christianity because morality is something that society creates as a basic set of principles to live by. If we were all athiest, would we not somehow have created a set of moral rules so we do not rape each others daughters and kill people for fun and steal their belongings? The 10 Commandments were not created by Christians, but we were open minded enough to say "Hey - these look like some pretty good rules to live by and we should try and promote this within out free society".

Because I am Christian, I am tolerant of ignorance like yours and many others. Show me how many tolerant Muslims there are extending the same courtesy to any non-muslim in the middleast, yet you defend those idiots. oh yeah, the lead-wire to genitals - at least no current went through them, but you being the naive person you are see us as the bad guys. No - we freed a country because there was a man (with the assistance of these poor prisoners we toture) over there killing and torturing his own people, but you view those people as patriots only because they are fighting your fellow Americans. Take a non-agressive Iraqi citizen and do those humilating tactics to them and I will be the first to stand up for them and denounce the actions of the american military, but we are doing humiliating (not torturous) things to people who have already killed many of their own people and are now trying to do the same to us Americans for helping and freeing those poor, hungry, and less fortunate Iraqi's. Oh my - I forgot - they are also non-Christians as well, but we only think about ourselves don't we.

So when you defend those idiots, I see you as an idiot because I know you not only will defend the brutal prisoners, but you will defend the person who killed a family, was sentenced by his peers and sent to the death penalty, etc. because we Christians passed laws that forbid murder. Always notice how liberal lawyers sue for a stay of execution for a death row inmate when the inmate wants to die! They/you take it upon themselves to preserve life and then take a pro-choice stance on abortion. That is fine with me if you are pro-choice, but don't press murder charges against a driver who kills an unborn baby in a car wreck because life actually does not begin until the baby is COMPLETELY out of the womb.

Now this started out as a debate over "facts" and whenever I would write somehting, it was YOU who assumed, got off the subject, spouted totally unsubstantiated opinions and much more. That is what liberal, or non-believers do. they re-write history, they even re-write their very own past words, they ignore facts and are always happy with themselves when they really are not.

you see, I don't see it your way jack. I do not beleive in individual happiness totally. My individual happiness comes from making others happy - it is the CHRISTIAN way and I think we are pretty good at it. We Christians are pretty happy and the more we are happy the more non-christians want to destroy our happiness. I mean, why worry about your daughters happiness - let her make herself happy in time because you have to be happy within first according to you. well, having a good set of morals to live by and promote brings us Christians inner happiness in my opinion.

lets make a bet - I bet you are not happy in reality. You lie and say you are, but you really are not and have not been for some time. That is why you are a non-beleiver and liberal. i say that it is you who can't sleep well thinking about how you are going to respond to that dipshit from Tennessee who suddenly ruined you nice little liberal blog. I bet you can't sleep after republicans win elections. That book you refer to is called the bible. You know what - so far it has not missed one single historical occurance - ALL of them have been substaniated. Oh there might be different interpretations, but they all happened. Additionally, it also predicted our future has it not? I mean, did it not predict moral decline and liberal dominance? Predicts a lot more as well - I think it is in Revelations. So you bet I am going to be a Christian like it ask me to be. I mean - what can it hurt even if we/they are all wrong? So I err to the side of caution and I have been much happier since.

lastly, are we Christians perfect - hell no! That is why we "people of religion" created a a term called forgiveness. I think we also created something called compassion, but that can't be - I mean liberals created that term didn't they in the 1960's & 1970's going through the democratic party. Hummm, i think liberals created socialism in Europe and communism in Russia in the early 1900's as well. Darn, these non-religious people called liberals are so wonderful to be so bright and creative.

So Jack - you are the easiest to manipulate simply because you are not happy with yourself. Little do you know, it is people like you that God targets - those who feel totally alone within. God/Jesus is secure with me so he focuses on people like you and the more you hate HIM and the more you deny HIM, the more he makes himself available to you. You will see one day if your pride, a non-christian promoted characteristic, does not dominate your actions and thoughts!

Cheers Jack - I will sleep secure and comfy tonight as well as tomorrow and so on. I will be happier knowing I put others in front of my own needs and happy beleiving that the goodness of HIM is upon me as a result. As for you - well it seems you have already spoken volumes as to your happiness disguised as what I interpret as non-happiness.

Brett, what hatred and venom you spew forth. Your holier than though attitude certainly doesn't further your cause. In fact, it has the opposite effect. I see none of "Christ's Love" in what you have to say.

Wow. I think this pretty much speaks for itself. But I do have one question. If, as you say:

"My individual happiness comes from making others happy - it is the CHRISTIAN way and I think we are pretty good at it."

What part of your statements were meant to bring me happiness?

To lefty lucy - NEVER have I asked, demanded, or imposed my religious views onto you & Jack, but like most all liberal opinionators - you IMPLY and ASSUME but never actually read. I state what I/WE Christians beleive and how as a "cummulative" that those principles we strive to live by are best for the rest of our country. Remember now, we CHRISTIANS are the MAJORITY in this country by the last time I checked 87% to 13% and so isn't our govt principle that what is best for the majority best serves the entire mass/citizenry? I think the principle is called a democracy, a idealogy established by Christians. Oh yeah, I reiterate that I have not asked you to be a Christian or imposed the religion on you like they do in many other countries you probably think as compassionate and humanitarianlike.

now if you actually read any of these postings, you will see I simply respond to the tone that jack sets. I set out to be more civil, but Jack just went off into left field - I mean none of his comments are actually counterpoint to the opinions I offered and to get to the heart of it - I only offer an opinion. I never said it was right or wrong or you had to buy into it - it is simply my opinion! However, Jack has a gripe against society in general and that to me speaks of someone who is not internally happy or someone who feels they have really gotten a rotten deal!

I only see majority fighting for our beliefs that are being taken from the country WE established. It is always the minority that has a problem with that and uses the system WE majority created to for the majority benefit to put minority beliefs and values above ours.

lastly to you Jack - my actions are not suppose to bring internal happiness to you. they may not bring external happiness to you either, but at least I tried and that brings some internal satisfaction to me. So my recommendation is for YOU to go out and focus on actually doing things for others. They may not thank you for it and may actually spit in your face, but from my experiences you will experience internal happiness for trying. You see Jack, because you to fail to "get it", did I say my actions in helping others was suppose to bring YOU happiness? No, I said that by helping others there is some sort of internal happiness to me (& Christians) that results! But - it is all about you isn't it?

If you want internal happiness, I suggest finding it by helping others and I know of a lot of Christian churches (and probably other religions) that would gladly put you to work on projects to bring food & medicine to the needy. I know of no Atheist organizations that promote anything but individual happiness so I would suggest no starting there.

Please leave. Your comments are no longer welcome here. If you continue I will simply ban your IP and delete your comments.

Just like Hannity & O'Reilly turning off the mic.

Jack - you'll notice that I have not responded since you suggested we were overwhelming you on Friday. And I won't respond to the political or religious rhetoric after that one comment. From now on, I'll only respond to the issues we can all agree on, or at the very least, post an obligitory "I do not agree" to the ones I don't. Okay?

Jacqueline,

This is Jack's personal blog, Its not an open forum like Orkut. If he wants to cut someone off who is being offensive he has every right. He doesn't have to and shouldn't have to put up with people like Brett, on his Blog. People like that, who feel so strongly should go out and get their own blog, of better yet they should join Orkut and bring their passion to a community of people who are seeking it. Not forcing it on someone who never really asked for it.

Except for one instance of telling Jack he was angry and bitter, you've never been particularly personal in your arguments. I can't speak for Jack but I think he was enjoying some of your back and forth, I know I was.

I thought a lot about this. I understand that it's turning off the mic. But I don't see why I should pay for the bytes to be called 'half-brained'. It was a base attack on me personally. I don't have to stand for it, and I won't. There is no freedom of speech on a private site.

I have no problem with you or your opinions. But you never attacked me personally.

You shouldn't have to pay to be attacked. I'm sorry.